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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 57, 78, and 96 (and their respective dependent claims) 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. Further Applicant arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C 101 rejection and specification objection have been fully considered and they are persuasive in view of amendments. Hence said rejection and objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 66, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 66, recites the limitation "the sole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 57, 66, and 72, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vanderoef (US PGPUB 2022/0061463 A1).
As per claim 57, Vanderoef discloses a method for providing personalized footwear (Vanderoef, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving, via a processor, a foot scan of a user taken using an electronic user device (Vanderoef, paragraph 29, discloses a user device 100, one or more articles such as shoes (e.g., footwear, etc.) 102, a network 104, a remote computing device 106, and a manufacturing machine 108. The user device 100 may execute an application. The application may be associated with a clothing manufacturer. The application may be associated with a shoe manufacturer. The application may allow a user to capture one or more images (e.g., pictures, visual representations, etc.) of the one or more shoes 102 and transmit the one or more images through the network 104 to the remote computing device 106);
generating, via the processor, a digital personalized foot model based, at least in part, on the foot scan (Vanderoef, paragraphs 37-40);
receiving information, via the processor, regarding a post-wear analysis conducted on previously worn footwear of the user (Vanderoef, paragraphs 12, 14, and 26), wherein the post-wear analysis includes an examination of the previously worn footwear after being worn by the user and determination of differential wear on different areas of the previously worn footwear (Vanderoef, Fig. 3a-3b, and Fig. 3C, and paragraphs 26, and 39-41, discloses …Through image capture of the old shoe (the manifestation of the previous works) the systems and methods may determine how their creative expression wears and tears their current shoes and through a powerful algorithm create a new shoe pattern that may be more durable for their specific style of skating);
determining, via the processor, at least one post-wear attribute to associate with the user, based, at least in part, on the post-wear analysis (Vanderoef, paragraphs 26 and 61-62);
generating, via the processor, a digital drawing of a personalized footwear product or footwear component for the user based on the digital personalized foot model and the at least one post-wear attribute (Vanderoef, Fig. 3a-3c, and Fig. 4C, and paragraphs 47-49 and 61); and
sending, via the processor, a control signal to a manufacturing device to manufacture the personalized footwear product or footwear component based on the digital drawing (Vanderoef, paragraphs 29, 61 and 67, discloses The remote computing device may be in communication with a manufacturing machine. The remote computing device may cause the manufacturing machine to make custom uppers for the skate shoe(s) based on the determined severities of each located area of wear and tear. Although reference is made to a skate shoe, images of other footwear or footwear components, such as a midsole or outsole, or apparel components or accessories may be received by the remote computing device for a severity determination and manufacturing instruction communication manufacturing and/or assembly machines or devices).
As per claim 66, Vanderoef further discloses the method of claim 57, wherein the post-wear analysis includes examination of wear on the sole of the previously worn footwear (Vanderoef, paragraphs 34, 36, 58 and 61).
As per claim 72, Vanderoef further discloses the method of claim 57, further comprising updating the digital personalized foot model based on the at least one post-wear attribute to determine an updated version of the digital personalized foot model and wherein the digital drawing of a personalized footwear product or footwear component is based on the updated version of the digital personalized foot model (Vanderoef, Fig. 3a-3b, and Fig. 3C, and paragraphs 26, and 39-41, discloses specifically, for them and their unique style of art through skating. Through image capture of the old shoe (the manifestation of the previous works) the systems and methods may determine how their creative expression wears and tears their current shoes and through a powerful algorithm create a new shoe pattern that may be more durable for their specific style of skating).
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.
Claim(s) 73-76, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderoef (US PGPUB 2022/0061463 A1) and further in view of Shah (US PGPUB 2005/0071935 A1).
As per claim 73, Vanderoef further discloses the method of claim 57, further comprising Vanderoef does not explicitly disclose updating a base footwear template to generate the digital drawing.
Shah discloses updating a base footwear template to generate the digital drawing (Shah, Fig. 1:115:120, and paragraphs 10, 27 and 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderoef teachings by implementing a shoe manufacturing technique to the system, as taught by Shah.
The motivation would be to manufacture shoes for a customer with proper fit such as comfort and balance (paragraph 39), as taught by Shah.
As per claim 74, Vanderoef in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 73, wherein the base footwear template is a base footwear last template (Shah, paragraphs 10 and 27) and the digital drawing is a digital drawing of a personalized footwear last (Shah, paragraphs 27, 30, and 56).
As per claim 75, Vanderoef in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 74, further comprising updating the digital drawing of a personalized footwear last by changing particular vertices and faces on a surface of the digital drawing of a user personalized footwear last based, at least in part, on the personalized foot model and the at least one post-wear attribute (Shah, paragraphs 39-40 and 43).
