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 .
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 and
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 7 recites 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” which lack antecedent basis in the written specification. There is no discussion of the width of the combined sipe in the specification, alone or in reference to the first and second sipes.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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).
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).
Regarding Claim 8, 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) 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 lateral edge of the sole, 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), and a third sipe (see annotated Fig.), 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).
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
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moriyasu et al. ‘666 and Flannery et al. ‘376 as cited on the PTO-892 teaches a sole with a first and second sipe that extend from the medial side and converge at a convergence point and combine into a combined sipe.
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