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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 47 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bordin, US 20200223167 in view of WO 2020182261, hereinafter WO’261 listed in IDS translation provided .
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.
Claim(s) 47,50, 53-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Bordin, US 20200223167 in view of WO 2020182261, hereinafter WO’261 listed in IDS translation provided.
Regarding Claim 47, Bordin discloses method for manufacturing a footwear (footwear-1, abstract), said method comprising the steps of: providing a footwear upper (Figure 1-2, upper- 2), wherein the footwear upper comprises a the lower end of the footwear upper (Figure 1-2, lower end of the upper -2 is mid sole -4 which is part of the sole-3); providing a mould (Figure 6a-b, mould-10), wherein the mould comprises at least two side mould parts (Figure-9A, the two half-rings -20 are designed to enclose mould parts-16), fixating the lower end of the footwear upper at least partly to the at least two side moulds parts (Figures 6a, b, the two half-rings-20 are designed to enclose mould parts-16 abuts against the upper-2 lower end )….., providing a mould closing member (Figure 9a, [0011], [0094], closing edge/member-34); closing the mould (Figure 24, [0125]); and injecting direct injection material into the mould by a direct injection process for manufacturing of a sole (Figure 9, injection channels-56,57), wherein the sole comprises a side/lateral surface ( Figures 1-2, sole-3 has the side surface) and thereby attaching the lower end of the footwear upper to the side surface (Figures 6,18, [0092]) of the sole at least partly by the direct injection process for manufacturing of the sole (Claim 1, [0096]).
Bordin discloses that the two side mould parts-16 are provided with guiding means 24 designed to slidably engage with corresponding guiding means 26 provided in the base 12 (Figure 4-5, [0070); however it didn’t explicitly disclose that fixating the lower end of the footwear upper lower end at least partly to the at least two side mould parts prior to closing of the at least two side mould parts. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, WO’261 discloses that fixating the lower end of the footwear upper at least partly to the at least two side mould parts prior to closing of the at least two side mould parts (Figures 5-7, lower end of the footwear upper-34, two side mould part with lip 70 abuts the lower end of the upper footwear, page-14 , page -18, para-1)
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify Bordin’s teaching with that of the WO’261 teaching of closing the mold parts after the lower end of the footwear has been fixed for the purpose of expanding the material in the cavity prior to closing the mold parts.
Regarding Claim 50, Bordin discloses wherein the lower end of the footwear upper is at least partly fixated to the mould at least two side mould parts prior to the direct injection process ([0160]).
Regarding Claim 53, Bordin discloses at least one of the at least two side mould parts of the mould is pivotable, wherein, prior to the step of fixating the footwear upper lower end at least partly to the two side moulds at least two side mould parts, said at least one of the at least two side mould parts of the mould has been pivoted to facilitate access for positioning the footwear upper lower end (Figure 11D, 48, [0114]].
Regarding Claim 54, Bordin discloses wherein the step of closing the mould comprises moving said at least two side mould parts (16) towards said mould closing member from each side of the mould closing member (Figure 9a, closing member/edge-34).
Regarding Claim 55, Bordin discloses wherein the footwear upper lower end that has been fixated at least partly to the at least two side mould parts (16), is moved in a direction essentially perpendicular to the footwear upper lower end when closing the mould (Figure 11D).
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordin, US 20200223167 and WO 2020182261, hereinafter WO’261 listed in IDS translation provided as applied to Claim 47 in view of Ernst US 20160073732.
Regarding Claim 48, Bordin discloses upper lower end-19 of the top is attached against the base-12 to form the cavity-13 ([0068], [0096]), but did not disclose that step of fixating the lower endof the footwear upper at least partly to the mould at least two side mould parts is mediated by vacuum. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Ernst discloses vacuum-452 provides suction to the mold cavity (Figure 10, [0091]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify Bordin’s teaching with that of Ernst’s vacuum for the purpose of provide suction to draw out the air and provide firm attachment in the mold parts.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordin, US 20200223167 and WO 2020182261, hereinafter WO’261 listed in IDS translation provided . as applied to Claim 47 in view of Foffano (US 5955017)
Regarding Claim 56, Bordin discloses ,wherein the mould further comprises a bottom mould upper lower end-19 of the top is attached but did not disclose that the bottom mould is being moved upwards prior to and/or during the step of injecting direct injection material into the mould to position the bottom mould at a position corresponding to a desired thickness of the sole.
In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Foffano discloses that plunger-8 moves the bottom part the sole-4 to a desired thickness (Figures 5-6, Col 3 line 12-16, col 3 line 27-34).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Bordin’s system of the footwear with that of the plunger of Foffano for the purpose of controlled flow of the injected material for the desired thickness of the sole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights