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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04-18-2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “centroid of the wings” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6 and 18-19 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 is rejected because it recites limitations “a centroid of the lateral wing being below the bite line; and a centroid of the medial wing being below the bite line”. It is not clear where is the centroid of these wings since there is not any specific location, which should be disclosed, disclosing in the specification.
Claims 18-19 are rejected because they recite limitations “a centroid of the lateral wing being below the upper; and a centroid of the medial wing being below the upper”. It is not clear where is the centroid of these wings since there is not any specific location, which should be disclosed, disclosing in the specification.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peikert et al. (2013/0059116).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Peikert discloses a golf shoe (figs 13-29) comprising: an upper (member 103); a sole assembly, comprising:
an outsole (member 117);
a midsole (member 121) above the outsole and connected to the upper at a bite line (figs 22-24); and
a reinforcement structure (member 119), the reinforcement structure comprising:
a bridge (member 33c) extending across a mediolateral width of the sole assembly;
a lateral wing (fig 22 annotated above) extending upwardly from a lateral side of the bridge along a lateral side of the sole assembly, a centroid of the lateral wing being below the bite line (the entire wing is under the bite line; therefore the centroid must be below the bite line); and
a medial wing (fig 22 annotated above) extending upwardly from a medial side of the bridge along a medial side of the sole assembly, a centroid of the medial wing being below the bite line (the entire wing is under the bite line; therefore the centroid must be below the bite line).
Regarding claim 2, Peikert discloses the bridge is positioned below the midsole (fig 22 annotated above).
Regarding claim 4, Peikert discloses a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a rearfoot region, wherein the reinforcement structure is positioned at a rearward end of the midfoot region, between the rearfoot region and the midfoot region, and/or at a forward end of the rearfoot region (fig 13 shoe that the reinforce structure cover the entire a shoe).
Regarding claim 5, Peikert discloses the lateral wing extends along a first axis from the lateral side of the bridge to a terminal end of the lateral wing separated from the upper, and the medial wing extends along a second axis from the medial side of the bridge to a terminal end of the medial wing separated from the upper (fig 22 shows that the wings did not contact the upper).
Regarding claim 7, Peikert discloses a golf shoe (figs 13-29) comprising: an upper, a sole assembly connected to the upper, the sole assembly comprising:
an outsole (members 105 and 117);
a midsole (member 245) above the outsole; and
a reinforcement structure (member 119), the reinforcement structure comprising:
a bridge below, or embedded within (fig 22 annotated above), the outsole and extending across a mediolateral width of the sole assembly;
a lateral wing extending upwardly from a lateral side of the bridge along a lateral side of the sole assembly (fig 22 annotated above); and
a medial wing extending upwardly from a medial side of the bridge along a medial side of the sole assembly (fig 22 annotated above).
Regarding claims 7-8, Peikert discloses Peikert discloses a golf shoe (figs 13-29) comprising: an upper, a sole assembly connected to the upper, the sole assembly comprising:
an outsole (members 105);
a midsole (member 245) above the outsole; and
a reinforcement structure (members 117 and 119), the reinforcement structure comprising:
a bridge below the outsole and extending across a mediolateral width of the sole assembly (fig 22 annotated above);
a lateral wing extending upwardly from a lateral side of the bridge along a lateral side of the sole assembly (fig 22 annotated above); and
a medial wing extending upwardly from a medial side of the bridge along a medial side of the sole assembly (fig 22 annotated above).
Regarding claim 9, Peikert discloses the bridge is embedded within the outsole (fig 22).
Regarding claim 11, Peikert discloses the reinforcement structure comprises a carbon composite material, a fiberglass composite material, or a thermoplastic polyurethane composite material (para 0215).
Regarding claim 12, Peikert discloses the medial and lateral wings are outside of the midsole and respectively extend along medial and lateral sides of the midsole (figs 22-24).
Regarding claim 14, Peikert discloses the medial and lateral wings are positioned below the upper (figs 22-24).
Regarding claim 15, Peikert discloses the golf shoe has a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a rearfoot region, and wherein the reinforcement structure is positioned at a rearward end of the midfoot region, between the rearfoot region and the midfoot region, and/or at a forward end of the rearfoot region (fig 13 shoe that the reinforce structure cover the entire a shoe).
Regarding claim 16, Peikert discloses a golf shoe (figs 13-29) comprising: an upper (member 103); a sole assembly connected to the upper and having a medial side, a lateral side, a posterior side, and an anterior side separated from the posterior side along a longitudinal direction, the sole assembly comprising:
an outsole (member 117);
a midsole (member 121) on the outsole; and
a reinforcement structure (member 119), the reinforcement structure comprising:
a bridge (fig 22 annotated above) extending transversely under the midsole between the lateral side and the medial side;
a lateral wing extending, along a first axis, upwardly and anteriorly from a lateral side of the bridge and along a lateral side of the midsole (fig 22 annotated above); and
a medial wing extending, along a second axis, upwardly and posteriorly from a medial side of the bridge and along a medial side of the midsole (fig 22 annotated above).
Regarding claim 18, Peikert discloses a highest portion of the lateral wing is below the upper, and a highest portion of the medial wing is below the upper (fig 24).
Regarding claim 19, Peikert discloses a centroid of the lateral wing is positioned below the upper, and a centroid of the medial wing is positioned below the upper (fig 24 shows that the entire wing is under the upper; therefore, the centroid must be below the upper).
Regarding claim 20, Peikert discloses the golf shoe has a rearfoot region, a midfoot region, and a forefoot region, and wherein the reinforcement structure is positioned entirely rearward from the forefoot region (fig 12, entirely of member 119b or 119a are position behind the forefoot area).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peikert et al. (2013/0059116) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Harai et al. (2021/0298416).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Peikert teaches all limitations of the claims and Harai teaches a hardness of the reinforcement structure is higher than a hardness of the outsole and higher than a hardness of the midsole (para 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole structure of Peikert by using the hardness relationship of Harai in order to help the physical feeling to the pressures transferred to the forefoot of the wearer can be relatively increased.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peikert et al. (2013/0059116) as applied to 7 above, and further in view of Bidal et al. (2020/0383422).
Regarding claim 13, Peikert teaches all limitations of the claims and Bidal teaches the midsole comprises a foam material (para0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the sole structure of Peikert by using the foam midsole of Bidal in order to provide better foot stability and comfort.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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 D. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732