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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species C, figures 13-15D, claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima (US 6,675,505).
With respect to claim 8, Terashima discloses an article of footwear (golf shoe) comprising:
at least one first cleat (cleat 10 is to be secured at a receptacle (not shown) of a shoe sole (not shown) by means of the securing means 4 having three engagement protrusions 7) mounted on one side of the article of footwear, the at least one first cleat (10) including a first plurality of legs arranged in a first leg configuration (FIG. 1 of Terashima shows a plastic cleat 10 according to an embodiment (No. 1); cleat 10 comprises a circular cleat body 3, securing means 4, four flexible protrusions 1 and four rigid protrusions 2. Protrusions 1 and 2 are alternately provided on the periphery of the cleat body 3, see figure 1) wherein:
at least one first leg extends away (a plurality of flexible protrusions 1 and a plurality of rigid protrusions 2 extend downwardly and generally obliquely outwardly) from a longitudinal centerline of the article of footwear (see figure 6), the at least one first leg having a first hardness (more rigid); and
at least one second leg (a plurality of flexible protrusions 1 and a plurality of rigid protrusions 2 extend downwardly and generally obliquely outwardly) extends toward the longitudinal centerline of the article of footwear, the at least one second leg having a second hardness (more flexible), the second hardness (more flexible) different than the first hardness (more rigid); and
at least one second cleat (cleat 10 is to be secured at a receptacle (not shown) of a shoe sole (not shown) by means of the securing means 4 having three engagement protrusions 7) mounted on an opposite side of the article of footwear (see figure 6), the at least one second cleat including a second plurality of legs arranged in a second leg configuration (FIG. 8 is a perspective view of a cleat 10 according to another embodiment (No. 2) of the present invention; that can replace the embodiment of (No. 1)) that is different than the first leg configuration (Figures 8-11, disclose perspective view of a cleat 10 according to other embodiments having different leg configurations that can be used with the golf shoe of Terashima). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the combination of cleat embodiments (No. 1) thru (No. 5), since Terashima discloses that the dimensions, angles, shapes, hardness or softness, number and positioning and orientation as well as materials of the protrusions 1 and 2 are factors to be adequately selected in accordance with expected performances and properties of the cleat 10.
With respect to claim 10, Terashima discloses wherein the one side is a lateral side of the article of footwear and the opposite side is a medial side of the article of footwear (see figure 6).
With respect to claim 11, Terashima discloses wherein the at least one first leg is at least one lateral leg and the at least one second leg is at least one medial leg (see figures 1-3 & 8-11).
With respect to claim 12, Terashima discloses wherein the at least one lateral leg includes a lateral leg end defining a first edge (Terashima discloses the plurality of flexible protrusions 1 and a plurality of rigid protrusions 2 extend downwardly and generally obliquely outwardly), wherein the at least one medial leg includes a medial leg end defining a second edge (Terashima discloses the plurality of flexible protrusions 1 and a plurality of rigid protrusions 2 extend downwardly and generally obliquely outwardly), and wherein the first edge is significantly longer than the second edge (the flexible protrusions are generally provided longer than the rigid protrusions, see figures 1-3).
With respect to claim 13, Terashima discloses at least one third cleat including the first plurality of legs arranged in the first leg configuration on the opposite side of the article of footwear (Figures 8-11, disclose perspective view of a cleat 10 according to other embodiments having different leg configurations that can be used with the golf shoe of Terashima. The cleats of embodiments (no. 1) thru (No. 5) are interchangeable), and at least one fourth cleat including the second plurality of legs arranged in the second leg configuration on the one side of the article of footwear (Figures 8-11, disclose perspective view of a cleat 10 according to other embodiments having different leg configurations that can be used with the golf shoe of Terashima. The cleats of embodiments (No. 1) thru (No. 5) are interchangeable)).
With respect to claim 14, Terashima discloses wherein the one side is a lateral side of the article of footwear and the opposite side is a medial side of the article of footwear (see figure 6).
With respect to claim 15, Terashima discloses wherein the at least one first cleat and the at least one second cleat (the cleats of embodiments (no. 1) thru (No. 5) are interchangeable) is positioned on a forefoot portion of the article of footwear (see figure 6), and the at least one third cleat and the at least one fourth cleat (the cleats of embodiments (No. 1) thru (No. 5) are interchangeable) is positioned on a heel portion of the article of footwear (see figure 6).
With respect to claim 16, Terashima Denison discloses wherein the first hardness (more rigid; Terashima discloses that it may be possible to provide each of the cleat body 3, flexible protrusion 1 and rigid protrusion 2 with different plastic materials to provide a compound-type cleat 10) is greater than the second hardness (more flexible).
With respect to claim 17, Terashima discloses an article of footwear comprising:
a first plurality of first cleats (cleat 10 comprises a circular cleat body 3, securing means 4, four flexible protrusions 1 and four rigid protrusions 2) mounted on one side of the article of footwear in a forefoot portion of the article of footwear (cleats 10, see figure 6), each of the first cleats (10) including at least one lateral leg and at least one medial leg arranged in a first configuration (embodiment of No. 1; Protrusions 1 and 2 are alternately provided on the periphery of the cleat body 3), the at least one lateral leg having a first hardness (protrusion 2 which is more rigid) and the at least one medial leg having a second hardness (protrusion 1 which is more flexible), the first hardness different than the second hardness ; and a first plurality of second cleats (cleat 10) mounted on an opposite side of the article of footwear in the forefoot portion of the article of footwear (see figure 6), each of the second cleats including at least one lateral leg and at least one medial leg arranged in a second configuration (Any one of the embodiments of No. 2 thru No. 5; Figures 8-11, disclose perspective view of a cleat 10 according to other embodiments having different leg configurations that can be used with the golf shoe of Terashima. The cleats of embodiments (No. 1) thru (No. 5) are interchangeable)), wherein the second configuration is different than the first configuration (see figures 1-3 & 8-11);
a second plurality of the first cleats (No. 1 embodiment) that can be mounted along the opposite side of the article of footwear in a heel portion of the article of footwear (see figure 6); and a second plurality of the second cleats (Nos. 2-5 embodiment) that can be mounted along the one side of the heel portion of the article of footwear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the combination of cleat embodiments (No. 1) thru (No. 5), since Terashima discloses that the dimensions, angles, shapes, hardness or softness, number and positioning and orientation as well as materials of the protrusions 1 and 2 are factors to be adequately selected in accordance with expected performances and properties of the cleat 10.
With respect to claim 18, Terashima discloses wherein the first hardness (more rigid) is greater than the second hardness (more flexible).
With respect to claim 19, Terashima discloses wherein the one side is a lateral side of the article of footwear and the opposite side is a medial side of the article of footwear (see figure 6).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima (US 6,675,505) in view of Denison et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0015120, herein after Denison).
With respect to claim 1, Terashima discloses an article of footwear (golf shoe) defining a longitudinal centerline (explicit to golf shoes, see figure 6), the article of footwear comprising:
an upper (explicit to golf shoes);
a sole (FIG. 6 is a bottom view showing an exemplary utilization of the cleat 10 of FIG. 1 on shoe soles) connected to the upper (explicit to golf shoe, so that the golf shoe can remain on the foot of the wearer), the sole including a plurality of cleat mounts (cleat 10 is to be secured at a receptacle (not shown) of a shoe sole (not shown) by means of the securing means 4 having three engagement protrusions 7, as one example);
a plurality of first cleats (cleats 10 having cleat body 3 that is secured onto a golf shoe sole with securing means 4, in the fore foot area) including a first plurality of first cleats releasably connected (cleat 10 located in the forefoot of the shoe on the lateral side, the cleats comprise securing means 4 that provides the attachment and detachment of the cleat from a shoe sole) to the cleat mounts on a first side of the longitudinal centerline (see figure 6) and a second plurality of first cleats (cleat body 3 is located in the heel area on the lateral side of the shoe) releasably connected to cleat mounts on a second side of longitudinal centerline (cleats 10 located in the forefoot of the shoe on the medial side, see figure 6), each of the first cleats including:
a mount coupling (securing means 4 may comprise engagement protrusions 7 as shown in FIG. 2 or thread means as shown in FIG. 3) releasably engaging one of the plurality of cleat mounts (cleat 10 is to be secured at a receptacle (not shown) of a shoe sole (not shown) by means of the securing means 4 having three engagement protrusions 7, see figure 6),
a hub (circular cleat body 3) connected to the mount coupling (cleat 10 comprises a circular cleat body 3, securing means 4, four flexible protrusions 1 and four rigid protrusions 2), and a plurality of legs (cleat 10 comprises a circular cleat body 3, securing means 4, four flexible protrusions 1 and four rigid protrusions 2) connected to the hub (3), the plurality of legs including one or more static legs (rigid protrusion 2 is shorter and thicker, thus more resistant to deformation, than the flexible protrusion 1) comprised of a first material (more rigid material, Terashima discloses that it may be possible to provide each of the cleat body 3, flexible protrusion 1 and rigid protrusion 2 with different plastic materials to provide a compound-type cleat 10) on a first side of the hub and one or more dynamic legs (flexible protrusion 1 is provided such that the flexible protrusion 1 substantially retains its shape on grass but bends outwardly on a hard surface to substantially become even in vertical height with the rigid protrusion 2) comprised of a second material (more flexible material, Terashima discloses that it may be possible to provide each of the cleat body 3, flexible protrusion 1 and rigid protrusion 2 with different plastic materials to provide a compound-type cleat 10) on a second side of the hub (see figures 1-3), the one or more static legs (2) having a first hardness (the rigid protrusion 2 is designed shorter and thicker, thus more resistant to deformation, than the flexible protrusion 1, more rigid) and the one or more dynamic legs (1) having a second hardness (more flexible); and
a first plurality of second cleats (cleats 10 located in the forefoot area on the medial side of the shoe) releasably connected to the cleat mounts on the first side of the longitudinal centerline (cleat 10 is to be secured at a receptacle (not shown) of a shoe sole (not shown) by means of the securing means 4 having three engagement protrusions 7), and a second plurality of second cleats (cleats 10 located in the heel area on the medial side of the shoe) releasably connected to cleat mounts on the second side of the longitudinal centerline (cleat 10 is to be secured at a receptacle (not shown) of a shoe sole (not shown) by means of the securing means 4 having three engagement protrusions 7).
Terashima discloses that the dimensions, angles, shapes, hardness or softness, number and positioning and orientation as well as materials of the protrusions 1 and 2 are factors to be adequately selected in accordance with expected performances and properties of the cleat 10. Terashima as described above discloses all the limitations of the claims except for each of the second cleats comprising legs having a common hardness.
Denison discloses an article of footwear (golf shoe, see figures 8A-10) comprising an upper (202, explicit to golf shoes) having a sole (a midsole 204 attached to a bottom portion of the upper 202, and an outsole 206 attached to a bottom portion of the midsole 204 such that the midsole 204 is sandwiched between the upper 202 and the outsole 206) connected to the upper (explicit to golf shoes). Denison discloses various different configurations, sizes and shapes of cleat elements may be utilized in different traction zones to achieve desired traction characteristics in accordance with various embodiments of the invention.
The one section traction elements 270 provide increased gripping strength when in contact with a playing surface (e.g., turf) for increased traction in the corresponding locations of the outsole 208. During the backswing stages of the golf swing, the one section traction elements 270 in the traction zones 250b, 250c and 250d play a predominant role in providing traction and stability to the golfer because the majority of vertical and horizontal forces are concentrated in these zones. Denison discloses the traction elements 270 and/or 370 of FIGS. 11A and 11B which have one section, respectively, may be replaced by one or more traction elements 470 having two different sections 470a and 470b, as shown in FIG. 12A. In one embodiment, the two different sections 470a and 470b have different flex or elastic properties, as indicated by the shaded portion 470a and unshaded portion 470b of the traction element (e.g., cleat) 470. In one embodiment, the shaded portion 470a is more flexible than the unshaded portion 470b to provide greater gripping action with turf and hence better traction during the golf swing. The unshaded portion 470b of the traction element 470 is more rigid which provides better durability to the traction elements 470 during walking, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the cleats with two sections (rigid legs & flexible legs) of Terashima with cleats having one section (similar legs) as taught by Denison, to provide increased gripping strength when in contact with a playing surface.
The claim would have been obvious since, since Denison discloses that the traction elements with one section having same legs are interchangeable with traction element with different legs.
With respect to claim 2, Terashima discloses that it may be possible to provide each of the cleat body 3, flexible protrusion 1 and rigid protrusion 2 with different plastic materials to provide a compound-type cleat 10. The flexible protrusion 1 may be made of a flexible material and the rigid protrusion 2 may be made of a rigid material. Appropriate soft metallic materials or ceramic materials may be utilized, at least partially. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first material of Terashima/Denison surround a perimeter rim of the mount coupling on each of the first cleats and the second material cover a central portion of the mount coupling on each of the plurality of first cleats, since Terashima discloses that it is possible to provide each of the cleat body, flexible protrusion and rigid protrusion with different plastic materials to provide a compound-type cleat.
With respect to claim 3, Terashima/Denison discloses wherein the first plurality of first cleats is releasably connected (the cleat 10 can be easily attached on and detached from a shoe sole for replacement with a new one) to the cleat mounts on a lateral side of the longitudinal centerline (see figure 6) and a second plurality of first cleats releasably connected (the cleat 10 can be easily attached on and detached from a shoe sole for replacement with a new one) to cleat mounts on a medial side of longitudinal centerline (see figure 6).
With respect to claim 4, Terashima/Denison discloses wherein the first plurality of first cleats is releasably connected (the cleat 10 can be easily attached on and detached from a shoe sole for replacement with a new one) to the cleat mounts in a forefoot region of the article of footwear (see figure 6) and the second plurality of first cleats is releasably connected (the cleat 10 can be easily attached on and detached from a shoe sole for replacement with a new one) to the cleat mounts in a heel region of the article of footwear (see figure 6).
With respect to claim 5, Terashima/Denison discloses wherein the first hardness (more rigid) is greater than the second hardness (more flexible).
With respect to claim 6, Terashima discloses that it may be possible to provide each of the cleat body 3, flexible protrusion 1 and rigid protrusion 2 with different plastic materials to provide a compound-type cleat 10. The flexible protrusion 1 may be made of a flexible material and the rigid protrusion 2 may be made of a rigid material. Appropriate soft metallic materials or ceramic materials may be utilized, at least partially. Terashima/Denison as modified above discloses all the limitations of the claims except for the exact parameters of the legs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hardness of the legs as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In reference to the parameters, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use materials with the claimed parameters, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7, Terashima/Denison discloses wherein each static leg includes a first leg end defining a first edge (Terashima discloses the plurality of flexible protrusions 1 and a plurality of rigid protrusions 2 extend downwardly and generally obliquely outwardly), wherein each dynamic leg includes a second leg end defining a second edge, wherein the first edge is significantly longer than the second edge (the flexible protrusions are generally provided longer than the rigid protrusions, see figures 1-3).
With respect to claim 9, Terashima as modified by Denison discloses the use of a cleat with all the legs of the at least one second cleat that can have a same hardness that is less than the first hardness (as taught and modified by Denison).
With respect to claim 20, Terashima as modified by Denison discloses wherein the at least one lateral leg and at least one medial leg of the second cleats have a same hardness (as taught and modified by Denison). The claim would have been obvious since, since Denison discloses that the traction elements with one section having same legs are interchangeable with traction element with different legs.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,568,391. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the both claim an article of footwear defining a longitudinal centerline, the article of footwear comprising: an upper; a sole connected to the upper, the sole including a plurality of cleat mounts; a plurality of first cleats including a first plurality of first cleats releasably connected to the cleat mounts on a first side of the longitudinal centerline and a second plurality of first cleats releasably connected to cleat mounts on a second side of longitudinal centerline, each of the first cleats including: a mount coupling releasably engaging one of the plurality of cleat mounts, a hub connected to the mount coupling, and a plurality of legs connected to the hub, the plurality of legs including one or more static legs comprised of a first material on a first side of the hub and one or more dynamic legs comprised of a second material on a second side of the hub, the one or more static legs having a first hardness and the one or more dynamic legs having a second hardness; and a first plurality of second cleats releasably connected to the cleat mounts on the first side of the longitudinal centerline, and a second plurality of second cleats releasably connected to cleat mounts on the second side of the longitudinal centerline, each of the second cleats comprising legs having a common hardness.
The claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See MPEP § 804.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,595. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the both claim an article of footwear defining a longitudinal centerline, the article of footwear comprising: an upper; a sole connected to the upper, the sole including a plurality of cleat mounts; a plurality of first cleats including a first plurality of first cleats releasably connected to the cleat mounts on a first side of the longitudinal centerline and a second plurality of first cleats releasably connected to cleat mounts on a second side of longitudinal centerline, each of the first cleats including: a mount coupling releasably engaging one of the plurality of cleat mounts, a hub connected to the mount coupling, and a plurality of legs connected to the hub, the plurality of legs including one or more static legs comprised of a first material on a first side of the hub and one or more dynamic legs comprised of a second material on a second side of the hub, the one or more static legs having a first hardness and the one or more dynamic legs having a second hardness; and a first plurality of second cleats releasably connected to the cleat mounts on the first side of the longitudinal centerline, and a second plurality of second cleats releasably connected to cleat mounts on the second side of the longitudinal centerline, each of the second cleats comprising legs having a common hardness.
The claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See MPEP § 804.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the both claim an article of footwear defining a longitudinal centerline, the article of footwear comprising: an upper; a sole connected to the upper, the sole including a plurality of cleat mounts; a plurality of first cleats including a first plurality of first cleats releasably connected to the cleat mounts on a first side of the longitudinal centerline and a second plurality of first cleats releasably connected to cleat mounts on a second side of longitudinal centerline, each of the first cleats including: a mount coupling releasably engaging one of the plurality of cleat mounts, a hub connected to the mount coupling, and a plurality of legs connected to the hub, the plurality of legs including one or more static legs comprised of a first material on a first side of the hub and one or more dynamic legs comprised of a second material on a second side of the hub, the one or more static legs having a first hardness and the one or more dynamic legs having a second hardness; and a first plurality of second cleats releasably connected to the cleat mounts on the first side of the longitudinal centerline, and a second plurality of second cleats releasably connected to cleat mounts on the second side of the longitudinal centerline, each of the second cleats comprising legs having a common hardness.
The claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See MPEP § 804.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shown are article of footwear with cleats, analogous to applicant’s instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JILA M MOHANDESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4558. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs. 7:00-5:00 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, Alissa J Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/JILA M MOHANDESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
JMM
01/23/2026