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 I (footwear as shown in figure 37) in the reply filed on 7/14/2026 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 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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0383422 (Bidal).
Regarding claims 1-20, Bidal discloses a golf shoe, comprising:
an upper (upper);
a sole assembly (14,16) attached to the upper, the sole assembly comprising a midsole (14) and an outsole (16) comprising a plurality of tracks (any set of traction elements is defined by an imaginary line that extends through adjacent traction elements) extending across the outsole in a plurality of different directions; and
a plurality of traction elements (25 (e.g. 70,72,74,76,78,82, etc.) arranged along the plurality of tracks, wherein the plurality of traction elements comprises:
(i) a first set of traction elements comprising one or more stability elements (pivot cones 76);
(ii) a second set of traction elements comprising one or more medium studs (medium size cones 70);
(iii) a third set of traction elements comprising one or more locking elements (locking cones 78); and
(iv) a fourth set of traction elements comprising one or more small studs (small size cones 72).
Regarding clam 2, see stability cones (76).
Regarding claims 3-7; see the figures (e.g. figures 11 and 13-18) showing the truncated cone or conical frustum (e.g. 76,70,72,76) having different shapes and profiles as claimed (also see ¶0020,0066,0076,0079 and 0083). With regard to the locking elements with one or more arms or fins, at least see figures 11 and 13 showing locking elements (78 with at least two arms or fins). Regarding recess/depression in locking elements (claim 6), see figure 17 which shows the traction element (25 (locking cone 78) with recess/depression).
Regarding claims 8-20, at least see figures 11 and 13-18 showing the plurality of different traction elements all on the same and different tracks as claimed. A track is defined by an imaginary line extending through at least two or more traction element.
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.
Claims 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidal ‘422.
Bidal teaches a golf shoe as claimed (see the rejection above) including the traction elements having a plurality of different traction elements; see the figures and at least ¶0020,0066,0076,0079,0083.
However, to the extent that one or more of the traction elements as shown in the figures are NOT disposed along the same or different traction as claimed, it would appear to be an obvious design choice to construct the different traction elements of the golf shoe as taught by Bidal with the different traction elements disposed along the same or different traction elements as claimed inasmuch as a number of different combinations of the different traction elements appear to be suitable depending on the individual wearer and the terrain (sand, short grass, tall grass, etc.) being used. The view is buttressed by applicant's disclosure which does not reveal that the use of the specific combination of different traction elements along the same or different tracks as claimed solves any particular problem and/or yields any unexpected results.
Double Patenting
A review of the double patenting and/or obvious type double patenting will be deferred to indication of allowable subject matter, inasmuch as in the current state of the claims there could be several possibilities such as US 12,507,765 which have all or most of the elements of the claimed golf shoe. With regard to the locking elements this is taught in Bidal and could be combined with ‘765 patent.
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.
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