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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11, 14-16, 23-27, 35-36, 38, 43, 56-58, 61-62, 64, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek et al. (US 2014/0182170) in view of Koyess et al. (8,387,286) and Labonte et al. (US 2018/0185735, hereinafter “Labonte ‘735”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 14, and 44, Wawrousek discloses a skate (see ¶0289) comprising:
a skate boot configured to receive a foot of a user; and
a skating device below the skate boot and configured to engage a skating surface; wherein:
the skating device comprises a blade for engaging the skating surface and a blade holder (e.g., blade attachment in ¶0289) for connecting the blade to the skate boot;
the skate comprises a first additively-manufactured (see e.g., ¶0014 and 0274 describing how the footwear can be formed from 3D printing) component (e.g., the sole and upper see ¶0254) comprising a plurality of distinct layers structurally different from one another and layered on one another (see e.g., ¶0277 describing how distinct layers of potentially different material are layered together; further, the layering can be more mechanical where different portions formed by additive manufacturing can be “heat welded, fused, bonded, or otherwise attached” – see ¶0236; furthermore, different portions of the skate that are each additively manufactured, such as the upper, sole, and blade holder while taking into account the different desired physical properties for a given components – see ¶s0162 and 0237-0238 );
a first one of the distinct layers is an outer zone (e.g., the upper 150) of the footwear that is configured to face at least one of a medial side and a lateral side of the user’s foot; and
a second additively-manufactured component that forms the blade (see ¶289) and that comprises a plurality of distinct layers structurally different from one another and layered on one another (as discussed above, ¶0277 describes how the additively-manufactured components can be made with distinct layers of potentially different material layered together; further, the layering can be more mechanical where different portions formed by additive manufacturing can be “heat welded, fused, bonded, or otherwise attached” – see ¶0236) resulting in 3d-printed sub-components having different physical characteristics.
Wawrousek discloses that the footwear can be a skate and that substantially all of the components of a skate can be additively-manufactured (see ¶0289 describing how the blade, blade holder, sole, and the upper can all be made/customized through the use of additive-manufacturing), but Wawrousek does not explicitly recite the specific sub-components that cooperatively define each of these basic skate components, such as the upper being formed from multiple layers; that one layer may have different stiffness than another; or that the blade comprises distinct structurally different layers.
Koyess teaches an ice skate (100) including a boot (102) with an upper shell (106) formed of a plurality of sub-shells (120, 122). The sub-shells include an outer shell layer (120) that is stiffer than the inner shell layer (122; see e.g., Claims 1-2). Further, the upper portion of the boot includes additional layers, e.g., boot facing 112, tongue 110, reinforcing members 124, that overlie each other to cooperatively form the boot/upper of the skate (see e.g., Figs. 1-2).
Labonte ‘735 teaches another ice skate wherein the blade (52) can be formed by interconnecting layers of distinct materials (e.g., metallic material of blade base 116 is different from the metallic material of the blade anchor 118 - see e.g., ¶0078) and having different properties, including embodiments where the blade (52) includes voids (90) that are hollow air-containing cells that do enclosed/do not extend through (see e.g., ¶s 0107 and 0120).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the skate of Wawrousek to make the skate from conventional overlayered subcomponents having different physical properties, such as stiffness, as taught by Koyess to form the customizable, additively manufactured upper/boot of Wawrousek to have a stiffer outer layer over an inner layer and to form a cell-containing multi-material blade as taught by Labonte ‘735 to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying known techniques (e.g., combining layers of material having different physical properties to cooperatively form a skate upper/boot and blade) to known devices (e.g., ice skates formed via 3d printing) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., an ice skate that can have a custom stiffness property in its boot and blades that are lighter, see Labonte ‘735 at ¶0107).
Regarding claims 2, 4-5 and 68, Wawrousek discloses that the skate is an ice skate where the boot (sole/upper), metal blade, and/or the blade holder are also additively manufactured (see ¶0289).
Regarding claim 11, Wawrousek further discloses that the layers differ in resiliency (see e.g., ¶0277 describing that the different elements/layers can be formed from different materials, such as plastics and metals, which have different resiliency). Further, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the combination’s blade taught in the Labonte ‘735 can use different metals in different layers of the skate blade (see ¶0078).
Regarding claims 15-16, 23-27, Wawrousek further discloses that at least some of the layers of the upper/first sub-component can be formed as a lattice having differing spacing, orientation, and cross-sections (e.g., see upper 610 in Fig. 36), wherein the lattice is additively manufactured using the above-described different materials with different densities).
Regarding claims 35-36, Wawrousek discloses that padding can be formed using the disclosed additive manufacturing process (see e.g., ¶0241 and 0288), but does not specifically recite that the disclosed skate places padding between the skate and the user’s ankle.
Koyess teaches the well-known expedient of placing padding, including ankle padding (126) within an ice skate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the skate of the Wawrousek combination to further include inner padding as taught by Koyess to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., placing padding in equipment to protect vulnerable regions on an athlete) to known devices (e.g., 3D printed skate boots and 3D printed padding) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 38, Wawrousek further discloses that the skate/footwear can include an insole/liner which can be manufactured in the same (additive manufacturing) method (see ¶s 0231 and 0234; see also Figs. 40-42).
Regarding claim 43, Wawrousek further discloses that the skate/footwear can include a footbed (e.g., upper surface 555 of midsole 500/530; see Fig. 34 and ¶0229-0232 describing the upper surface 555 as a load distribution plate for a user’s foot) which is manufactured in the same (additive manufacturing) method.
Regarding claim 56-58, and 61, Wawrousek further discloses that a separate thinner insole/plate can be placed within the shoe to cover and separate the first component/lattice/midsole 530 from the user’s foot (see e.g., ¶0245 and Figs. 40-42 providing for a distinct plate/liner 745 attached to the midsole/footbed 500).
Regarding claim 62, Wawrousek discloses that a metal skate blade can be 3D printed (see ¶0289), but does not provide that the ice-engaging portion of the blade is a non-lattice member.
Labonte ‘735 teaches the well-known expedient of forming an ice skate’s ice-engaging edge from a single metal strip (i.e., non-lattice; see e.g., cross-section of base 116 in Fig. 11) which allows for repeated resharpening of the skate blade (¶0080 and 0088).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the skate of the Wawrousek combination to further re-sharpenable non-lattice edge as taught by Labonte ‘735 in the 3d printed layered skate blade of Wawrousek to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., providing additional, consistent material along a surface that is to be refinished) to known devices (e.g., 3D printed skate boots) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 64, Wawrousek further discloses that the 3D printed material can include fiber-reinforcing material (see ¶0275).
Claims 65-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek in view of Koyess and Labonte ‘735 as applied to claim 64 above, and further in view of Mark (10,226,103).
Regarding claims 65-67, as discussed above with respect to claim 64, Wawrousek discloses that an additively manufactured layers of the skate/footwear can include fiber reinforcing materials in the layers, but does not specifically recite the applicator type or configuration of the fiber reinforcing material.
Mark teaches another footwear item that is formed using additive manufacturing where the layers include a continuous fiber which is laid along the entirety of the item by following a defined 3D print tool path (see Fig. 3 and Col. 16, lines 43-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the skate of the Wawrousek combination to include a continuous fiber 3D print layering as taught by Mark to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (continuous fiber 3D printed layers) for another (generic fiber reinforced 3D printed layers) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a skate element having improved tensile strength of a continuous rather than chopped fiber).
Claims 244 and 250 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek in view of Labonte ‘735 and Labonte (US 2006/0179686, hereinafter “Labonte ‘686”)).
Regarding claim 244, Wawrousek discloses a skate (see ¶0289) comprising:
a skate boot configured to receive a foot of a user; and
a skating device below the skate boot and configured to engage a skating surface, the skating device comprising a blade for engaging the skating surface and a blade holder for connecting the blade to the skate boot (e.g., the skate’s blade and blade attachment, see ¶0289);
wherein the skate comprises:
a first additively-manufactured component (see e.g., ¶0014 and 0274 describing how the footwear can be formed from 3D printing, including the boot/upper, midsole, blade holder and blade) comprising a lattice (see e.g., Figs. 32 and 36A-C showing footwear formed from a lattice having differing spacing, orientation, and cross-sections including an upper 610 in Figs. 36A-C; as described in ¶0225-0226, the lattice is formed from a distribution of elongate elements and nodes that are arranged to provide areas of increased or decreased support, cushioning, and/or stability, while ¶0236 provides that any of the lattice-based additive manufacturing methods can also be applied in forming an upper or portions thereof), the lattice having a plurality of distinct zones structurally different from one another (see the different thicknesses, shapes, and spacing of the different layers forming the lattice in Figs. 36A-C);
a second additively-manufactured component that forms the blade (see e.g., ¶0277 describing how the additively-manufactured components can be made with distinct layers of potentially different material layered together; further, the layering can be more mechanical where different portions formed by additive manufacturing can be “heat welded, fused, bonded, or otherwise attached” – see ¶0236) and that comprises a plurality of layers, layers on one another.
Further, Wawrousek discloses that the footwear/skate is made by additive manufacturing to take advantage of the ability to customize the device for a given purpose or athlete (see e.g., ¶0161-0169). This customization is based on such factors as the athlete’s stride or “other athletic motion” and technique (see ¶0167 and ¶0172), the specific sport (e.g., ice skating, hockey, speed skating, see ¶0168), desired performance (¶0168), and measured/predicted forces to be applied on the device during use (see e.g., ¶0171-0177). Wawrousek further discloses that different regions of the customized device can be adjusted for more or less support, stability, and cushioning in different regions of the lattice – see ¶0225-0226).
While Wawrousek discloses that the skate/footwear includes an upper which can be reasonably interpreted to medial and lateral sides of the skate, the additively manufactured skate being customizable to suit a desired athletic motion and that such customization can be through how the lattices forming the skate are arranged (see citations above, including stiffness properties of the skate elements -- see ¶0221), it does not, however, explicitly provide for skate-specific subcomponents or the relative physical properties of those subcomponents, such as the a medial, lateral, or plantar surface side being stiffer than a tendon guard or that the blade layers are distinct and structurally different.
Labonte ‘735 teaches another ice skate wherein the blade (52) can be formed by interconnecting layers of distinct materials (e.g., metallic material of blade base 116 is different from the metallic material of the blade anchor 118 - see e.g., ¶0078) and having different properties, including embodiments where the blade (52) includes voids (90) that are hollow air-containing cells that do enclosed/do not extend through (see e.g., ¶s 0107 and 0120).
Labonte ‘686 teaches that an ice skate having the well-known configuration of an hockey skate having a tendon guard (42/18) wherein the tendon guard (42) being less stiff than the medial and lateral covering outer shell (12; see ¶0033 and 0041).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the skate of Wawrousek to make the skate blade having distinct material layers as taught by Labonte ‘735 and make the regions that are affected by greater forces to be stiffer than other more-flexible regions, such as the sides of the upper versus the tendon guard as taught by Labonte ‘686 to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying known techniques (e.g., combining layers of material having different physical properties to cooperatively form a skate upper/boot and blade) to known devices (e.g., ice skates formed via 3d printing) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g., an ice skate that can have a custom stiffness property in its boot and blades that are lighter, see Labonte ‘735 at ¶0107). Here, one skilled in the relevant art could apply the teachings of Wawrousek to focus the forces being applied to maximize transfer of power from the athlete to the ice to improve speed/maneuvering response by making those regions stiffer to reduce power loss through damping/cushioning, while still benefitting from a skate having additional protections for a user’s Achilles tendon.
Regarding claim 250¸Wawrousek further discloses that the lattice (e.g., lattice 530) can be covered by a covering element or skin (see ¶0229-0230).
Claims 245 and 251-252 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wawrousek in view of Lefebvre et al. (10,413,804) and Labonte ‘735.
Regarding claims 245 and 252, Wawrousek discloses a skate (see ¶0289) comprising:
a skate boot configured to receive a foot of a user; and
a skating device below the skate boot and configured to engage a skating surface, the skating device comprising a blade for engaging the skating surface and a blade holder for connecting the blade to the skate boot (e.g., the skate’s blade and blade attachment, see ¶0289);
wherein the skate comprises: a first additively-manufactured component (see e.g., ¶0014 and 0274 describing how the footwear can be formed from 3D printing, including the boot/upper, midsole, blade holder and blade) comprising a lattice (see e.g., Figs. 32 and 36A-C showing footwear formed from a lattice having differing spacing, orientation, and cross-sections including an upper 610 in Figs. 36A-C and a sole portion 500 in Figs 40A-42; as described in ¶0225-0226, the lattice is formed from a distribution of elongate elements and nodes that are arranged to provide areas of increased or decreased support, cushioning, and/or stability, while ¶0236 further provides that any of the lattice-based additive manufacturing methods can also be applied in forming an upper or portions thereof), the lattice having a plurality of distinct zones structurally different from one another (see the different thicknesses, shapes, and spacing of the different layers forming the lattices in Figs. 36A-C and Figs. 40-42).
Further, Wawrousek discloses that the footwear/skate is made by additive manufacturing to take advantage of the ability to customize the device for a given purpose or athlete (see e.g., ¶0161-0169). This customization is based on such factors as the athlete’s stride or “other athletic motion” and technique (see ¶0167 and ¶0172), the specific sport (e.g., ice skating, hockey, speed skating, see ¶0168), desired performance (¶0168), and measured/predicted forces to be applied on the device during use (see e.g., ¶0171-0177). Wawrousek further discloses that different regions of the customized device can be adjusted for more or less support, stability, and cushioning in different regions of the lattice – see ¶0225-0226).
While Wawrousek discloses that the skate/footwear is customizable to suit a desired athletic motion and that such customization can be through how the lattices forming the skate are arranged (see citations above, including stiffness properties of the skate elements, see ¶0221), it does not explicitly provide for skate-specific subcomponents or the relative physical properties of those subcomponents, such as the sole and toe portions being stiffer than the upper/ankle-facing portion; or that the blade includes closed cells.
Lefebvre teaches that an ice skate having the well-known configuration of a hockey skate. The lower portion (12) is stiffer than the upper portion (14; see Col. 2, lines 36-38). The stiffer lower portion including an integral toe portion (16) and provides a portion of the lower portion (12) to affix the blade holder (32) to the boot (see Col. 4, lines 16-36 describing how the blade holder is mounted to the bottom of the lower portion, which reads upon a sole portion when applying a reasonably broad interpretation of the term “sole”).
Labonte ‘735 teaches another ice skate wherein the blade (52) can be formed by interconnecting layers of distinct materials (e.g., metallic material of blade base 116 is different from the metallic material of the blade anchor 118 - see e.g., ¶0078) and having different properties, including embodiments where the blade (52) includes voids (90) that are hollow air-containing cells that do enclosed/do not extend through (see e.g., ¶s 0107 and 0120).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the skate of Wawrousek to make the regions that are affected by greater forces to be stiffer than other more-flexible regions, such as the sole and toe portion of the boot versus the sides of the upper as taught by Lefebvre and to include weight-saving internal voids in the skate blade as taught by Labonte ‘735 to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. Here, one skilled in the relevant art could apply the teachings of Wawrousek to focus the forces being applied to maximize transfer of power from the athlete to the ice to improve speed/maneuvering response by making those regions stiffer to reduce power loss through damping/cushioning, while still benefitting from a skate having some flexibility to improve comfort while also reducing weight in the blade by including internal voids/cells during the production of the 3D printed blade of Wawrousek.
Regarding claim 251, Wawrousek further discloses that a separate thinner insole/plate can be placed within the shoe to form a liner that covers and separates the lattice/midsole 530 from the user’s foot (see e.g., ¶0245 and Figs. 40-42 providing for a distinct plate/liner 745 attached to the midsole/footbed 500). Even if the thin insole plate of Wawrousek cannot be interpreted as a liner, Lefebvre teaches a hockey skate including the well-known expedient of an inner liner for the user (see Col. 5, lines 40-44). One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Wawrousek to include a liner to improve user comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Particularly, the amendments to the independent claims introduce hockey skate blade-specific structural features that are not necessarily addressed by the more generalized footwear of Wawrousek. The added limitations required additional review and searching of the prior art which resulted in the combination of the teachings of the above prior art related to the general construction and make-up of hockey skates. The teachings of these references show how a skate blade can be formed of different layers of material and can be made to include internal voids. One skilled in the art would understand that known hockey skate design considerations (such as combining different blade materials and providing weight saving voids therein) could still be applied while using Wawrousek’s more customizable additively manufactured layered footwear disclosure to better fine tune these known features for a specific user or use-type.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613