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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 07/07/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with Claims 1, 8, and 15 being newly amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 05/22/2025.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 19216412, filed 05/22/2025, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Specifically, the limitation “wherein a width of the combined sipe is greater than a width of the first sipe or is greater than a width of the second sipe” as recited in Claim 7.
Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
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 combined sipe (Claims 1 and 7) and both the notch (recited in claim 8) and the lateral edge curving inward opposite the convergence point (as recited in Claim 13, which ultimately depends from Claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently, there appears to be either a notch or the lateral edge curving inward shown, but not two distinct structures (i.e. both a notch and a curved inward edge on the lateral edge) shown. 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 07/07/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
All of the added material in the paragraph beginning at page 13, line 4 is not supported by the original disclosure. Originally filed Claim 7 does recite “a width of the combined sipe is greater than a width of the first sipe or is greater than a width of the second sipe,” which provides support for this specific teaching of relative sizes of the combined sipe to the first and second sipes. The newly added material instead discusses relative sizes of the common region and the sipes.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by” in line 9 of Claim 8 should be underlined as it is newly added. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 8-14 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 8 recites the limitation “wherein the first sipe and the second sipe intersect at a convergence point inset from the lateral edge of the sole by a notch extending between the lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “by” is referring to location, for example that the first and second sipe intersect nearby a notch, or if “by” is referring to the notch being the structure insetting the convergence point from the lateral edge of the sole. For purposes of examination, “by” will be interpreted as the notch being the structure that insets the convergence point from the lateral edge. If this is how Applicant intended the claim to be interpreted, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim to read “wherein the first sipe and the second sipe intersect at a convergence point, wherein the convergence point is inset from the lateral edge of the sole by a notch extending between the lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point” or similar.
Claims 9-14 depend from Claim 8 and are likewise rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakaya et al. (US 2017/0042283).
Regarding Claim 8 in view of the indefiniteness as explained above, Nakaya et al. teaches a sole (1) for an article of footwear (paragraph [0001] teaches “The present invention relates to shoe soles,” therein the sole is clearly for an article of footwear), the sole comprising: a heel portion (see annotated Fig.); a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig.); and a segmentation zone (see annotated Fig.) disposed between the heel portion and the forefoot portion (annotated fig. 15 shows a segmentation zone disposed between the heel and forefoot portions), the segmentation zone including a first sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending between a medial edge of the sole and a lateral edge of the sole and a second sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending between the medial edge of the sole and the lateral edge of the sole (annotated fig. 15 shows the first and second sipes extending between the medial and lateral edges of the sole), wherein the first sipe and the second sipe intersect at a convergence point (see annotated Fig.) inset from the lateral edge of the sole (annotated fig. 15 shows the first and second sipes intersecting at a convergence point inset from a lateral edge of the sole) by a notch (see annotated Fig.) extending between the lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point (annotated fig. 15 shows the notch extending between the lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point and therein insetting the convergence point) and define a triangular segment (see annotated Fig.) between the medial edge of the sole and the convergence point (annotated fig. 15 shows a triangular segment defined by the first and second sipes and between the medial edge and the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 8, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein a side of the triangular segment (see annotated Fig.) is along the medial edge of the sole and an apex of the triangular segment is at the convergence point (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 shows the side of the triangular segment at the medial edge and an apex of the triangular segment at the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 8, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the sole includes a third sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending from the medial edge toward the convergence point (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe extending from the medial edge towards the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the third sipe (see annotated Fig.) extends from the side of the triangular segment (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe extending from the side of the triangular segment).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the third sipe (see annotated Fig.) extends into and partially divides the triangular segment (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe extending into and partially dividing the triangular segment).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the third sipe (see annotated Fig.) is opposite the convergence point (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fi. 15 shows the third sipe being opposite the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 14, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 8, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the lateral edge of the sole (see annotated Fig.) curves inward opposite the convergence point (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 show the lateral edge of the sole curving inwards opposite the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 15, Nakaya et al. teaches a sole (1) for an article of footwear (paragraph [0001] teaches “The present invention relates to shoe soles,” therein the sole is clearly for an article of footwear), the sole comprising: a heel portion (see annotated Fig.); a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig.); and a segmentation zone (see annotated Fig.) disposed between the heel portion and the forefoot portion (annotated fig. 15 shows a segmentation zone disposed between the heel and forefoot portions), the segmentation zone including a first sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending between a medial edge of the sole and a convergence point, a second sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending between the medial edge of the sole and the convergence point (annotated fig. 15 shows the first and second sipes extending between the medial edge of the sole and the convergence point), a third sipe (see annotated Fig.) and a notch (see annotated Fig.) extending between a lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point (annotated fig. 15 shows the notch extending between a lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point), wherein the first sipe and the second sipe meet defining a segment between the medial edge and the lateral edge (annotated fig. 15 shows the first and second sipes meeting and defining a segment (labeled the triangular segment) between the medial and lateral edge), and the third sipe extends into and partially divides the segment (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe extending into and partially dividing the segment), wherein a width of the notch decreases from the lateral edge of the sole to the convergence point (annotated fig. 15 shows the width of the notch decreasing in a direction from the lateral edge and the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 16, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the third sipe (see annotated Fig.) extends from the medial edge of the sole (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe extending from the medial edge of the sole).
Regarding Claim 17, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the segment (see annotated Fig.) is triangular (annotated fig. 15 shows the segment being triangular).
Regarding Claim 18, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein a side of the segment (see annotated Fig.) is along the medial edge of the sole (annotated fig. 15 shows a side of the segment extending along the medial edge of the sole).
Regarding Claim 19, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the lateral edge of the sole curves inward opposite an apex (see annotated Fig.) of the segment (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 shows the lateral edge of the sole curving inwards opposite an apex of the segment).
Regarding Claim 20, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the medial edge curves inward along an edge of the segment (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 shows the medial edge curving inwards along the edge of the segment).
PNG
media_image1.png
904
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaya et al. (US 2017/0042283).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakaya et al. teaches a sole (1) for an article of footwear (paragraph [0001] teaches “The present invention relates to shoe soles,” therein the sole is clearly for an article of footwear), the sole comprising: a heel portion (see annotated Fig.); a forefoot portion (see annotated Fig.); and a segmentation zone (see annotated Fig.) disposed between the heel portion and the forefoot portion (annotated fig. 15 shows a segmentation zone disposed between the heel and forefoot portions), the segmentation zone including a first sipe (see annotated Fig.) on a medial edge of the sole and a second sipe (see annotated Fig.) on the medial edge of the sole (annotated fig. 15 shows the first and second sipes on the medial edge of the sole), wherein the first sipe and the second sipe angle toward each other, intersect at a convergence point (see annotated Fig.) inset from a lateral edge of the sole (annotated fig. 15 shows the first and second sipes angling toward each other to intersect at a convergence point inset from a lateral edge of the sole), and combine into a combined sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending between the convergence point and the lateral edge of the sole (annotated fig. 15 shows the combined sipe extending between the convergence point and the lateral edge).
Nakaya et al. does not teach wherein the combined sipe increases in thickness as the combined sipe extends from the convergence point to the lateral edge of the sole.
Attention is drawn to Schindler et al. which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Schindler et al. teaches a sole (120) for an article of footwear, the sole comprising: a heel portion; a forefoot portion; and a segmentation zone disposed between the heel portion and the forefoot portion (annotated fig. 7A shows the sole comprising a heel portion, a forefoot portion, and a segmentation zone between the heel and forefoot portions), the segmentation zone including a first sipe (see annotated Fig.) and a second sipe (see annotated Fig.), and a combined sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending between a point and the lateral edge of the sole; wherein the combined sipe increases in thickness as the combined sipe extends from the point to the lateral edge of the sole (annotated fig. 7A shows the combined sipe increasing in thickness from the point to the lateral edge of the sole).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakaya et al. to include the teachings of Schindler et al. such that the combined sipe increases in thickness as the combined sipe extends from the convergence point to the lateral edge of the sole so as to allow increased flexibility in the sole at the combined sipe (paragraph [0042], “First end 192 may be larger by extending towards forefoot region 101 and heel region 103 by a greater amount than second end 194 and/or by extending to a greater depth than second end 194. Such a configuration may be advantageous when a greater amount of flexion is desired on one side of a sole structure than another.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the first sipe (see annotated Fig.) and the second sipe (see annotated Fig.) define a triangular segment (see annotated Fig.) between the medial edge of the sole and the convergence point (annotated fig. 15 shows a triangular segment defined by the first and second sipes and between the medial edge and the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 2, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein a side of the triangular segment (see annotated Fig.) is along the medial edge of the sole and an apex of the triangular segment is at the convergence point (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 shows the side of the triangular segment at the medial edge and an apex of the triangular segment at the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the sole includes a third sipe (see annotated Fig.) extending into and partially dividing the triangular segment (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe extending into and partially dividing the triangular segment).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 4, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the third sipe (see annotated Fig.) extends from the side of the triangular segment (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe extending from the side of the triangular segment).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 5, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein the third sipe (see annotated Fig.) does not connect to the convergence point (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 shows the third sipe does not connect to the convergence point).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakaya et al. teaches all of the limitations of the sole of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Nakaya et al. further teaches wherein a width of the combined sipe (see annotated Fig.) is greater than a width of the first sipe (see annotated Fig.) or is greater than a width of the second sipe (see annotated Fig.) (annotated fig. 15 shows a width of the combined sipe being greater than a width of the first and second sipes).
PNG
media_image2.png
755
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant submits that Nakaya does not teach all of the limitations of newly amended Claim 1, specifically wherein the combined sipe increases in thickness as it extends from the convergence point to the lateral edge of the sole. Examiner agrees, however such point is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above, where Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nakaya in view of Schindler.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant submits that Nakaya does not teach the convergence point being inset from the lateral edge of the sole by a notch extending between the lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point. Examiner disagrees, and submits that as shown in the annotated fig. 15 of Nakaya above that there is a notch extending between the lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point that clearly insets the convergence point from the lateral edge. While the combined sipe also insets the convergence point from the lateral edge, the claim does not require that the only structure between the convergence point and the lateral edge is the notch.
Regarding Claim 15, Applicant submits that Nakaya does not teach a notch extending between a lateral edge and the convergence point. Examiner disagrees, and submits that as shown in the annotated fig. 15 of Nakaya that there is clearly a notch that extends between the lateral edge of the sole and the convergence point as recited in the claim. While the notch does not extend from the convergence point to the lateral edge, this is not required by the claims and further does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure.
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 HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights