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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 6/16/2025 are currently pending in the application and are presented for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 4, 5B, 6A, 6B, 7, 8, 9, and 10 appear to show exploded views that do not have associated brackets surrounding all of the exploded components (Examiner acknowledges that 6A has a bracket around the heel components and a bracket around the forefoot components, but it does not have one to connect the heel and forefoot components; and similarly, 6B has a bracket around the heel components, but not one for the forefoot components or to connect the heel and forefoot components).
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.
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 3, 7, 13, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the first transverse axis […] is disposed closer to a forefoot region of the sole structure than the second transverse axis”. This limitation is unclear because there are multiple possible interpretations. First, the first transverse axis is closer to the forefoot region in comparison to how close the second transverse axis is to the forefoot region (i.e., the distance between the first transverse axis and the forefoot region is less than the distance between the second transverse axis and the forefoot region). Second, the first axis is closer to the forefoot region in comparison to how close the first transverse axis is to the second transverse axis (i.e., the distance between the first transverse axis and the forefoot region is less than the distance between the first transverse axis and the second transverse axis). For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation will be used.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the first ends […] are disposed closer to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure than the respective second ends”. This limitation is unclear because there are multiple possible interpretations. First, the first ends are closer to the central longitudinal axis in comparison to how close the second ends are to the central longitudinal axis (i.e., the distance between the first ends and the central longitudinal axis is less than the distance between the second ends and the central longitudinal axis). Second, the first ends are closer to the central longitudinal axis in comparison to how close the first ends are to the second ends (i.e., the distance between the first ends and the central longitudinal axis is less than the distance between the first ends and the second ends). For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation will be used.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the first transverse axis […] is disposed closer to a forefoot region of the sole structure than the second transverse axis”. This limitation is unclear because there are multiple possible interpretations. First, the first transverse axis is closer to the forefoot region in comparison to how close the second transverse axis is to the forefoot region (i.e., the distance between the first transverse axis and the forefoot region is less than the distance between the second transverse axis and the forefoot region). Second, the first axis is closer to the forefoot region in comparison to how close the first transverse axis is to the second transverse axis (i.e., the distance between the first transverse axis and the forefoot region is less than the distance between the first transverse axis and the second transverse axis). For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation will be used.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the first ends […] are disposed closer to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure than the respective second ends”. This limitation is unclear because there are multiple possible interpretations. First, the first ends are closer to the central longitudinal axis in comparison to how close the second ends are to the central longitudinal axis (i.e., the distance between the first ends and the central longitudinal axis is less than the distance between the second ends and the central longitudinal axis). Second, the first ends are closer to the central longitudinal axis in comparison to how close the first ends are to the second ends (i.e., the distance between the first ends and the central longitudinal axis is less than the distance between the first ends and the second ends). For the purposes of examination, the first interpretation will be used.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano (US 2001/0039745).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano discloses: A sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising: a baseplate (3) defining a ground-engaging surface (“an outsole 3 […] directly contacting the ground” paragraph 30); a first plurality of traction elements extending from the baseplate in a heel region of the sole structure and aligned along a medial side of the baseplate (“on the lower surface of the outsole 3 a plurality of cleats 5 are provided” paragraph 30; the first plurality of traction elements includes the first traction element and second traction element; see first traction element and second traction element on annotated figure 2A below), the first plurality of traction elements including a first traction element extending along a first axis and a second traction element extending along a second axis convergent with the first axis (see first traction element/first axis and second traction element/second axis on annotated figure 2A below; the first and second axes are convergent (they intersect)); and a second plurality of traction elements extending from the baseplate in the heel region of the sole structure, aligned along a lateral side of the baseplate, and disposed on an opposite side of a central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure than the first plurality of traction elements (“on the lower surface of the outsole 3 a plurality of cleats 5 are provided” paragraph 30; the second plurality of traction elements includes the third traction element and fourth traction element; see third traction element and fourth traction element on annotated figure 2A below), the second plurality of traction elements including a third traction element extending along a third axis and a fourth traction element extending along a fourth axis convergent with the third axis (see third traction element/third axis and fourth traction element/fourth axis on annotated figure 2A below; the third and fourth axes are convergent (they intersect)).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first traction element is aligned with the third traction element along a first transverse axis extending between the medial side and the lateral side and transverse to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure (see first transverse axis on annotated figure 2A below) and the second traction element is aligned with the fourth traction element along a second transverse axis extending between the medial side and the lateral side and transverse to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure (see second transverse axis on annotated figure 2A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, as best as can be understood, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 2, wherein the first transverse axis is substantially parallel to the second transverse axis and is disposed closer to a forefoot region of the sole structure than the second transverse axis (see first and second transverse axes on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above; the first transverse axis is substantially parallel to the second transverse axis, and the first transverse axis is closer to the forefoot region of the sole structure than the second transverse axis).
Regarding claim 4, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 2, wherein the first axis is convergent with the third axis and the second axis is convergent with the fourth axis (see first, second, third, and fourth axes on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above; the first and third axes are convergent (they intersect), and the second and fourth axes are convergent (they intersect)).
Regarding claim 5, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element are elongate (see figure 2A; the first, second, third, and fourth traction elements are all elongate as shown in the figure).
Regarding claim 6, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 5, wherein the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element taper from a first end to a second end (see annotated figure 2A below showing the first end and second end of each traction element; the traction elements each taper from the first end to the second end).
PNG
media_image3.png
506
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, as best as can be understood, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 6, wherein the first ends of the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element are disposed closer to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure than the respective second ends of the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above; the first end of each traction element is located closer to the central longitudinal axis than the second end of each respective traction element).
Regarding claim 8, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 6, wherein the first traction element and the second traction element taper in a direction from the central, longitudinal axis toward the medial side (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above; the first traction element and second traction element taper in a direction from the central longitudinal axis toward the medial side) and the third traction element and the fourth traction element taper in a direction from the central, longitudinal axis toward the lateral side (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above; the third traction element and fourth traction element taper in a direction from the central longitudinal axis toward the lateral side).
Regarding claim 9, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first axis is substantially parallel to the fourth axis and the second axis is substantially parallel to the third axis (see first, second, third, and fourth axes on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above; the first and fourth axes are substantially parallel, and the second and third axes are substantially parallel).
Regarding claim 10, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 1, further comprising a third plurality of traction elements disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure and disposed in a circular pattern (see annotated figure 2A below showing a third plurality of traction elements in the forefoot region disposed in a circular pattern).
PNG
media_image4.png
491
183
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Nakano discloses: A sole structure for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising: a baseplate (3) defining a ground-engaging surface (“an outsole 3 […] directly contacting the ground” paragraph 30); a first plurality of traction elements extending from the baseplate in a heel region of the sole structure and aligned along a medial side of the baseplate (“on the lower surface of the outsole 3 a plurality of cleats 5 are provided” paragraph 30; the first plurality of traction elements includes the first traction element and second traction element; see first traction element and second traction element on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above), the first plurality of traction elements including a first traction element extending along a first axis and a second traction element extending along a second axis (see first traction element/first axis and second traction element/second axis on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above); and a second plurality of traction elements extending from the baseplate in the heel region of the sole structure, aligned along a lateral side of the baseplate, and disposed on an opposite side of a central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure than the first plurality of traction elements (“on the lower surface of the outsole 3 a plurality of cleats 5 are provided” paragraph 30; the second plurality of traction elements includes the third traction element and fourth traction element; see third traction element and fourth traction element on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above), the second plurality of traction elements including a third traction element extending along a third axis parallel to the second axis and a fourth traction element extending along a fourth axis parallel to the first axis (see third traction element/third axis and fourth traction element/fourth axis on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above; the third axis is parallel to the second axis and the fourth axis is parallel to the first axis).
Regarding claim 12, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 11, wherein the first traction element is aligned with the third traction element along a first transverse axis extending between the medial side and the lateral side and transverse to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure (see first transverse axis on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above) and the second traction element is aligned with the fourth traction element along a second transverse axis extending between the medial side and the lateral side and transverse to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure (see second transverse axis on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 13, as best as can be understood, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 12, wherein the first transverse axis is substantially parallel to the second transverse axis and is disposed closer to a forefoot region of the sole structure than the second transverse axis (see first and second transverse axes on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above; the first transverse axis is substantially parallel to the second transverse axis, and the first transverse axis is closer to the forefoot region of the sole structure than the second transverse axis).
Regarding claim 14, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 12, wherein the first axis is convergent with the third axis and the second axis is convergent with the fourth axis (see first, second, third, and fourth axes on annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 2 above; the first and third axes are convergent (they intersect), and the second and fourth axes are convergent (they intersect)).
Regarding claim 15, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 11, wherein the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element are elongate (see figure 2A; the first, second, third, and fourth traction elements are all elongate as shown in the figure).
Regarding claim 16, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 15, wherein the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element taper from a first end to a second end (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above showing the first end and second end of each traction element; the traction elements each taper from the first end to the second end).
Regarding claim 17, as best as can be understood, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 16, wherein the first ends of the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element are disposed closer to the central, longitudinal axis of the sole structure than the respective second ends of the first traction element, the second traction element, the third traction element, and the fourth traction element (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above; the first end of each traction element is located closer to the central longitudinal axis than the second end of each respective traction element).
Regarding claim 18, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 16, wherein the first traction element and the second traction element taper in a direction from the central, longitudinal axis toward the medial side (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above; the first traction element and second traction element taper in a direction from the central longitudinal axis toward the medial side) and the third traction element and the fourth traction element taper in a direction from the central, longitudinal axis toward the lateral side (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 6 above; the third traction element and fourth traction element taper in a direction from the central longitudinal axis toward the lateral side).
Regarding claim 19, Nakano discloses: The sole structure of Claim 11, further comprising a third plurality of traction elements disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure and disposed in a circular pattern (see annotated figure 2A provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 10 above showing a third plurality of traction elements in the forefoot region disposed in a circular pattern).
Regarding claim 20, Nakano discloses: An article of footwear (1) incorporating the sole structure of Claim 1 (see 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Evans (US 6101746), Baucom (US 2013/0326911), Patterson (US 6694647), Heard (US 2014/0259786), Droege (US 2016/0242499), and Minami (US 2013/0067771) teach relevant footwear with traction elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Clinton 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights