DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 12-25 are pending as amended on 2/6/2026. Claims 17-21 stand withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12-15, 22, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al (US 2017/0259474) in view of Barzegari et al (Characterization of hard-segment crystalline phase of poly(ether-block-amide) (PEBAX®) thermoplastic elastomers in the presence of supercritical CO2 and its impact on foams, Polymer 114 (2017) 15-27) and Narishima et al (US 2005/0038131).
As to claims 12, 15, 22, 24 and 25, Holmes discloses a shoe sole [0010] (corresponding to a molded article) comprising expanded polymer pellets [0009-10] (corresponding to a foam which is a foamed pellet material). The foam is composed of a polyetherblockamide [0011-0016] (corresponding to thermoplastic polyamide TPE-1), and has a density in the range from 20 to 400 kg/m3 [0020] (meeting the presently recited density range). The content of polyether blocks can range from 1 to 90 wt% [0014]. In an embodiment, the polymer used for the production of the expanded polymer pellets consists of 100 wt% polyetherblockamides [0093, 0110] (meeting instant claim 22).
Holmes teaches that the foam can be produced by fusing or connecting expanded polymer pellets (meeting instant claim 15), and that a shoe may comprise the foam in the form of a cushioning element, such as a sole or midsole [0157]. However, Holmes fails to teach a storage modulus at 25 C and 1 Hz from 0.01 to 0.5 MPa.
Barzegari teaches that polyether block amides (Pebax) are thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) consisting of hard polyamide blocks and soft polyether blocks, and exhibit mechanical behavior ranging from thermoplastic to elastomer due to their two-phase morphology (p 15, left). Barzegari discloses that the viscoelastic property-multiphase structure relationships of TPEs have been studied, and cites studies regarding the effects of segment size and distribution on stress-strain and dynamic mechanical properties of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (p 15, right). Barzegari teaches that the unique chemistry of TPEs allows them to obtain a wide range of physical and mechanical properties by changing the hard/soft segment ratio and processing conditions, and that these parameters offer a great range of potential foam applications where crystal size and the degree of crystallinity of TPEs can be manipulated. Barzegari teaches that these interrelated parameters play an important role on the foaming of TPEs (p 16, right).
Narishima discloses an impact cushioning foamed article used as a member of shoe soles [0015]. Narishima teaches that when feet land on the ground during walking or running, a large shock occurs at an initial impact. Narishima discloses optimizing storage modulus at a frequency ranging from 10-200 Hz because it corresponds to the time scale of initial impact (5 to 100 msec) [0021], and teaches that storage modulus at 30 Hz is at least 0.5 MPa from the viewpoint of reducing the deformation/shrinkage upon receiving a shock, and at most 4.0 MPa from the viewpoint of reducing rebound resilience of the foamed article and sufficiently absorbing the shock [0022]. Narishima discloses various ways to control storage modulus, such as by selecting an appropriate amount of chain extender [0058-60], controlling a ratio of soft:hard segments, and selecting an appropriate polyol molecular weight [0076].
[In figure 1, Narishima shows the way storage modulus changes as a function of frequency (in Hz). Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show that storage modulus decreases as frequency decreases; Figure 1(a) shows that for a foam having a storage modulus of 1.54 MPa at 30 Hz and 2.09 MPa at 100 Hz (see Table 2, Example 1 for values), the storage modulus at 1 Hz is about 0.7 MPa. Given that a storage modulus value of 1.54 MPa at 30 Hz corresponds to a storage modulus value at 1 Hz (i.e., 0.7 MPa) which is just outside the claimed upper limit of 0.5 MPa, and further given that Narishima’s disclosed range of storage modulus values at 30 Hz includes a lower endpoint of 0.5 MPa, there is reasonable basis to conclude that Narishima’s disclosed range of storage modulus values of 0.5-4.0 MPa at 30 Hz corresponds to a range of storage modulus values which, when measured at a frequency of 1 Hz, overlaps the presently claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 MPa (as well as the ranges of 0.01 to 0.45 MPa in claim 24 and 0.01 to 0.22 MPa in claim 25).]
Considering Narishima’s disclosure, when forming a foamed shoe sole intended to cushion impact during walking and running, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the storage modulus of the foam in order to achieve a desired balance between reduction in deformation upon receiving a shock, and, ability to absorb a shock. Narishima provides a generalized teaching in [0021-22] regarding reasons to optimize storage modulus in a foam intended as a shoe sole (i.e., to reduce deformation and sufficiently absorb shock), and therefore, one would have found Narishima’s teachings regarding storage modulus to be relevant to Holmes’ disclosure (of a cushioning foamed shoe sole). Considering the general nature of Barzegari’s disclosure on p 16 (first full paragraph in right column) regarding the ability to obtain a wide range of mechanical properties in TPEs by changing the hard/soft segment ratio and processing conditions in TPEs, and, considering Holmes’ teaching that the polyether content can range from 1 to 90 wt%, one would have further understood how to apply Narishima’s teachings regarding adjusting storage modulus to Holmes’ disclosed polyetherblockamide. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a cushioning shoe sole from a foamed material, as disclosed by Holmes, by optimizing Holmes’ foam to exhibit any appropriate storage modulus value (such as within the range taught by Narishima) in order to provide Holmes’ shoe sole with a desired balance of shock absorption and shock deformation properties, including a storage modulus which corresponds to a value within the presently claimed range.
As to claim 13, modified Holmes suggests a molded article as set forth above. Modified Holmes fails to teach a storage modulus in a compact state.
Narishima discloses various ways in which the storage modulus of a polyurethane depends on the chemical structure the polyurethane (e.g., storage modulus is influenced by the hard segment [0037, 0059], and storage modulus is adjusted by selecting an appropriate amount of chain extender [0058-60] and selecting an appropriate polyol molecular weight [0076]). Narishima further teaches that an increase in chain extender amount leads to increase in hardness and storage modulus of urethane foam and worsening in feel [0060]. Given Narishima’s teachings that storage modulus depends on the chemical structure of a polymer, there is reasonable basis to conclude that storage modulus of a polymer in a compact state depends on the chemical structure of the polymer in substantially the same manner as does the storage modulus of polymer in a foamed state. Therefore, given that modified Holmes suggests a molded article formed from a polyetherblockamide which, when foamed, has a storage modulus which falls within the presently claimed range, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the polyetherblockamide in the molded article suggested by modified Holmes must be capable of exhibiting a compact state storage modulus which falls within the presently claimed range.
As to claim 14, modified Holmes suggests a foam as recited in claim 12, as set forth above. Holmes further discloses a method of manufacturing molded components comprising loading pellets into a mold [0145]. Prior to the step of connecting the pellets by heating, a mold filled with the pellets suggested by modified Holmes corresponds to a molded article comprising a shell (the mold) and beads of the foamed pellet material. Alternatively, instant claim 14 does not limit the “shell” to any particular material. Therefore, in a molded shoe sole formed of fused foamed beads, as suggested by modified Holmes, an outer portion of the sole (which includes the surface thereof) can be considered “a shell” as presently recited.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 16 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al (US 2021/0093038) in view of Narishima et al (US 2005/0038131).
As to claims 12, 16, 22, 24 and 25, Wei discloses footwear comprising a sole which contacts the ground during impact to provide cushioning, traction and motion control [0003]. Wei discloses that polymer foams are suited for use in midsole construction because their compression and resiliency attenuate reaction forces created by impact with the ground [0004].
Wei discloses a composite foam composition including an expanded thermoplastic elastomer, such as an expanded thermoplastic poly(ether-amide) (eTPEA), in a pelletized form that is embedded within a polyurethane (PU) matrix [0020]. The combination of pelletized expanded material (foam) embedded in a matrix corresponds to a hybrid foam, as recited in claim 16. Wei’s expanded pellets of eTPEA correspond to the foam composed of TPE-1, which is thermoplastic polyetheramide, and which is a foamed pellet material, as recited in instant claim 12 (and wherein the thermoplastic elastomer consists of eTPEA, as recited in claim 22).
Wei discloses that the expanded thermoplastic elastomer pellets have a density between 0.06 to 0.20 g/cm3 [0025], which is equivalent to 60 to 200 kg/m3, and therefore falls within the presently claimed range.
Wei fails to teach a storage modulus at 25 C and 1 Hz from 0.01 to 0.5 MPa.
Narishima discloses an impact cushioning foamed article used as a member of shoe soles [0015]. Narishima teaches that when feet land on the ground during walking or running, a large shock occurs at an initial impact. Narishima discloses optimizing storage modulus at a frequency ranging from 10-200 Hz because it corresponds to the time scale of initial impact (5 to 100 msec) [0021], and teaches that storage modulus at 30 Hz is at least 0.5 MPa from the viewpoint of reducing the deformation/shrinkage upon receiving a shock, and at most 4.0 MPa from the viewpoint of reducing rebound resilience of the foamed article and sufficiently absorbing the shock [0022].
[In figure 1, Narishima shows how storage modulus changes as a function of frequency (in Hz). Figures 1(a) and 1(b) show that storage modulus decreases as frequency decreases; Figure 1(a) shows that for a foam having a storage modulus of 1.54 MPa at 30 Hz and 2.09 MPa at 100 Hz (see Table 2, Example 1 for values), the storage modulus at 1 Hz is about 0.7 MPa. Given that a storage modulus value of 1.54 MPa at 30 Hz corresponds to a storage modulus value at 1 Hz (i.e., 0.7 MPa) which is just outside the claimed upper limit of 0.5 MPa, and further given that Narishima’s disclosed range of storage modulus values at 30 Hz includes a lower endpoint of 0.5 MPa, there is reasonable basis to conclude that Narishima’s disclosed range of storage modulus values of 0.5-4.0 MPa at 30 Hz corresponds to a range of storage modulus values which, when measured at a frequency of 1 Hz, overlaps the presently claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 MPa (as well as the ranges of 0.01 to 0.45 MPa in claim 24 and 0.01 to 0.22 MPa in claim 25).]
Considering Narishima’s disclosure, when forming a foamed shoe sole intended to cushion impact during walking and running, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the storage modulus of the foam to a value within Narishima’s disclosed range in order to achieve a desired balance between reduction in deformation upon receiving a shock, and, ability to absorb a shock. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art, therefore, to have formed a cushioning shoe sole intended to attenuate reaction forces upon impact with the ground, as disclosed by Wei, by optimizing Wei’s foam to exhibit any appropriate storage modulus value (such as within the range taught by Narishima) in order to provide Wei’s shoe sole with a desired balance of shock absorption and shock deformation properties, including a storage modulus which corresponds to a value within the presently claimed range.
As to claim 13, modified Wei suggests a molded article as set forth above. Modified Wei fails to teach a storage modulus in a compact state.
Narishima discloses various ways in which the storage modulus of a polyurethane depends on the chemical structure the polyurethane (e.g., storage modulus is influenced by the hard segment [0037, 0059], and storage modulus is adjusted by selecting an appropriate amount of chain extender [0058-60] and selecting an appropriate polyol molecular weight [0076]). Narishima further teaches that an increase in chain extender amount leads to increase in hardness and storage modulus of urethane foam and worsening in feel [0060]. Given Narishima’s teachings that storage modulus depends on the chemical structure of a polymer, there is reasonable basis to conclude that storage modulus of a polymer in a compact state depends on the chemical structure of the polymer in substantially the same manner as does the storage modulus of polymer in a foamed state. Therefore, given that modified Wei suggests a molded article comprising eTPEA which, when foamed, has a storage modulus which falls within the presently claimed range, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the eTPEA in the molded article suggested by modified Wei must be capable of exhibiting a compact state storage modulus which falls within the presently claimed range.
As to claims 14 and 23, the instant claims do not limit the “shell” to any particular material. Therefore, in a molded shoe sole formed of a hybrid foam comprising foamed eTPEA beads, as suggested by modified Wei, an outer portion of the sole (which includes the surface thereof) can be considered “a shell” as presently recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and Declaration filed on 2/6/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues (p 6) that Narishima (relied on as a secondary reference for teachings relevant to storage modulus in a cushioning foamed article) is not related to thermoplastic polyetheramide (TPA) foams.
However, Holmes (primary reference) was relied on for the disclosure of a thermoplastic polyetheramide having a Shore D hardness ranging from 20 to 70 Shore D, and a content of polyether blocks ranging from 1 to 90 wt% [0012-14]. Secondary reference Narishima was not relied on for a disclosure of the recited type of elastomer. Rather, Narishima was relied on to establish that, for a foam being used in the types of applications taught by Holmes (shoe soles), it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the storage modulus of the foam to within the presently recited range in order to achieve a desired balance between attenuating shock and suppressing deformation.
As set forth in the rejections of record, Narishima discloses desired properties in an impact cushioning foamed article used for shoe soles, carpets and artificial turfs [0001], with focus on optimizing properties balancing attenuating shock and suppressing deformation in shoe soles [0009]). Similarly, Holmes teaches cushioning elements for sports apparel or sports shoes [0010] and other uses, including artificial turf and flooring [0053], with a focus on soles for shoes [0155]. Holmes’ further contains a discussion of known foams, which includes citations to prior art references teaching both foamed thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) and polyetherblockamide (PEBA) [0003]. Additionally, while Holmes discloses a first aspect of the invention wherein expanded polymer pellets are formed from polyamide [0005-0024], Holmes further discloses a second aspect of the invention wherein molded components are formed from pellets of an expanded polymer material [0025-0038], wherein the polymer material is selected from a list in [0036-37], which includes both PEBA [0036] and TPU [0037]. See also [0137-8]. Considering that Holmes’ list of polymer materials includes both PEBA and TPU, and further considering the general nature of Narishima’s teaching in [0021-22] regarding reasons to optimize storage modulus in a foam intended as a shoe sole (to reduce deformation and sufficiently absorb shock), one would have found Narishima’s teachings regarding storage modulus to be relevant to Holmes’ disclosure (of a cushioning foamed shoe sole).
Applicant argues (p 6) that the range of storage modulus values taught by Narishima is significantly higher than claimed. This argument does not account for the discussion in paragraph 10 of the action mailed on 10/21/2025, which explains how Narishima’s range overlaps the presently claimed range.
Applicant argues (pp 7-8) that the Declaration shows that the claimed foams exhibit significantly lower compression hardnesses at low compression levels, and increased compression hardness at higher compressions, which leads to improved seating comfort.
However, the Declaration shows only a single inventive example of a polyetheramide foam. The foam is made from a specific TPA (Pebax 2533), which is formed into pellet material having a specific bulk density and steam chest molded under specific conditions to provide a foam having a G modulus of 0.21 MPa. In contrast, present claim 1 is not limited to any particular polyetheramide, not limited to the exemplified bulk density, not limited to a foam comprising beads which are fused together, or beads which have been steam chest molded, and not limited to a G modulus of 0.21 MPa. Therefore, the Declaration filed on 2/6/2026 is not sufficient to establish unexpected results associated with the claimed subject matter for at least the reason that Applicant has not shown that an improved compression hardness/seating comfort would be possessed by all molded articles encompassed by the instant claims. Evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. See MPEP 716.02(d). Therefore, if Applicant wishes to overcome the present rejection by showing unexpected results, Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to show that unexpected results would be obtained for all species encompassed by the present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL KAHN whose telephone number is (571)270-7346. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8-5.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. 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.
/RACHEL KAHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights