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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/6/2026 These drawings are not entered because they contain new matter. Applicant argues that there is support in the original disclosure, e.g. at ¶0076 an, pages 22, lines 9-15 (Reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
228
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, there is no support for the rings as shown. New figures 16-17 show ribs having a rings shaped portions having the same size (e.g. height, width) throughout; which is not taught in the original disclosure. Plus the number of rings in the original disclosure is also not shown or taught. Furthermore, the last sentence “That is...entire circumference” is confusing because the ribs/protrusions (32,32’) are not interconnected to each other. Therefore, one could not conclude the subject matter as shown in from figures 16-17 from the original disclosure as argued.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant specification doesn’t provide a brief and detailed description of the new figures 16-17; as required by 37 CFR 1.71 and 1.74. See MPEP 608.01 (f). Although, as noted above and they contain new matter.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,4,6,7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0346081 (Bramani).
Regarding claims 1,3,4,6,7 and 9, Bramani discloses a sole structure for a shoe, said sole structure comprising a longitudinally extending sole body (sole 20)
wherein said sole body includes a plurality of columnar portions (lugs, e.g. 1 which can have different shapes including first base (2) and second base (3) which are “cylindrical” see ¶0056. Cylindrical and therefore “columnar portions” as claimed. Moreover, see cross-sections 2B,2C,3B,4B,4C and 9B which have “columnar portions”) that are provided at a lower surface of said sole body,
wherein a bottom surface of said respective columnar portions (lugs) has a ground-contact surface and an outer circumferential surface of said respective columnar portions has a plurality of laterally extending protrusions (e.g. lateral extending projections 4b);
said plurality of laterally extending protrusions (4b) at said outer circumferential surface of said respective columnar portions comprising: a first group of protrusions arranged circumferentially and protruding radially outward; and a second group of protrusions spaced apart from said first group of protrusions in an axial direction, arranged circumferentially and protruding radially outward, wherein each protrusion of said second group of protrusions is not aligned with each protrusion of said first group of protrusions in the axial direction (at least see figures 3A,3B and 4A showing lateral protrusions (4b) as claimed including groups of protrusions that are not aligned with other groups of protrusions).
Regarding claim [3. The sole structure according to claim 1, wherein said plurality of protrusions are provided axially and circumferentially at a proximal-end side to a distal-end side of said columnar portions.] and [4. The sole structure according to claim 1, wherein a distal end of said protrusions has a corner with an edge.]; see figures 3A,3B,4A and ¶0064 with regard to other shapes of the protrusions (4b).
Regarding claim 6 [6. The sole structure according to claim 1, wherein said sole body is integrally formed with said columnar portions and said protrusions.]; at least see figure 2B,3B,4B.
Regarding claim 7, at least see the abstract and ¶0111-0116].
Regarding claim 9, Bramani discloses a sole structure for a shoe, said sole structure comprising a longitudinally extending sole body (sole 20)
wherein said sole body includes a plurality of columnar portions (lugs, e.g. 1 which can have different shapes including first base (2) and second base (3) which are “cylindrical” see ¶0056. Cylindrical and therefore “columnar portions” as claimed. Moreover, see cross-sections 2B,2C,3B,4B,4C and 9B which have “columnar portions”) that are provided at a lower surface of said sole body,
wherein a bottom surface of said respective columnar portions (lugs) has a ground-contact surface and an outer circumferential surface of said respective columnar portions has a plurality of laterally extending protrusions that extend around the entire perimeter of said outer circumferential surface (e.g. lateral extending projections 4b);
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including:
-“The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.”
--“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
-Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06” MPEP 714.02. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED KAVANAUGH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a telephone interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner. Normally telephone interviews can quickly be scheduled. For other types of interviews, 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 on 57-1272-4888. 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.
/Ted Kavanaugh/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3732
Tel: (571) 272-4556
Prosecution Insights