As per claim 76, Vanderoef further discloses the method of claim 75, further comprising updating the digital drawing of a personalized footwear last automatically through use of a machine learning algorithm to create an automated user footwear last (Vanderoef, paragraphs 26 and 39-40).
Claim(s) 78, 81-82, and 85-90, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torvinen (US PGPUB 2017/0213382 A1) and further in view of Shah (US PGPUB 2005/0071935 A1).
As per claim 78, Trovinen discloses a method for determining personalized footwear, the method comprising:
receiving, via at least one processor, footwear condition data measured by at least one sensor for a user utilizing a particular piece of footwear, wherein the at least one sensor is disposed on the footwear (Trovinen, Figs. 3C-3F, and paragraphs 11-13, and 58, discloses at least one sensor (for example an accelerometer) may be integrated into a running shoe and the sensor data may reflect that the person runs on hard asphalt tracks most of the time);
determining, via the at least one processor, at least one personal attribute to associate with the user based, at least in part, on the footwear condition data (Trovinen, Figs. 3E-3F, and paragraphs 20 and 24);
receiving, via the at least one processor, information regarding at least one physical or contextual personal attribute associated with the user (Trovinen, paragraphs 20, 24, and 74-75);
determining, via the at least one processor, at least one footwear attribute to associate with the user based, at least in part, on the at least one personal attribute obtained via the at least one sensor and the at least one physical or contextual personal attribute (Trovinen, paragraphs 58, 60, 71, and 89-91);
Trovinen does not explicitly disclose determining, via the at least one processor, a digital model of a footwear last for manufacturing a shoe to associate with the user based on the at least one footwear attribute; and
sending, via the at least one processor, a control signal to a manufacturing device to manufacture the footwear last and/or manufacture a shoe using the footwear last.
Shah discloses determining, via the at least one processor, a digital model of a footwear last for manufacturing a shoe to associate with the user based on the at least one footwear attribute (Shah, Fig. 1:115:120, and paragraphs 30-31, and 39-40); and
sending, via the at least one processor, a control signal to a manufacturing device to manufacture the footwear last and/or manufacture a shoe using the footwear last (Shah, Fig. 1:115:120:145:155, and paragraphs 41 and 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Trovinen teachings by implementing a shoe manufacturing technique to the system, as taught by Shah.
The motivation would be to manufacture shoes for a customer with proper fit such as comfort and balance (paragraph 39), as taught by Shah.
As per claim 81, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 78, wherein the step of determining a digital model of a footwear last to associate with the user based on the at least one footwear attribute includes updating a base footwear last template based on the at least one footwear attribute to generate a digital model of a personalized footwear last (Trovinen, paragraphs 58, 64, 66 and 78, discloses the user may already have a sports shoe which was manufactured according to the invention. In this case, there exists already a digital model of this particular shoe. The parameters of this model (e.g. shape of the shoe, materials used, patch placement, etc.) may then be updated based on the sensor data obtained with the already existing shoe in order to obtain a digital model for a new (improved) shoe).
As per claim 82, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 78,wherein the step of sending a control signal to a manufacturing device includes sending the digital model of a personalized footwear last to the manufacturing device to manufacture the footwear last (Trovinen, paragraphs 58, 62, 65, and 141).
As per claim 85, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 78, wherein the at least one footwear attribute comprises at least one predefined footwear attribute selected from at least one database comprising a plurality of predefined footwear attributes via the at least one processor (Trovinen, paragraphs 23, 26, 117 and 119), wherein the plurality of predefined footwear attributes includes a footwear material type, a footwear material property, a footwear material composition, and a footwear construction involving one or more materials (Trovinen, paragraphs 23, 26-28, 92, and 119 discloses The sports shoe may comprise a midsole and at least one parameter of the group comprising material, thickness, stiffness, insulation and/or cushioning properties of the midsole may be adapted based on the received sensor data).
As per claim 86, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 78, further comprising determining a material of the shoe based on the at least one footwear attribute (Trovinen, paragraphs 23, 26-28, 92, and 119, discloses The sports shoe may comprise an upper and at least one parameter of the group comprising material, thickness, stiffness, abrasion resistance and/or, water-proofness, air permeability, insulation).
As per claim 87, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 78, further comprising updating a user profile for the user based, at least in part, on the at least one personal attribute and the at least one physical or contextual personal attribute, via the at least one processor (Trovinen, paragraphs 65, and 75-78).
As per claim 88, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 78, further comprising receiving, via the at least one processor, information regarding a personal post-wear attribute associated with the user (Trovinen, paragraphs 58, 64, 66 and 78, discloses the user may already have a sports shoe which was manufactured according to the invention. In this case, there exists already a digital model of this particular shoe. The parameters of this model (e.g. shape of the shoe, materials used, patch placement, etc.) may then be updated based on the sensor data obtained with the already existing shoe in order to obtain a digital model for a new (improved) shoe), and
determining, via the at least one processor, at least one updated footwear attribute to associate with the user based, at least in part, on the personal post-wear attribute (Trovinen, paragraphs 23, 26-28, 58, 64, 66 and 78).
