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 05/27/2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 9-10 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A and Sub-species i in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “a second portion disposed closer to the upper.” It is suggested the claim is rephrased to recite “a second portion configured to be disposed closer to the upper” so the functional relationship between the elements is more clearly established, and since the upper is not a positively recited structure of the sole structure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims depending from claims objected to under this section are similarly objected to for their dependence on a claim objected to under this section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites “substantially parallel.” The term parallel has an exact meaning in the art defining lines or planes that never intersect. however, the qualifier “substantially” creates ambiguity since it is unclear to what degree or percentage away from parallel would still qualify as substantially parallel. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0270205 A1 to Kosenick.
For claim 1, Kosenick discloses a sole structure (204) for an article of footwear, the sole structure comprising: a first outsole portion (see annotated fig. 6a below);
PNG
media_image1.png
555
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
defining a first ground-engaging surface and extending from a first end to a second end the second end extending in a first direction away from the first ground-engaging surface (see annotated fig. 3 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
519
955
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a second outsole portion disposed adjacent to the first outsole portion, defining a second ground-engaging surface, and extending from a third end to a fourth end, the fourth end extending in a second direction away from the second ground-engaging surface (see annotated fig. 2 below);
PNG
media_image3.png
257
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a channel disposed between and separating the first outsole portion and the second outsole portion (see annotated fig. 6a above).
For claim 2, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first end of the first outsole portion and the third end of the second outsole portion are disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure (see annotated fig. 6a above).
For claim 3, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first end of the first outsole portion is attached to the third end of the second outsole portion proximate to an anterior end of the sole structure (see annotated fig. 6a above).
For claim 4, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 3, wherein a junction of the first end of the first outsole portion and the third end of the second outsole portion is disposed proximate to a terminal end of the channel (see annotated fig. 6a above).
For claim 5, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first outsole portion extends in a direction toward a heel region of the sole structure to a greater extent than the second outsole portion (see annotated fig. 6a above wherein the illustrated “first outsole portion” extends in a direction toward a heel region of the sole structure to a greater extent than the illustrated “second outsole portion”).
For claim 6, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the second end of the first outsole portion extends in the first direction away from the first ground-engaging surface to a greater extent than the fourth end of the second outsole portion extends in the second direction away from the second ground-engaging surface (see annotated fig. 6a above)
For claim 7, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 1, wherein the first outsole portion includes a substantially planar region spaced apart from the first ground-engaging surface and located in a different plane than the first ground-engaging surface, the second end of the first outsole portion disposed within the substantially planar region (upper facing surface at illustrated “second end” is considered planar and in a different plane than the illustrated “first ground-engaging surface.”).
For claim 8, Kosenick discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear (204), the sole structure comprising: a first outsole portion disposed in a heel region of the sole structure and defining a first ground-engaging surface (see annotate fig. 6a below);
PNG
media_image4.png
555
985
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a second outsole portion extending from a first end defining a second ground-engaging surface disposed in a forefoot region of the sole structure to a second end disposed in the heel region of the sole structure, the second end spaced apart from the first ground-engaging surface (see annotated fig. 6a above); a third outsole portion extending from a third end defining a third ground-engaging surface disposed in the forefoot region of the sole structure to a fourth end; and a channel extending between and separating at least a portion of the second ground-engaging surface from the third ground-engaging surface in the forefoot region of the sole structure (see annotated fig. 6a above).
For claim 9, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 8, wherein the first end of the second outsole portion is attached to the third end of the third outsole portion proximate to an anterior end of the sole structure (see annotated fig. 6a in the discussion for claim 8 above).
For claim 10, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 9, wherein a junction of the first end of the second outsole portion and the third end of the third outsole portion is disposed proximate to a terminal end of the channel (see annotated fig. 6a in the discussion for claim 8 above).
For claim 11, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 8, wherein the first outsole portion extends in a direction toward a heel region of the sole structure to a greater extent than the second outsole portion (see annotated fig. 6a in the discussion for claim 8 above).
For claim 12, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 8, wherein the fourth end is disposed in a midfoot region of the sole structure (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
257
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For claim 13, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 8, wherein the second outsole portion includes a substantially planar region disposed in the heel region of the sole structure, the second end of the second outsole portion disposed within the substantially planar region (upper facing surface at illustrated “second end” is considered planar).
For claim 14, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 8, wherein the channel includes a variable width along its length (see fig. 6a wherein the illustrated “channel” has variable widths).
For claim 15, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 8, wherein the channel is arcuate (see fig. 6a above wherein the channel walls are curved).
For claim 16, Kosenick discloses a sole structure for an article of footwear (204) having an upper, the sole structure comprising: a first outsole portion (See annotated fig. 6a below);
PNG
media_image5.png
555
996
media_image5.png
Greyscale
including a first portion defining a first ground-engaging surface in a forefoot region of the sole structure and a second portion disposed closer to the upper than the first portion (see annotated fig. 6a above and wherein the upper facing surface at illustrated “second portion” is upward facing and considered closer to the upper than the first portion under the outsole); a second outsole portion including a third portion and a fourth portion extending from the third portion, the third portion joined to the first portion of the first outsole portion at a junction in the forefoot region of the sole structure and defining a second ground-engaging surface and the fourth portion disposed closer to the upper than the third portion (see annotated fig. 6a above and wherein the upper facing surface at illustrated “fourth portion” is upward facing and considered closer to the upper than the third portion under the outsole); and a channel extending between and separating the first portion of the first outsole portion from the third portion of the second outsole portion in the forefoot region of the sole structure (see fig. 6a above)
For claim 17, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 16, wherein the fourth portion of the second outsole portion extends from the third portion of the second outsole portion in a direction toward the upper (see annotated fig. 6a above and wherein the upper facing surface at illustrated “fourth portion” is upward facing and is considered extending upward from the third portion).
For claim 18, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 16, wherein the second portion of the first outsole portion is substantially planar (see annotated fig. 6a above).
For claim 19, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 16, further comprising a third outsole portion defining a third ground-engaging surface, the second portion of the first outsole portion being substantially parallel to the third ground-engaging surface (see annotated fig. 6a above wherein the illustrated second portion and the third ground engaging surfaces are considered planer and parallel).
For claim 20, Kosenick discloses the sole structure of Claim 16, wherein the channel extends from a midfoot region of the sole structure to a distal end disposed proximate to the junction of the first outsole portion and the second outsole portion (see annotated fig. 6a above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICK I LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3262. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:30pm 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, 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.
/ERICK I LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights