Detailed Action
The communications received 01/29/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1- 1-3,6,8,10 and 17 are pending.
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 § 112
The amendments filed 01/29/2026 have removed the rejections of claims 2-3 under 35 USC § 112.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ginns (US 2015/0050379 already of record) hereinafter GIN.
As for claim 1, a mould device for production of footwear by direct injection moulding, the mould device comprising;
A first side mould [Fig. 9A #8];
A second side mould [Fig. 9A #9];
A bottom mould [Fig. 9B #16]; and
A last holding device (second means) [Fig. 2A #31],
Wherein said first side mould and said second side mould are configured to be movable laterally in relation to each other [Fig. 6-7B #37; 0102-0104],
Wherein said bottom mould is configured to be movable vertically in relation to said first side mould and said second side mould (via a piston which elevates the lower mould part and seals the overall mould cavity) [0134], and
Wherein said first side mould, said second side mould, and said bottom mould are configured to define at least part of a mould cavity for said direct injection moulding of footwear [0134].
It is understood that the last holding device is configured to provide a fixation for relative movement of the last or the last holder at least in an upwards direction as it provides support along a vertical axis of the last/last holder [Fig. 2B].
In accordance with the usage of the mould with the last holding device, upon the moulding step the last holder and the mould connect to each other via the last which is pressed against the mould, therefore the mould is configured to connect with the last holder through its last [Fig. 2B].
As for claim 6, GIN teaches claim 1 and that the last holding device is removably fixed to said first side mould and said second side mould (as the last holding device through the last becomes fixed to the first side mould and second side mould when the last ) [Fig. 2B; 0104].
As for claim 8, GIN teaches claim 1 and further a mould lock used to lock in place the first and second side mould together in a relative abutting position (the force means serve as locks by locking the side moulds against each other via applied pneumatic force) [0130-132; Fig. 9B #48 and 50].
As for claim 10, GIN teaches claim 1 and a bottom mould lock for locking said bottom mould relative to said first or second side mould (a piston which locks the lower mould part in place against the first and second side moulds) [0134].
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIN as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kodama (US 2011/0126489) hereinafter KOD.
As for claim 2, GIN teaches claim 1 and further teaches that a key concern of GIN is the sealing of the mould via pressing from below and maintaining the lasts in position via an anti-push-up device [0134] but does not teach two last positioning arm one of each attached to the each of the first and second side moulds.
KOD teaches the formation of a seal via a sealing device utilizing the engagement of an arm which is attached to one element and anchors in another element held against the first, which also prevents the two elements from pushing away from each other [Fig. 4 #46 and 51; 0011; 0071-74; 0075].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added attached positioning arms taught by KOD to the first and second side moulds of GIN which can then anchor into the last in order to further improve the seal of the moulds and prevent the “pushing up” of the last. As both GIN and KOD both seek to solve the same issue pertaining to maintaining a seal and preventing movement of elements pressed together, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to KOD for further improvements to resolving said issue and would have expected success in the combination. In the combination for claims dependent off claim 2, it is understood that the arrangement of the last positioning arms with their engagement features is the “last holding device”.
As for claim 3, GIN/KOD teach claim 2, and wherein said last positioning arms are designed for gripping a part of said last (it is understood it would be anchored in a notch in the last in the combination), when said first side mould and said second side mould are abutting each other (as this would be employed when the mould pieces are brought together to form a seal).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIN as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Schutz et al (US 2019/0210261) hereinafter SCH.
As for claim 17, GIN teaches claim 1 and but does not teach said mould device further comprising an identifier associated with one or more parts of the mould device. However, GIN does teach that mould elements can be exchangeable in order to change the size and design of the mould [0115; 0125].
SCH teaches a production plant for injection moulded articles [0002] in which the mould parts are labelled with RFIDs in order to determine which mould parts are installed in which injection mould machines [0003-12; 0016]. This allows for improved efficiency of the injection moulding machine as the control parameters required for each unique combination of parts can be determined efficiently and effectively [0016; 0021-27].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the RFIDs and their controller elements of SCH to the mould parts of GIN in order to allow for improved efficiency of the injection moulding machine when exchanging mould parts as then the control parameters required for each unique combination of parts can be determined efficiently and effectively. As both SCH and GIN pertain to the arts of injection moulding they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the prior art fails to anticipate the limitations “wherein the mould device is connected to or configured to connect to a last holding device” and “wherein the mould device is configured to provide a fixation for relative movement of a last or a last holder at least in an upwards direction”, respectfully the Examiner disagrees.
In accordance with the usage of the mould with the last holding device, upon the moulding step the last holder and the mould connect to each other via the last which is pressed against the mould, therefore the mould is configured to connect with the last holder through its last. In addition, the mould sets the limits by which the last holder can move in a vertical direction which would include an upwards direction. Therefore the mould provides a fixation for relative movement of a last or last holder in at least an upwards direction.
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 Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748