As per claim 89, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 88, wherein the personal post-wear attribute includes heel erosion, heel wear, sole wear, insole wear, midsole wear, wear on other portions of the footwear, or material degradation (Trovinen, paragraphs 88-89 and 120).
As per claim 90, Trovinen in view of Shah further discloses the method of claim 88, further comprising identifying at least one predefined footwear attribute to associate with the user based, at least in part, on the post- wear attribute from at least one database comprising a plurality of predefined footwear attributes, via the at least one processor (Trovinen, paragraphs 23, 26-28, 58, 64, 66 and 78).
Claim(s) 96, and 102-104, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderoef (US PGPUB 2022/0061463 A1) and further in view of Torvinen (US PGPUB 2017/0213382 A1).
As per claim 96, Vanderoef discloses a system for providing personalized footwear (Vanderoef, Fig. 1), the system comprising:
at least one processor and (storing) instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Vanderoef, paragraph 29), cause the system to:
receive a foot scan of a user taken using an electronic user device (Vanderoef, paragraph 29, discloses a user device 100, one or more articles such as shoes (e.g., footwear, etc.) 102, a network 104, a remote computing device 106, and a manufacturing machine 108. The user device 100 may execute an application. The application may be associated with a clothing manufacturer. The application may be associated with a shoe manufacturer. The application may allow a user to capture one or more images (e.g., pictures, visual representations, etc.) of the one or more shoes 102 and transmit the one or more images through the network 104 to the remote computing device 106);
generate a digital personalized foot model based, at least in part, on the foot scan (Vanderoef, paragraphs 37-40);
receive information regarding a post-wear analysis conducted on previously worn footwear of the user (Vanderoef, paragraphs 12, 14, and 26), wherein the post-wear analysis includes an examination of the previously worn footwear after being worn by the user and determination of differential wear on different areas of the previously worn footwear (Vanderoef, Fig. 3a-3c, and Fig. 4c, and paragraphs 26, and 39-41, discloses specifically, for them and their unique style of art through skating. Through image capture of the old shoe (the manifestation of the previous works) the systems and methods may determine how their creative expression wears and tears their current shoes and through a powerful algorithm create a new shoe pattern that may be more durable for their specific style of skating);
determine at least one post-wear attribute to associate with the user, based, at least in part, on the post-wear analysis (Vanderoef, paragraphs 26 and 61-62);
generate a digital drawing of a personalized footwear product or footwear component for the user based on the digital personalized foot model and the at least one post-wear attribute (Vanderoef, Fig. 3a-3c, and Fig. 4C, and paragraphs 47-49 and 61); and
send a control signal to a manufacturing device to manufacture the personalized footwear product or footwear component based on the digital drawing (Vanderoef, paragraphs 61 and 67, discloses The remote computing device may be in communication with a manufacturing machine. The remote computing device may cause the manufacturing machine to make custom uppers for the skate shoe(s) based on the determined severities of each located area of wear and tear. Although reference is made to a skate shoe, images of other footwear or footwear components, such as a midsole or outsole, or apparel components or accessories may be received by the remote computing device for a severity determination and manufacturing instruction communication manufacturing and/or assembly machines or devices).
Vanderoef discloses a processor which is capable of executing instruction (paragraph 29), however does not explicitly disclose at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions. Even though said limitation would have been obvious in view of Vanderoef teachings, further said limitation is well known in the art for instance Torvinen discloses at least one processor and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions (Torvinen, paragraph 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vanderoef teachings by implementing a memory to the system, as taught by Torvinen.
The motivation would be to provide customized shoes with improved performance (paragraph 21), as taught by Torvinen.
As per claim 102, Vanderoef in view of Trovinen further discloses the system of claim 96, wherein the digital drawing is a computer aided design (CAD) drawing (Torvinen, paragraph 64) and the digital drawing is sent to the manufacturing device to manufacture the personalized footwear product or footwear component based on the digital drawing (Vanderoef, paragraphs 29, 61 and 67).
As per claim 103, Vanderoef in view of Trovinen further discloses the system of claim 102, wherein the system is caused by the processor executing the instructions to update the digital personalized foot model based on the at least one post-wear attribute to determine an updated version of the digital personalized foot model (Trovinen, paragraphs 58, 64, 66 and 78) and wherein the digital drawing of a personalized footwear product or footwear component is based on the updated version of the digital personalized foot model (Vanderoef, Fig. 3a-3b, and Fig. 3C, and paragraphs 26, and 39-41).
As per claim 104, Vanderoef in view of Trovinen further discloses the system of claim 96, wherein the post-wear analysis includes using a scanning device to conduct at least a portion of the examination (Vanderoef, paragraphs 3, 13, and 26).
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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633