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 1: Fig.1-6C in the reply filed on June 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-7 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cross (US 2019/0366667).
Regarding Claim 1, Cross discloses an article of footwear, comprising: an upper (12); and a sole structure (14) having a medial side, a lateral side, and a longitudinal direction extending between a toe end and a heel end (as seen in Fig.5), the sole structure attached to the upper (para.41 & 43) and comprising: an outsole (122) having a ground-facing surface (at 54) and an opposite foot-facing surface (at 128), a midsole (120) joined to the foot-facing surface of the outsole (as seen in Fig.9), a first curvilinear sipe extending through the ground-facing surface, the foot-facing surface, and into the midsole (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9 and as seen in the annotated Figure below), the first curvilinear sipe extending in the longitudinal direction on a medial side of a longitudinal midline of the sole structure and having a first apex that is medial-side facing (as seen in the annotated Figure below), and a second curvilinear sipe extending through the ground-facing surface, the foot-facing surface, and into the midsole (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9 and as seen in the annotated Figure below), the second curvilinear sipe extending in the longitudinal direction on a lateral side of the longitudinal midline of the sole structure and having a second apex that is lateral-side facing (as seen in the annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
676
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first curvilinear sipe comprises a first sidewall (right 74 of sipe) and a second sidewall (left 74 of sipe) that converge in the midsole (para.52-53; as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 2, wherein the first sidewall (right 74 of sipe) extends through the outsole at the ground-facing surface at a first angle and the second sidewall (left 74 of sipe) extends through the outsole at the ground-facing surface at a second angle that is different from the first angle (para.52-53; as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9, the angles are “different” in that they are in different locations).
Regarding Claim 4, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 1 further comprising a plurality of transverse sipes (82) intersecting the first curvilinear sipe and the second curvilinear sipe (as seen in the annotated Figure above), wherein the plurality of transverse sipes extend through a perimeter of the sole structure (as seen in the annotated Figure above & evidenced by Fig.8).
Regarding Claim 5, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 4, wherein a first transverse sipe (one of 82) of the plurality of transverse sipes has a first distance (as evidenced by annotated Fig.9 below) between a first side of the first transverse sipe (right 74 of sipe) and a second side of the first transverse sipe (right 74 of sipe) at the ground-facing surface and a second distance between the first side and the second side at the foot-facing surface, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (para.53; as evidenced by annotated Fig.9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
353
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of transverse sipes (82) extend through the medial side and the lateral side of the sole structure (as seen in Fig.5).
Regarding Claim 7, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of transverse sipes (82) are curvilinear (as seen in Fig.5).
Regarding Claim 13, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 2, wherein the first sidewall (right 74 of sipe) and the second sidewall (left 74 of sipe) converge in a transverse direction at a first end and a second end of the first curvilinear sipe (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Cross discloses an article of footwear, comprising: an upper (12); and a sole structure (14) having a medial side, a lateral side, a forefoot region, a midfoot region and a heel region (as seen in Fig.5), the sole structure attached to the upper (para.41 & 43) and comprising: an outsole (122) having a ground-facing surface (at 54), an opposite foot-facing surface (at 128), a medial edge and a lateral edge (as seen in Fig.5 & 8); a midsole (120) joined to the foot-facing surface of the outsole (as seen in Fig.9); a medial sipe extending through the ground-facing surface, the foot-facing surface, and into the midsole (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9 and as seen in the annotated Figure with Claim 1), the medial sipe having a medial sipe edge (i.e. medial edge of medial 74 of medial sipe) that is offset from and corresponding to the medial edge in at least a portion of the forefoot region (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9 and as seen in the annotated Figure with Claim 1); and a lateral sipe extending through the ground-facing surface, the foot-facing surface, and into the midsole (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9 and as seen in the annotated Figure with Claim 1), the lateral sipe having a lateral sipe edge (i.e. lateral edge of lateral 74 of lateral sipe) that is offset from and corresponding to the lateral edge for at least a portion of the forefoot region (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9 and as seen in the annotated Figure with Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 14, wherein the medial sipe has a first end in the forefoot region, an opposing second end in the midfoot region or the heel region, and a first apex between the first end and the second end, wherein the second end is closer to a longitudinal midline of the sole structure than the first apex (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
676
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the lateral sipe has a third end in the forefoot region, an opposing fourth end in the midfoot region or the heel region, and a second apex between the third end and the fourth end, wherein the third end is closer to the longitudinal midline of the sole structure than the second apex (see annotated Figure with Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 17, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 16, wherein the second end of the medial sipe and the fourth end of the lateral sipe are closer to the longitudinal midline than the first apex and the second apex in the forefoot region (see annotated Figure with Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 18, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 14, wherein the medial and lateral sipes each comprise a first sidewall (right 74 of sipe) and a second sidewall (left 74 of sipe) that converge in the midsole (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9).
Regarding Claim 19, Cross discloses an article of footwear of claim 18, wherein each of the first and second sidewalls comprises an outsole portion (122) and a midsole portion (120) that are coplanar with each other and at an angle with the ground-facing surface (as seen in Fig.9).
Regarding Claim 20, Cross discloses an article of footwear, comprising: an upper (12); and a sole structure (14) having a perimeter defined by a medial side, a lateral side, a toe end and a heel end, the perimeter forming a forefoot region and a heel region (as seen in Fig.5 & 8), the sole structure attached to the upper (para.41 & 43), the sole structure having a ground-facing surface (at 54), the sole structure comprising: a medial sipe having a first apex of a first curve in a medial direction within at least a part of the forefoot region (see annotated Figure with Claim 1), the medial sipe extending through the ground-facing surface and into the sole structure (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9), wherein the medial sipe is contained within the perimeter (as seen in Fig.1 & 8); a lateral sipe having a second apex of a second curve in a lateral direction within at least a portion of the forefoot region (see annotated Figure with Claim 1), the lateral sipe extending through the ground-facing surface and into the sole structure (as seen in Fig.3-4 & 9), wherein the lateral sipe is contained within the perimeter (as seen in Fig.1 & 8); and a plurality of transverse sipes (82) intersecting the medial sipe and the lateral sipe, wherein the plurality of transverse sipes extend through the perimeter (as seen in the annotated Figure above & evidenced by Fig.8).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
2. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross (US 2019/0366667) in view of Kobayashi (US 2002/0040539).
Regarding Claim 8, Cross discloses the invention substantially as claimed above. Cross does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of transverse sipes have a heelward facing apex between the first curvilinear sipe and the second curvilinear sipe. However, Kobayashi teaches a sole having a plurality of transverse sipes (Ch in the forefoot) have a heelward facing apex between curvilinear sipes (Ct)(as seen in Fig.1-2; para.29-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the transverse sipes of Cross so that they each have a heelward facing apex between the first curvilinear sipe and the second curvilinear sipe, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to provide the optimum traction arrangement for the sport a user is engaged in while wearing the shoe.
3. Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross (US 2019/0366667).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Cross discloses the invention substantially as claimed above; including the first and second curvilinear sipes being offset from the sole edges by a consistent and equal distance (as seen in Fig.3). Cross does not explicitly disclose wherein along a first portion of a lateral edge of the sole structure the second curvilinear sipe is offset by a consistent first transverse distance from the lateral edge and along a second portion of a medial edge of the sole structure the first curvilinear sipe is offset by a consistent second transverse distance from the medial edge; wherein the first transverse distance is equal to the second transverse distance. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the distance of the first and second curvilinear sipes from the sole edges of Cross to be a consistent distance along a portion of the sipes and edges, in order to provide the optimum sole stability and traction to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are 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. The claims are indicated as allowable as Cross does not teach the medial end of the transverse sipes being more heelward than a first intersection of the at least one of the plurality of transverse sipes and the first curvilinear sipe of Claim 9. To modify Cross to have such a structure would be hindsight reasoning based on Applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Wills (US 2024/0016256) teaches a sole with an outsole and midsole having longitudinal and transverse sipes; and Bishop (US 2013/0152428) teaches a sole with an outsole and midsole having longitudinal and transverse sipes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
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, Alissa J. Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights