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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 4 and Sub-species C in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Portzline et al. (US 2011/0283560).
Regarding Claim 1, Portzline et al. teaches a golf shoe (see fig. 1H), comprising: an upper (80); and a sole assembly (see annotated Fig.) connected to the upper, wherein the sole assembly comprises a midsole (100f) (Examiner notes that the midsole shown in fig. 1H is not midsole 100f, however the midsole (100f can clearly be used in the shoe shown in fig. 1H) comprising: a first region (see annotated Fig.) located in a medial forefoot region of the sole assembly, a second region (see annotated Fig.) located in a lateral forefoot region of the sole assembly, a third region (see annotated Fig.) located in a medial rearfoot region of the sole assembly, a fourth region (see annotated Fig.) located in a lateral rearfoot region of the sole assembly, and a fifth region (see annotated Fig.) located in a midfoot region of the sole assembly (annotated fig. 1F shows the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth regions being located in the regions as claimed), wherein the first region comprises a foam material with an adaptable material property that changes or varies based on (i) an amount of force exerted by a subject's foot on the foam material and (ii) a velocity of the subject's foot relative to the foam material (Claim 1 teaches “a first foam” and “a second foam,” wherein foam material would necessarily have an adaptable material property that changes based on the force and velocity, as the application of force and velocity clearly changes the foam material, see extrinsic evidence US 20230062223, pg. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the adaptable material property includes a hardness, a softness, a stiffness, and/or a rigidity of the foam material (paragraph [0019] teaches “, the multiple response property areas (and the differences between them) may be characterized as having various properties, such as density, durometer, specific gravity,” therein the property clearly includes a softness).
Regarding Claim 3, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the foam material has (i) a first hardness or stiffness when a first force is exerted on the foam material and (ii) a second hardness or stiffness when a second force is exerted on the foam material, wherein the second force is greater than the first force (Portzline et al. teaches a foam material (see Claim 1) which would necessarily having a first hardness or stiffness when a first force is exerted and a second hardness or stiffness when a second greater force is exerted, as a greater force provides more compression and changes the hardness of the foam material).
Regarding Claim 4, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the first hardness or stiffness is less than the second hardness or stiffness (Portzline et al. teaches a foam material (see Claim 1) which would necessarily having a first hardness or stiffness when a first force is exerted and a second greater hardness or stiffness when a second greater force is exerted, as a greater force provides more compression and increases the hardness of the foam material more than a lesser force) .
Regarding Claim 5, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the foam material has (i) a first hardness or stiffness when the subject's foot moves at a first velocity to compress the foam material and (ii) a second hardness or stiffness when the subject's foot moves at a second velocity to compress the foam material, wherein the second velocity is greater than the first velocity (Portzline et al. teaches a foam material (see Claim 1) which would necessarily having a first hardness or stiffness when a first velocity is exerted and a second hardness or stiffness when a second greater velocity is exerted, as a greater velocity would create a greater force and provide more compression and changes the hardness of the foam material).
Regarding Claim 6, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 5, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the first hardness or stiffness is less than the second hardness or stiffness (Portzline et al. teaches a foam material (see Claim 1) which would necessarily having a first hardness or stiffness when a velocity force is exerted and a second greater hardness or stiffness when a second greater velocity is exerted, as a greater velocity would create a greater force and provide more compression and increases the hardness of the foam material more than a lesser velocity).
Regarding Claim 7, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the first region (see annotated Fig.) is (i) softer than the second region (see annotated Fig.) and the third region (see annotated Fig.) for walking or running (annotated fig. 1f shows the first region having foam (14) that is softer than foam (12) in second and third regions, as paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14.” Wherein the midsole can clearly be used for walking or running) and (ii) firmer or stiffer than the fourth region (see annotated Fig.) for golf-related actions or movements (annotated fig. 1f shows the first region having foam (14) that is softer than foam (12) in the fourth region, as paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14.” Wherein the midsole can clearly be used for golfing).
Regarding Claim 8, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the first region (see annotated Fig.) is firmer than the second region (see annotated Fig.), the third region (see annotated Fig.), the fourth region (see annotated Fig.), and/or the fifth region (see annotated Fig.) to enhance or maximize support and energy transfer when a subject wearing the golf shoe executes a golf-related action or movement (fig. 1f shows the first region having foam (10) which is firmer than foam (12) in the second, third, fourth, and fifth regions as paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14,” wherein the midsole can clearly be used for golfing).
Regarding Claim 9, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the second region (see annotated Fig.) and the third region (see annotated Fig.) are stiffer than the first region (see annotated Fig.), the fourth region (see annotated Fig.), and/or the fifth region (see annotated Fig.) to provide additional control and stability during a golf-related action or movement (fig. 1f shows the second and third regions having foam (10) which is stiffer than foam (12) in the first, fourth, and fifth regions as paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14,” wherein the midsole can clearly be used for golfing).
Regarding Claim 10, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the fourth region is softer than the first region, the second region, the third region, and/or the fifth region to provide a comfortable sole response and feel (fig. 1f shows the fourth region having foam (14) which is softer than foam (12) in the first, second, third, and fifth regions as paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14,” wherein the midsole can clearly provide a comfortable sole response and feel).
Regarding Claim 11, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the first region and the fourth region are softer than the second region, the third region, and/or the fifth region to provide a comfortable sole response and feel (fig. 1f shows the first and fourth region having foam (14) which is softer than foam (12) in the second, third, and fifth regions as paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14,” wherein the midsole can clearly provide a comfortable sole response and feel).
Regarding Claim 12, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the second region and the third region are stiffer than the first region, the fourth region, and/or the fifth region to help guide an inversion or an eversion of the subject's foot( fig. 1f shows the second and third region having foam (10) which is stiffer than foam (12) in the first, fourth, and fifth regions as paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14,” wherein the midsole can clearly help guide an inversion or eversion of the subject’s foot) .
Regarding Claim 13, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the fifth region (see annotated Fig.) is configured as a transition zone that divides the sole assembly into (i) a forefoot region comprising the first region and the second region and (ii) a rearfoot region comprising the third region and the fourth region (annotated fig. 1f shows the fifth region being a transition zone dividing the sole into a forefoot region with the first and second region and a rearfoot region with the third and fourth regions).
Regarding Claim 14, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the midsole (100f) comprises a plurality of different foam materials configured to provide different response characteristics that are optimized for different use cases (paragraph [0022] teaches “first response property material 10 may have a higher density or durometer, with second response property material 12 having a density or durometer that is less than that of first response property material 10, but greater than that of third response property material 14,” wherein the different foams clearly have different response characteristics that are capable of being optimized for different use cases).
Regarding Claim 17, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the foam material comprises an elastic foam (paragraph [0034] teaches “the polymer foam pellets may be ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) pellets. EVA is a polymer that may approach elastomeric materials in softness and flexibility,” wherein EVA is an elastic foam).
Regarding Claim 18, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the foam material comprises a viscous foam (paragraph [0034] teaches “the polymer foam pellets may be ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) pellets. EVA is a polymer that may approach elastomeric materials in softness and flexibility,” wherein EVA is a viscous foam).
Regarding Claim 19, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Portzline et al. further teaches wherein the sole assembly comprises a first zone (see annotated Fig.) comprising the first region, a second zone (see annotated Fig.) comprising the second region and the third region, a third zone (see annotated Fig.) comprising the fourth region, and a fourth zone (see annotated Fig.) comprising the fifth region, wherein the second zone is configured to extend across the midfoot region of sole assembly from the second region to the third region (annotated fig. 1f shows the first, second, third, and fourth zones comprising the respective regions and the second zone extending across the midfoot region from the second to the third region).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
590
737
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portzline et al. (US 2011/0283560) in view of Gallegos (US 2009/0133288).
Regarding Claim 15, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Portzline et al. does not teach wherein the foam material comprises an open cell foam.
However, it is known in the art from Gallegos that open cell foam is suitable for forming a midsole (paragraph [0050] teaches “The padding 13 may be constructed of a closed-cell foam 14b material, see. e.g., FIG. 12, having a density in the range of about 0.08 g/cc to 0.50 g/cc, or of other suitable densities known to one skilled in the art. Alternatively, open-cell foam 14a material, e.g., FIG. 14, having a density in the range of about 0.08 g/cc to 0.40 g/cc may be used”).
As such, since the use of open cell foam is known in the art for this intended use and would only produce the typical results of an extremely soft and highly compressible midsole (paragraph [0051] teaches “Open cell foam is a material where the open-air chambers in the foam are interconnected. This makes for extremely soft and highly compressible foam”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Portzline et al., especially as Portzline et al. does not specify whether the foam material is open or closed cell foam. Further, it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the provision of a specific material recognized in the art as being suitable for the intended use of the claimed component a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 16, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Portzline et al. does not teach wherein the foam material comprises a closed cell foam.
However, it is known in the art from Gallegos that closed cell foam is suitable for forming a midsole (paragraph [0050] teaches “The padding 13 may be constructed of a closed-cell foam 14b material, see. e.g., FIG. 12, having a density in the range of about 0.08 g/cc to 0.50 g/cc, or of other suitable densities known to one skilled in the art.”).
As such, since the use of closed cell foam is known in the art for this intended use and would only produce the typical results of a stable and wear resistant midsole (paragraph [0051] teaches “Closed-cell foam material, in general, may demonstrate a greater resistance to wear… the closed cell foam giving stability”), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Portzline et al., especially as Portzline et al. does not specify whether the foam material is open or closed cell foam. Further, it has been held that when the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the provision of a specific material recognized in the art as being suitable for the intended use of the claimed component a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Portzline et al. (US 2011/0283560) in view of.
Regarding Claim 20, Portzline et al. teaches all of the limitations of the golf shoe of Claim 19, as discussed in the rejections above.
Portzline et al. does not teach an insert integrated with the sole assembly, wherein the insert is configured to extend across the second zone.
Attention is drawn to Nakaya et al., which teaches an analogous article of footwear. Nakaya et al. teaches a sole structure (3), and an insert (7) integrated with the sole assembly (paragraph [0212] teaches “an insole 7 is arranged and attached on the midsole 3”), wherein the insert is configured to extend across the lateral forefoot region and the midfoot region of the sole assembly (figs. 8A-C show the insert extending across the lateral forefoot region (fig. 8A) and the midfoot region (fig. 8B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Portzline et al. to include an insert integrated with the sole assembly, wherein the insert is configured to extend across the second zone so as to add additional cushioning to the sole structure (paragraph [0212] teaches “The insole 7… may be made of a flat plate-shaped foamed material, for example, and softer than the midsole 3.”).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights