Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/20/2026 has been received; Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13, 15-17, 19-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 8-10, 16, 17, 19, 20 & 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garvie (USPN 7,047,674) in view of Aoyama (USPN 3,828,364).
Regarding Claim 1, Garvie discloses a spike (26, Figure 2) for an article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 30-32), the spike comprising: a first portion (10, Figure 1) configured to be attached to the article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 33-38), the first portion including (i) a base (12) extending from a first end to a second end along an axial direction (16 to 20),(ii) a first flange (22) having a first diameter and extending radially outward from the first end of the base (D1, see annotated Figure 3 below), the first flange having two opposing surfaces including a first surface (1st, see annotated Figure 1 below) configured to contact the article of footwear (via 30/28) and a second surface (2nd, see annotated Figure 1 below) opposite the first surface, and (iii) a projection (19) projecting from an opposite side of the first flange than the base and along the axial direction (Figure 3), wherein the second surface has a flat portion (flat, see annotated Figure 1 below) and a portion (portion, see annotated Figure 1 below) connected with the projection; wherein the projection is integrally connected with the first flange and the base (Figure 1) such that the projection, the first flange, and the base are formed from a same polymeric material (Col. 4, line 8-24, “same synthetic plastic material”) and a second portion (28) configured to extend away from the article of footwear (Figures 1 & 2), the second portion including (i) a second flange (the second flange defined by the surfaces of 30 & 34) having a second diameter that is equal to the first diameter of the first flange (D2, see annotated Figure 3 below) and (ii) a tapered member (38) forming a ground- engaging surface of the spike, wherein the projection is embedded within the second portion (Figures 2 & 3). Garvie does not specifically disclose the projection having a dome shape. However, Aoyama disclose a projection having a dome shape (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dome shaped projection, as taught by Aoyama, in order to provide a smooth surface to attach a second portion to. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Garvie discloses the projection is unitary with the first flange (Col. 3, lines 47-60).
Regarding Claim 4, Garvie discloses a radially outermost periphery of the second flange is positioned at a radially outermost periphery of the spike (rop, see annotated Figure 3 below).
Regarding Claim 5, Garvie discloses the first portion is formed of a first material having a first hardness (Col. 3, lines 47-60 & Col. 4, lines 8-24) and the second portion is formed of a second material having a second hardness that is different from the first hardness (Col. 3, lines 47-60 & Col. 4, lines 8-24).
Regarding Claim 6, Garvie discloses the first material is a polymeric material (Col. 3, lines 47-60).
Regarding Claim 7, Garvie discloses the first portion is less resilient than the second portion (Col. 4, line 8-24).
Regarding Claim 8, Garvie discloses the first portion includes an exposed surface opposite the first mating surface of the first portion (rop, see annotated Figure 3 below).
Regarding Claim 9, Garvie discloses the first portion includes a fastener operable to attach the first portion to the article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 33-38).
Regarding Claim 10, Garvie discloses the fastener includes a series of threads (Col. 3, lines 33-38).
Regarding Claim 16, Garvie discloses a spike (26, Figure 2) for an article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 30-32), the spike comprising: a first portion (10, Figure 1) configured to be attached to the article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 33-38), the first portion including (i) a base (12) extending from a first end to a second end (16 to 20), (ii) a first flange (22) extending radially outward from the first end of the base (Figure 2) and including a first mating surface (surface under 22) formed on a side of the first flange opposite the base (Figure 3), the first flange having two opposing surfaces including a first surface (1st, see annotated Figure 1 below) configured to contact the article of footwear (via 30/28) and a second surface (2nd, see annotated Figure 1 below) opposite the first surface, and (iii) a projection (19) projecting from the side of the first flange opposite the base and including a second mating surface on an exterior of the projection (Figure 2); wherein the second surface has a flat portion (flat, see annotated Figure 1 below) and a portion (portion, see annotated Figure 1 below) connected with the projection; wherein the projection is integrally connected with the first flange and the base (Figure 1) such that the projection, the first flange, and the base are formed from a same polymeric material (Col. 4, line 8-24, “same synthetic plastic material”) and a second portion (28) configured to extend away from the article of footwear (Figures 1 & 2), the second portion including (i) a second flange (the second flange defined by the surfaces of 30 & 34) including a third mating surface attached to the first mating surface of the first flange (surface under 22), (ii) a tapered member (38) forming a ground- engaging surface of the spike, and (iii) a fourth mating surface on the interior of the tapered member and attached to the second mating surface of the projection (Figure 2), wherein the projection is embedded within the second portion (Figures 2 & 3). Garvie does not specifically disclose the projection is domed shaped, such that the second mating surface of the projection is curved. However, Aoyama disclose a projection is domed shaped (Figure 5), such that the second mating surface of the projection is curved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dome shaped projection, as taught by Aoyama, in order to provide a smooth surface to attach a second portion to. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, Garvie discloses the projection is unitary with the first flange (Col. 3, lines 47-60).
Regarding Claim 19, Garvie discloses the first portion includes an exposed surface opposite the first mating surface (rop, see annotated Figure 3 below).
Regarding Claim 20, Garvie discloses the first portion includes a fastener including a series of threads and operable to attach the first portion to the article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 33-38).
Regarding Claim 24, Garvie discloses the first portion and the second portion are directly bonded to another without the use of adhesives (Col. 4, lines 8-24, “rigidly bond”).
Claims 11, 13 & 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garvie (USPN 7,047,674) in view of ) in view of Aoyama (USPN 3,828,364) in further view of Chen (USPN 4,922,636).
Regarding Claim 11, Garvie discloses a spike (26, Figure 2) for an article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 30-32), the spike comprising: a first portion (10, Figure 1) configured to be attached to the article of footwear (Col. 3, lines 33-38), the first portion including (i) a base (12) extending from a first end to a second end along an axial direction (16 to 20) and (ii) a projection (19) projecting opposite the base along the axial direction (Figure 3); and a first flange (22) extending radially outward from a the first end of the base forming a first mating surface (Figures 1 & 2), and the first flange including a radially outermost portion that is exposed (rop, see annotated Figure 3 below), the first flange having two parallel surfaces including a first planar surface (1st, see annotated Figure 1 below) to contact the article of footwear (via 28/30) at a plane of contact and a second surface (2nd, see annotated Figure 1 below) opposite the first surface, the second surface having a flat portion (flat, see annotated Figure 1 below) from which the projection projects and a second portion (28) configured to extend away from the article of footwear (Figures 1 & 2), the second portion including (i) a second flange (the second flange defined by the surfaces of 30 & 34) including a second mating surface (Figures 1 & 2) and including an exposed radially outermost portion (rop, see annotated Figure 3 below) and (ii) a tapered member (38) extending radially outward from the second flange and forming a ground-engaging surface of the spike (Figure 2), wherein the first mating surface is coupled with the second mating surface (Figures 1 & 2); wherein the projection is embedded within the second portion (Figures 2 & 3), and wherein a radially outermost portion of the second flange is exposed (rop, see annotated Figure 3 below). Garvie does not specifically disclose the projection is domed shaped, such that the second mating surface of the projection is curved. However, Aoyama disclose a projection is domed shaped (Figure 5), such that the second mating surface of the projection is curved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dome shaped projection, as taught by Aoyama, in order to provide a smooth surface to attach a second portion to. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.Garvie does not specifically disclose the first flange including a radially outermost portion that is entirely exposed from a radially outwards perspective. However, Chen discloses a first flange and second flange (Figures 1 & 3) including a radially outermost portion that is entirely exposed from a radially outwards perspective (Figures 1 & 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have exposed flanges, as taught by Chen, in order to provide a concave rim attach and secure to the shoe sole.
Regarding Claim 13, Garvie discloses the projection is unitary with the second flange (Col. 4, lines 8-24).
Regarding Claims 15, Garvie discloses the first portion is less resilient than the second portion (Col. 4, line 8-24).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
404
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 21-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garvie (USPN 7,047,674) in view of Aoyama (USPN 3,828,364) in further view of Locke (US 2010/0107450).
Regarding Claims 21-23, Garvie does not specifically disclose the first portion includes a durometer between 40 and 75 on the Shore D scale and the second portion includes a durometer between 45 and 95 on the Shore A scale. However, Locke discloses the use of various durometers, especially having a first portion harder than a second portion (Claim 1, Para. 67-69 & 77-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention, to modify and experiment with various hardness of the materials of Garvie as claimed and as taught by Locke, since making various components of a spike with the claimed material are well known in the art for spikes. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known hardness on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights