DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on May 28, 2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated claims 1-3 and 6-12 as reading upon the elected invention. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are currently pending in this application with claims 4-5 being withdrawn from further consideration. An action on the merits follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 22, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
The listing of references in the specification at least at [0004] is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the underlines associated with reference characters “1” and “10” should be removed and only an arrow should be used with these reference characters throughout the figures to designate the corresponding structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification – Disclosure
The use of the terms “DYNEEMA” and “ZYLON”, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application at least at [0084] and [0092]. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology where appropriate; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. For example, “DYNEEMA” could instead read “DYNEEMA® (i.e., ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene)”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 20, “a portion” should read “a portion of the cushion layer”
At lines 20-22, “on a rear side with respect to the first region in the front-rear direction and located on a front side with respect to the rearfoot portion in the front-rear direction” should read “on a rear side of the first region in the front-rear direction and located on a front side of the rearfoot portion in the front-rear direction”
At line 24, “a central portion” should read “a central portion of the second region”
At line 26, “a medial foot-side end portion” should read “a medial foot-side end portion of the second region”
At line 28, “a lateral foot-side end portion” should read “a lateral foot-side end portion of the second region”
At line 29, “the fourth region and the fifth region are lower” should read “the fourth region and the fifth region are each lower”
At line 31, “than the fourth region and the fifth region” should read “than each of the fourth region and the fifth region”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a front-rear direction corresponding to a foot length direction of the foot of the wearer” at lines 4-5. Due to the phrasing of the limitation, it is unclear if the limitation is attempting to claim a functional or conditional limitation or requiring that the foot of the wearer be present in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a front-rear direction corresponding to a foot length direction of the foot of the wearer when the shoe sole is worn”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art. See 101 rejection for additional discussion.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an upper-side plate located close to the supporting surface with respect to the cushion layer” at line 11. The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is also unclear if the limitation is attempting to recite that the plate is comparatively closer to the supporting surface than the cushion layer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If attempting to recite comparative closeness of the two structures, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “an upper-side plate located closer to the supporting surface with respect to the cushion layer”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a lower-side plate located close to the ground contact surface with respect to the cushion layer” at lines 14-15. The term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is also unclear if the limitation is attempting to recite that the plate is comparatively closer to the ground contact surface than the cushion layer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. If attempting to recite comparative closeness of the two structures, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a lower-side plate located closer to the ground contact surface with respect to the cushion layer”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a portion of the cushion layer” at line 3. It is unclear if this portion is meant to be the same as or different than the portion previously recited at line 20 of claim 1. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the portions either be properly differentiated from one another throughout the claims or otherwise be brought into agreement. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein the portions are not necessarily the same portion when applying prior art.
Claim 2 further recites the limitation “a portion” at lines 6 and 7. As discussed above, it is unclear how these various portions are related. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that different portions be introduced as a “first portion”, “second portion”, etc. and reference to such portions be consistently used throughout the claims where appropriate. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood wherein the portions are not necessarily the same portion when applying prior art. Additional “portions” are similarly introduced in at least claims 8 and 10 and should be similarly corrected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “other portions” at line 2. It is unclear of what structure these other portions belong. As discussed above, the claims generally refer to various “portions” throughout the claims further compounding the lack of clarity. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “other portions of the lower-side plate”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-3 and 6-12 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-3 and 6-12, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a front-rear direction corresponding to a foot length direction of the foot of the wearer” at lines 4-5. In order to overcome this rejection, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a front-rear direction corresponding to a foot length direction of the foot of the wearer when the shoe sole is worn”.
Claims 2-3 and 6-12 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 12, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0281313 to Connell et al. (hereinafter, “Connell”) in view of US 2012/0055041 to Mackey et al. (hereinafter, “Mackey”).
Regarding claim 1, Connell teaches a shoe sole (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; sole structure (36k, 38k, 40k) of footwear 10k; abstract) including: a forefoot portion configured to support a toe portion and a ball portion of a foot of a wearer; a midfoot portion configured to support an arch portion of the foot of the wearer; and a rearfoot portion configured to support a heel portion of the foot of the wearer, the forefoot portion, the midfoot portion, and the rearfoot portion being connected in a front-rear direction corresponding to a foot length direction of the foot of the wearer (See annotated Fig. 56 of Connell below; sole structure (36k, 38k, 40k) includes forefoot, midfoot, and rearfoot portions connected in the claimed direction and capable of supporting the respective portions of a hypothetical wearer’s foot; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the shoe sole having: an upper-side surface configured as a supporting surface for supporting a bottom of the foot of the wearer; and a lower-side surface configured as a ground contact surface (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; uppermost and lowermost surfaces of sole structure (36k, 38k, 40k) are capable of supporting a bottom of a foot of a hypothetical wearer and contact a hypothetical ground surface, respectively), the shoe sole comprising: a cushion layer located to extend in the forefoot portion, the midfoot portion, and the rearfoot portion (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; cushion layer (152k, 154k, 40k)); an upper-side plate located close to the supporting surface with respect to the cushion layer to cover an upper-side surface of the cushion layer, the upper-side plate being located to extend in at least the forefoot portion and the midfoot portion (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; plate (266) is considered close to upper supporting surface of sole structure, covers upper surface of cushion layer (152k, 154k, 40k) and extends in at least forefoot and midfoot portions); and a lower-side plate located close to the ground contact surface with respect to the cushion layer to cover a lower-side surface of the cushion layer, the lower-side plate being located to extend in at least the forefoot portion and the midfoot portion (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; outsole (38k) is a plate considered close to lower ground contact surface of sole structure, and extends in at least forefoot and midfoot portions), wherein the cushion layer includes a first region configured to support a metatarsophalangeal (MP) joint of the foot of the wearer (See annotated Fig. 56 of Connell below; cushion layer (152k, 154k, 40k) includes first region capable of supporting a hypothetical MP joint of a hypothetical wearer’s foot; Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), and a second region included in a portion located on a rear side with respect to the first region in the front-rear direction and located on a front side with respect to the rearfoot portion in the front-rear direction (See annotated Fig. 56 of Connell below; cushion layer (152k, 154k, 40k) includes second region located rearward of the first region and forward of the rearfoot portion), the second region includes a third region located in a central portion in a left-right direction corresponding to a foot width direction of the foot of the wearer, a fourth region located in a medial foot-side end portion in the left-right direction, and a fifth region located in a lateral foot-side end portion in the left-right direction (See annotated Fig. 56 of Connell below; second region includes third region, i.e., corresponding to channel or gap (157k), located in a central portion between a medial fourth region and a lateral fifth region, i.e., corresponding to medial and lateral portions of front sidewall (176) on either side of channel (157k)), and the third region is lower in compression rigidity than the fourth region and the fifth region (third region corresponds to channel (157k), i.e., a gap, which would have lower compression rigidity than the fourth and fifth regions on either side of the channel which include the cushioning material).
PNG
media_image1.png
605
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 56 of Connell
That said, Connell is silent to the fourth region and the fifth region are lower in compression rigidity than the first region.
However, Mackey, in a related footwear art, is directed to an article of footwear having a cushioning assembly having a cushioning forward cushioning member that is more resilient to deformation than other rearward portions (See Mackey, Figs. 1-2; abstract). More specifically, Mackey teaches the fourth region and the fifth region are lower in compression rigidity than the first region (See Mackey, Figs. 1-2; material of main portion (27) at second end (32) of forward second cushioning member (42) is softer, i.e., having less compression rigidity, than the material forward second cushioning member (42)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the fourth and fifth regions of the cushion layer of Connell to have lower compression rigidity than the forward first region as disclosed by Mackey in order to provide a shoe sole that is comfortable while walking, standing still, etc. but can also provide sufficient stiffness and support for running activities requiring push off for thrusting forward (See Mackey, [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the cushion layer includes a first cushion member disposed at least in a portion of the cushion layer to form the first region, the portion of the cushion layer being configured to support the MP joint of the foot of the wearer (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; cushioning arrangement (40k) forms first region as seen in annotated Fig. 56 of Connell above; cushioning arrangement (40k) is capable of supporting an MP joint of a hypothetical wearer’s foot), and a second cushion member disposed to at least extend in a portion included in the midfoot portion of the cushion layer and a portion included in the rearfoot portion of the cushion layer to form the second region (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; second segment (154k) forms second region as seen in annotated Fig. 56 of Connell above and is disposed in both midfoot and rearfoot portions of sole structure), the second cushion member has a shape bifurcating forward in the front-rear direction, the shape including a medial foot-side branch portion extending to the medial foot-side end portion on the front side with respect to the rearfoot portion in the front-rear direction, and a lateral foot-side branch portion extending to the lateral foot-side end portion on the front side with respect to the rearfoot portion in the front-rear direction (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B and annotated Fig. 56 of Connell above; front wall (176k) of second segment (154k) is bifurcated by channel (176k) which forms medial and lateral branch portions), the fourth region is formed of the medial foot-side branch portion of the second cushion member, the fifth region is formed of the lateral foot-side branch portion of the second cushion member, and the third region is formed of a gap portion provided between the medial foot-side branch portion and the lateral foot-side branch portion in the second cushion member (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B and annotated Fig. 56 of Connell above; medial and lateral branch portions of second segment (154k) correspond with and form the fourth and fifth regions respectively; channel (176k) between medial and lateral branch portions forms a gap portion which corresponds with and forms the third region).
Regarding claim 10, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein at least one of a portion included in the forefoot portion of the upper-side plate and a portion included in the forefoot portion of the lower-side plate has a curved shape having a central portion bulging downward with respect to the medial foot-side end portion and the lateral foot-side end portion in the left-right direction (See Connell, Fig. 57B; each of upper plate (266) and lower outsole plate (38k) include a central portion in the forefoot portion which is curved and bulges downward) .
Regarding claim 12, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches a shoe comprising: the shoe sole according to claim 1; and an upper provided above the shoe sole (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; footwear (10k) having upper (12) and sole structure (36k, 38k, 40k) as discussed with respect to claim 1).
Claims 3 and 6-7, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell in view of Mackey, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of US 2022/0202135 to Sakamoto et al. (hereinafter, “Sakamoto”).
Regarding claim 3, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey, as discussed with respect to claims 1-2 above) further teaches wherein the first cushion member is formed of a three-dimensional structure (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; cushions of arrangement (40k) are three-dimensional structures), and the second cushion member is configured of a plate-shaped or block-shaped member formed of a foam material (See Connell, Figs. 54-57B; second segment (154k) is a block formed of foam material; [0300]).
That said, the modified shoe sole of Connell is silent to the three-dimensional structure including a unit structure body having a three-dimensional shape formed by a wall having an outer shape defined by a pair of parallel flat or curved surfaces, the three-dimensional structure being formed of a plurality of the unit structure bodies repeatedly arranged to be adjacent to each other.
However, Sakamoto, in a related footwear art, is directed to a shoe sole having a shock absorber (See Sakamoto, Figs. 1-3; abstract). More specifically, Sakamoto teaches the three-dimensional structure including a unit structure body having a three-dimensional shape formed by a wall having an outer shape defined by a pair of parallel flat or curved surfaces, the three-dimensional structure being formed of a plurality of the unit structure bodies repeatedly arranged to be adjacent to each other (See Sakamoto, Fig. 3; shock absorber structure (1A) is formed as a Schwarz P structure formed of repeatedly arranged unit structure bodies adjacent each other; [0085]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the cushions of the modified shoe shole of Connell to have the shaped structure disclosed by Sakamoto, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known cushioning structure for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one cushioning structure performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., absorbing shock experienced by a wearer’s foot. It would have further been obvious for a variety of other reasons including for example, but not limited to, reducing a weight of the overall footwear by reducing material required (i.e., introducing more empty space in the cushion structure) and/or for aesthetic purposes. Furthermore, Connell lends itself to such a modification, as Connell discusses replacement of its cushions with a variety of alternative cushioning structures (See Connell, [0318]).
That said, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey and Sakamoto, as discussed above) is silent to the first cushion member and the second cushion member being made of resin or rubber.
However, Sakamoto further teaches the first cushion member and the second cushion member being made of resin or rubber (shock absorber structure (1A) and adjacent midsole (111) can be made from resin or rubber material; [0066], [0068], [0073]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the first and second cushion members of the modified shoe sole of Connell from the material disclosed by Sakamoto in order to form the cushions from a material that has appropriate strength and also excellent shock absorbency (See Sakamoto, [0066]).
Regarding claim 6, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey and Sakamoto, as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 above) further teaches wherein the unit structure body is formed by adding a thickness to each of divided structure units obtained by dividing a structure unit having a triply periodic minimal surface into two structure units in one of orthogonal three-axis directions (See Sakamoto, Fig. 3; shock absorber structure (1A), as applied to the modified shoe sole of Connell as discussed above, is formed as a Schwarz P structure and therefore meets the claim limitations; [0085]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey and Sakamoto, as discussed with respect to claims 1-3 and 6 above) further teaches wherein the structure unit has one of comprises a Schwartz P structure (See Sakamoto, Fig. 3; shock absorber structure (1A), as applied to the modified shoe sole of Connell as discussed above, is formed as a Schwarz P structure; [0085]).
Claims 8-9 and 11, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell in view of Mackey, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0378358 to Connell et al. (hereinafter, “Connell ‘358”).
Regarding claim 8, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein a first rib extending along a medial foot-side edge portion of the shoe sole is provided in a portion included in a medial foot-side end portion of the midfoot portion on a lower-side surface of the lower-side plate, and a second rib extending along a lateral foot-side edge portion of the shoe sole is provided in a portion included in a lateral foot-side end portion of the midfoot portion on the lower-side surface of the lower-side plate.
However, Connell ‘358, in a related footwear art, is directed to a sole structure having a cushioning arrangement and traction elements on an outsole plate (See Connell ‘358, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Connell ‘358 teaches wherein a first rib extending along a medial foot-side edge portion of the shoe sole is provided in a portion included in a medial foot-side end portion of the midfoot portion on a lower-side surface of the lower-side plate (See Connell ‘358, Figs. 1 & 6A; one raised portions between corrugations (320b) on medial side of plate (218)), and a second rib extending along a lateral foot-side edge portion of the shoe sole is provided in a portion included in a lateral foot-side end portion of the midfoot portion on the lower-side surface of the lower-side plate (See Connell ‘358, Figs. 1 & 6A; one raised portions between corrugations (320c) on lateral side of plate (218)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the bottom surface of the outsole plate of the modified shoe sole of Connell to have the corrugated traction element structure disclosed by Connell ‘358 for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing additional traction to a wearer while performing athletic activities while also reducing an amount of material and weight of the plate portion itself.
Regarding claim 9, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey and Connell ‘358, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 8 above) further teaches wherein each of the first rib and the second rib is formed by forming the lower-side plate to be locally thicker than other portions (See Connell ‘358, Figs. 1 & 6A; ribs of plate (218) are formed between locally thinner corrugations (320) in plate).
Regarding claim 11, the modified shoe sole of Connell (i.e., Connell in view of Mackey, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the lower-side plate is a spike plate provided with spikes, and a lower-side surface of the lower-side plate forms the ground contact surface.
However, Connell ‘358, in a related footwear art, is directed to a sole structure having a cushioning arrangement and traction elements on an outsole plate (See Connell ‘358, Fig. 1; abstract). More specifically, Connell ‘358 teaches wherein the lower-side plate is a spike plate provided with spikes, and a lower-side surface of the lower-side plate forms the ground contact surface (See Connell ‘358, Figs. 1 & 6A; traction elements (224)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the bottom surface of the outsole plate of the modified shoe sole of Connell to have the corrugated traction element structure disclosed by Connell ‘358 for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing additional traction to a wearer while performing athletic activities while also reducing an amount of material and weight of the plate portion itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0320759 to Conrad et al.; US 2023/0225452 to Sakamoto; US 2004/0107601 to Schmid; USPN 10,952,493 to Downard; USPN 6,038,790 to Pyle et al.; US 2020/0268098 to Jeng et al.; US 2021/0195995 to Sakamoto et al.; US 2020/0093221 to Caldwell et al.; US 2022/0408878 to Iwasa et al.; US 2022/0275845 to Kabaria et al.; and US 2018/0317600 to Campos et al. are each directed to articles of footwear having cushioning sole structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights