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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05-11-2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,290,142 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because of the limitations “wherein the outsole comprises a medial extension extending upwards from a medial perimeter of the outsole to a medial sidewall of the midsole and a lateral extension extending upwards from a lateral perimeter of the outsole to a lateral sidewall of the midsole; and a reinforcement structure comprising a bottom loaded U-shaped support frame positioned between the midsole and the outsole, wherein the support frame comprises a medial wing that is sandwiched between the medial extension of the outsole and the medial sidewall of the midsole and a lateral wing that is sandwiched between the lateral extension of the outsole and the lateral sidewall of the midsole” lacks support in the original specification which filed 06-26-2025; therefore such lack of detailed support in the original disclosure constitutes new matter.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 1-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanat et al. (2020/0323309).
Regarding claim 1, Hanat discloses a golf shoe (figs 1-7), comprising:
an upper (member 2); and
a sole assembly (member 3) connected to the upper, the sole assembly comprising a midsole (member 331) and an outsole (member 332) comprising a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a rearfoot region, wherein the outsole comprises a first traction zone located in the forefoot region or the midfoot region of the outsole and a second traction zone located in the midfoot region or the rearfoot region of the outsole, wherein the first traction zone and the second traction zone have a wave-like configuration (fig 4), wherein the outsole comprises a medial extension extending upwards from a medial perimeter of the outsole to a medial sidewall of the midsole and a lateral extension extending upwards from a lateral perimeter of the outsole to a lateral sidewall of the midsole (fig 4); and
a reinforcement structure (member 4) comprising a bottom loaded U-shaped support frame positioned between the midsole and the outsole (fig 6), wherein the support frame comprises a medial wing that is sandwiched between the medial extension of the outsole and the medial sidewall of the midsole and a lateral wing that is sandwiched between the lateral extension of the outsole and the lateral sidewall of the midsole (fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hanat discloses the wave-like configuration is periodic (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 3, Hanat discloses the wave-like configuration is symmetrical (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 4, Hanat discloses the wave-like configuration is aperiodic (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 5, Hanat discloses the wave-like configuration is asymmetrical (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 6, Hanat discloses a portion or a section of the first traction zone or the second traction zone is configured to extend upwards and/or along a medial side or a lateral side of the outsole (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 7, Hanat discloses said portion or section of the first traction zone or the second traction zone has a periodic wave-like configuration (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 8, Hanat discloses said portion or section of the first traction zone or the second traction zone has a symmetrical wave-like configuration (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 9, Hanat discloses said portion or section of the first traction zone or the second traction zone has an aperiodic wave-like configuration (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 10, Hanat discloses said portion or section of the first traction zone or the second traction zone has an asymmetrical wave-like configuration (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 14, Hanat discloses the outsole comprises a plurality of flex zones (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 15, Hanat discloses the plurality of flex zones are positioned and oriented to separate or divide different regions or subregions of the first traction zone and the second traction zone to yield the wave-like configuration (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 16, Hanat discloses the plurality of flex zones are configured to extend between adjacent cleats or cleat receptacles provided on the outsole (fig 5 annotated above).
Regarding claim 17, Hanat discloses a portion of the reinforcement structure is integrated with one or more traction zones of the outsole (fig 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hanat discloses a portion of the reinforcement structure is disposed directly adjacent to one or more traction zones of the outsole (figs 4-5).
Regarding claim 19, Hanat discloses a portion of the reinforcement structure is exposed or visible through the midsole or the outsole (fig 4).
Regarding claim 20, Hanat discloses the reinforcement structure comprises a medial support or a lateral support extending upwards and/or along a medial side or a lateral side of the midsole or the outsole (fig 4).
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) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanat et al. (2020/0323309) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of James (2012/0278999).
Regarding claim 11, Hanat teaches all limitation of the claim except the first traction zone comprises a first material and the second traction zone comprises a second material that is different than the first material.
James teaches an outsole having different zone with different material (para 0006 and 0025).
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 outsole of Hanat by using the different material, as taught by James, in order to provide different resistance or resilient deformation.
Regarding claim 12, the modified shoe Hanat-James discloses the first material comprises a TPU-based material and the second material comprises a rubber-based material (Hanat, para 0048 to 0050 and 0056).
Regarding claim 13, the modified shoe Hanat-James discloses the first material comprises a rubber-based material and the second material comprises a TPU-based material (Hanat, para 0048 to 0050 and 0056).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20, filed 05-11-2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights