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 with the written response received on August 3, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-20.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed May 1, 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the drawings;
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of claims 9-10 and 19-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 17 (and claims 3 and 13 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the first rib includes a first traction element disposed at the first end of the first rib and a second traction element disposed at the second end of the first rib.” As claims 1 and 11 each recite, “a plurality of first traction elements”, it is unclear if “a first traction element” and “a second traction element” are referring to one of the plurality of first traction elements or to different/additional traction elements. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted claims 2 and 12 to refer to different/additional traction elements.
Claims 4 and 14 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the first rib extends along a medial side of the sole structure and at least partially defines a portion of the peripheral edge.” As claims 1 and 11 each recites, “a first rib extending along the peripheral edge of the sole structure” such that the first rib is "on a line or course parallel and close to; continuously beside" (“along” Defn. No. 2 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com) the peripheral edge, it is unclear how the first rib now is portion of the peripheral edge.
Claims 8 and 17 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the first traction elements are elongate traction elements arranged in a directional annular pattern in the forefoot region.” As claims 1 and 11 each recites, “a plurality of first traction elements… arranged in an annular pattern”, it is unclear if claims 8 and 17 are referring to a different annular pattern or are further defining the annual pattern previously recited.
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 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami (US 2013/0067778), in view of Droege (US 9820529) in view of McLachlan (US 2021/0127785).
Regarding claim 1, Minami discloses a sole structure (504, Figs. 5-6) for an article of footwear (100), the sole structure comprising: at least one of a plate shell or a plate chassis (as the base of 504 can be considered a plate shell or chassis as para. 0056 indicates it is similar to sole structure 104, and para. 0021 indicates 104 can be made of Pebax, TPU, or carbon fiber) extending from a forefoot region (10) of the sole structure to a heel region (14) of the sole structure and defining a peripheral edge of the sole structure (as seen in Fig. 5); a plurality of first traction elements (510 shown in annotated Fig. 5) extending from the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis and arranged in an annular pattern in a forefoot region of the sole structure (as seen in Fig. 5); a first rib (116 on medial side 16) extending along the peripheral edge of the sole structure from a first end adjacent to the forefoot region of the sole structure to a second end adjacent to the heel region of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 5).
Minami does not expressly disclose the first rib including a traction member attached to and extending along the first rib; and a traction pad attached to the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis and surrounded by the plurality of the first traction elements.
Droege teaches composite sole structures with a chassis comprising a first rib (110), the first rib including a traction member (161) attached to and extending along the first rib (see Figs. 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a traction member to the first rib of Minami as taught by Droege an order “to facilitate desired traction with soccer ball” (see col. 15, lines 55-57 of Droege).
The modified sole structure of Minami does not expressly disclose a traction pad attached to the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis and surrounded by the plurality of the first traction elements.
McLachlan teaches foot a sole structure with traction elements comprising a traction pad (200) attached to the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis (via base 210B, see Figs. 2-3) and surrounded by the plurality of the first traction elements (110, best seen in Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a traction pad surrounded by the plurality of first traction elements to the modified sole structure of Minami as taught by McLachlan as the traction pad and its projections “assist athletes in sports that include contact and/or control of a ball with the bottom of a foot, such as soccer/global football. As some more specific examples, the projections may assist in one or more of: gripping the ball, transmitting “feel” of the ball through the sole to the wearer's foot (e.g., producing proprioceptive benefits), and/or providing tactile and/or audio feedback confirming contact with the ball” (see para. 0011 of McLachlan).
Regarding claim 2, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) includes a first traction element disposed at the first end of the first rib and a second traction element disposed at the second end of the first rib (as seen in annotated Fig. 5, there are traction elements 510 and 112 at the ends of the first rib).
Regarding claim 3, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first traction element (510 at the first end of the medial 116 rib, see annotated Fig. 5) is a directional traction element (as it not circular) having a leading end facing the second end of the first rib (as it has a lower end that can be considered a leading end that faces the 2nd end of the rib, see Fig. 5) and the second traction element (112 at the 2nd end of the medial 116 rib, see annotated Fig. 5) is a directional traction element having a leading end facing the first end of the first rib (as can be seen in Fig. 5, this traction element has an upper end that can be considered a leading end that faces the 1st end of the rib).
Regarding claim 4, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) extends along a medial side (16) of the sole structure (504) and at least partially defines a portion of the peripheral edge (as the term "edge" is structurally broad and has a definition of "the border, brim, or margin of a surface, object, etc." (Noun defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), then the rib can be considered part of the peripheral edge since it is within a margin of the periphery).
Regarding claim 5, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) extends along an arcuate path from the first end to the second end and defines a concave ball receiving zone along a medial side of the sole structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) includes a concave first sidewall facing a medial side (16) of the sole structure and a convex second sidewall facing a lateral side (18) of the sole structure (as understood from annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses further comprising a second rib (116 on lateral side 18) extending between the first rib and a lateral side of the sole structure (as seen in Fig. 5) from a third end adjacent to the forefoot region (10) of the sole structure to a fourth end adjacent to the heel region (14) of the sole structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first traction elements (see annotated Fig. 5) are elongate traction elements arranged in a directional annular pattern in the forefoot region (10) (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 5, the traction elements are elongated and in a directional annual pattern in the forefoot area).
Regarding claim 9, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the traction pad (200 of McLachlan) includes a resilient material (as disclosed in para. 0054 of McLachlan) having a lower durometer than the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis (base of 504 of Minami) (as the base of 504 of Minami can be made of carbon fiber, while the traction pad is a resilient material, and therefore would be a lower durometer than the plate shell/chassis). Otherwise, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the traction pad to have a lower durometer than the shell/chassis of the modified sole structure of Minami in order to “help the wearer “feel” the ball beneath his/her feet, may assist the wearer in knowing where the ball is located and what is it doing (with a lesser need for the player to look down at the ball), and may help the wearer better control the ball (e.g., by better knowing the ball position and what the ball is doing). The hardness of the projection material may impact the amount of force transmitted to the wearer's foot (e.g., with harder projections 202 bending less readily and thus potentially transmitting more force to the wearer's foot)” (see para. 0054 of McLachlan) and since has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses an article of footwear (100) incorporating the sole structure of Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Claim(s) 11-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami in view of Droege.
Regarding claim 11, Minami discloses a sole structure (504, Figs. 5-6) for an article of footwear (100), the sole structure comprising: at least one of a plate shell or a plate chassis (as the base of 504 can be considered a plate shell or chassis as para. 0056 indicates it is similar to sole structure 104, and para. 0021 indicates 104 can be made of Pebax, TPU, or carbon fiber) extending from a forefoot region (10) of the sole structure to a heel region (14) of the sole structure and defining a peripheral edge of the sole structure (as seen in Fig. 5); a plurality of first traction elements (510 shown in annotated Fig. 5) extending from the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis and arranged in an annular pattern in a forefoot region of the sole structure (as seen in Fig. 5); a first rib (116 on medial side 16) extending along the peripheral edge of the sole structure from a first end adjacent to the forefoot region of the sole structure to a second end adjacent to the heel region of the sole structure (see annotated Fig. 5); and
a second rib (116 on lateral side 18) extending between the first rib and a lateral side of the sole structure (as seen in Fig. 5) from a third end adjacent to the forefoot region (10) of the sole structure to a fourth end adjacent to the heel region (14) of the sole structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 5).
Minami does not expressly disclose the first rib including a traction member attached to and extending along the first rib; and a traction pad attached to the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis and surrounded by the plurality of the first traction elements.
Droege teaches composite sole structures with a chassis comprising a first rib (110), the first rib including a traction member (161) attached to and extending along the first rib (see Figs. 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a traction member to the first rib of Minami as taught by Droege an order “to facilitate desired traction with soccer ball” (see col. 15, lines 55-57 of Droege).
Regarding claim 12, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) includes a first traction element disposed at the first end of the first rib and a second traction element disposed at the second end of the first rib (as seen in annotated Fig. 5, there are traction elements 510 and 112 at the ends of the first rib).
Regarding claim 13, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first traction element (510 at the first end of the medial rib 116, see annotated Fig. 5) is a directional traction element (as it not circular) having a leading end facing the second end of the first rib (as it has a lower end that can be considered a leading end that faces the 2nd end of the rib, see Fig. 5) and the second traction element (112 at the 2nd end of the medial rib 116, see annotated Fig. 5) is a directional traction element having a leading end facing the first end of the first rib (as can be seen in Fig. 5, this traction element has an upper end that can be considered a leading end that faces the 1st end of the rib).
Regarding claim 14, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) extends along a medial side (16) of the sole structure (504) and at least partially defines a portion of the peripheral edge (as the term "edge" is structurally broad and has a definition of "the border, brim, or margin of a surface, object, etc." (Noun defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com), then the rib can be considered part of the peripheral edge since it is within a margin of the periphery).
Regarding claim 15, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) extends along an arcuate path from the first end to the second end and defines a concave ball receiving zone along a medial side of the sole structure (as seen in annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first rib (116 on medial side 16) includes a concave first sidewall facing a medial side (16) of the sole structure and a convex second sidewall facing a lateral side (18) of the sole structure (as understood from annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the first traction elements (see annotated Fig. 5) are elongate traction elements arranged in a directional annular pattern in the forefoot region (10) (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 5, the traction elements are elongated and in a directional annual pattern in the forefoot area).
Regarding claim 20, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses an article of footwear (100) incorporating the sole structure of Claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection above).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami and Droege as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of McLachlan.
Regarding claim 18, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses all the limitations of claim 11 above, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a traction pad attached to the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis and surrounded by the plurality of the first traction elements.
McLachlan teaches foot a sole structure with traction elements comprising a traction pad (200) attached to the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis (via base 210B, see Figs. 2-3) and surrounded by the plurality of the first traction elements (110, best seen in Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a traction pad surrounded by the plurality of first traction elements to the modified sole structure of Minami as taught by McLachlan as the traction pad and its projections “assist athletes in sports that include contact and/or control of a ball with the bottom of a foot, such as soccer/global football. As some more specific examples, the projections may assist in one or more of: gripping the ball, transmitting “feel” of the ball through the sole to the wearer's foot (e.g., producing proprioceptive benefits), and/or providing tactile and/or audio feedback confirming contact with the ball” (see para. 0011 of McLachlan).
Regarding claim 19, the modified sole structure of Minami discloses wherein the traction pad (200 of McLachlan) includes a resilient material (as disclosed in para. 0054 of McLachlan) having a lower durometer than the at least one of the plate shell or the plate chassis (base of 504 of Minami) (as the base of 504 of Minami can be made of carbon fiber, while the traction pad is a resilient material, and therefore would be a lower durometer than the plate shell/chassis). Otherwise, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the traction pad to have a lower durometer than the shell/chassis of the modified sole structure of Minami in order to “help the wearer “feel” the ball beneath his/her feet, may assist the wearer in knowing where the ball is located and what is it doing (with a lesser need for the player to look down at the ball), and may help the wearer better control the ball (e.g., by better knowing the ball position and what the ball is doing). The hardness of the projection material may impact the amount of force transmitted to the wearer's foot (e.g., with harder projections 202 bending less readily and thus potentially transmitting more force to the wearer's foot)” (see para. 0054 of McLachlan) and since has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
1016
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 (Minami)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 17 (and claims 3 and 13 at least for depending from a rejected claim) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Applicant argues that the plurality traction elements extend from the plate shell or chassis and the first traction element is claimed as extending from the rib and thus it is clear they are different structures (Remarks, top of p. 8). However, rib 248 also extends from the shell 202 as shown in Fig. 5, thus based on the specification, the claims remain indefinite and Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite “further comprising”.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Applicant argues the limitation if fully consistent with the specification (Remarks, bottom of p. 8-top of p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per claims 1 and 11, the peripheral edge of the sole structure is defined by the shell/chassis and the rib extends along the peripheral edge, i.e. the plate/chassis, but then in claims 4 and 14, the rib “at least partially defines a portion of the peripheral edge.” It is unclear if the rib extends along the peripheral edge, i.e. the plate/chassis or is part of the peripheral edge, i.e. the plate/chassis.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Applicant agues the claims are definite because no separate or additional annular pattern is introduced and the annular patter of claims 1 and 11 is being narrowed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner has interpreted the same as Applicant, based on the specification, the claim itself remains unclear because it appears an additional annular pattern is being claimed. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein the first traction elements are elongate traction elements arranged directionally in [[a]] the annular pattern in the forefoot region.”
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 3, 2026 with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Chua (US 2023/0248117) and Shiller (US 2016/0286905) each shows footwear with a traction pad surrounded by traction elements, Yoshida (US 2018/0343979) and Minami (US 2013/0067777) each shows a sole structure with lateral and medial ribs in the midfoot.
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 HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights