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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-18 in the reply filed on May 28, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 should likely read –preforming—instead or performing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartel et al. (WO 2021/055529 A1, hereinafter Bartel).
Regarding Claim 1, Bartel teaches a method of forming a midsole for an article of footwear (per [0084] disclosing a plate 10 that is incorporated into a midsole), the method comprising: combining an embroidered structure with a polymer material with a cavity of a mold, wherein the embroidered structure comprises crossing yarns that define an open mesh grid pattern for the embroidered structure ([0070] defining plate 10 as a preform 12 having one or more layers 14 with each of the layers having at least one ply 18 having strands 20 of fibers arranged on a substrate 22, with [0074] disclosing the strands are embroidered and [0077]-[0084] describing how the materials are combined in a mold, with liquid material 16 as defined in [0079] the polymer material with which the embroidered structure is combined); and
subjecting the polymer material to a selected temperature within the mold to form a midsole including the embroidered structure partially embedded in and extending along an exterior su63rface portion of the midsole (per [0081]-[0084] with [0081] in particular noting that strand loops 30 are partially encapsulated by solid polymeric material once the liquid material has solidified, and [0084] indicating that the resulting strand ends 28 are at the outer periphery).
Regarding Claim 2, the polymer material is injected within the cavity of the mold per [0079].
Regarding Claim 4, the claim language is broad enough in what “to form the midsole” means that substeps in the molding read on the language. Thus, defining “the polymer material” in the claim as broadly allowing for both the material injected and the material of plate 10, the substep of molding plate 10 per [0047] reads on the step of performing a first molding process to form the midsole from the polymer material, then placing the plate 10 with embroidered material into the mold for further molding per [0077]-[0084] reads on the final two steps of Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 9, the strand ends being at the outer periphery satisfies the condition that a peripheral border along a side of the embroidered structure is visible along a surface of the midsole that defines a portion of a lateral side of an article of footwear when the midsole is incorporated with the article of footwear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartel as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Bartel teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on the selected temperature. Nonetheless, Bartel does identify the importance of the temperature to achieve curing in [0083] and therefore it would have been obvious to set the temperature from about 180°C to 220°C in order to achieve, curing, since it has been held that finding a workable range requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 17, Bartel teaches in [0004] that shoes conventionally have an upper and outsole attached to the midsole. Thus while Bartel does not explicitly teach that the detailed process of making the midsole is followed by attachment of the outsole and upper to lower and upper peripheral edges of the midsole, respectively, it would have been obvious to couple an outsole and upper with the midsole as claimed, since this would be a combination of known prior art elements to yield the predictable result of a shoe.
Regarding Claim 18, Bartel as applied above discloses the embroidered structure extends over the peripheral edge of the midsole, thus including both the lower and upper peripheral edges.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartel as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Coonrod et al. (US 2022/0110408 A1, hereinafter Coonrod).
Regarding Claim 3, Bartel teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on the possibility of compression molding the midsole as a whole as an alternative to manufacturing it via injection molding.
In analogous art pertaining to shoes, Coonrod teaches in [0061] that compression molding is a known alternative to injection for midsoles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use such compression molding as an alternative in Bartel, since such a substation would be a simple substitution of one molding method for another to achieve the predictable result of midsole manufacturing, wherein compression molding in the combination would be understood to comprise placement of the embroidered structure and a blank comprising the polymer material within the die cavity of the mold, and subjecting the embroidered structure and the blank to a compression molding process within the mold to form the midsole with embroidered structure partially embedded in and along the exterior surface of the midsole, as Bartel recognizes in [0039] that using a blank preform along with strands in a compression mold yields a composite article.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartel as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Zheng et al. (CN 106835485 A, hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding Claim 8, Bartel teaches the method as applied above, but is silent on the yarn properties.
In analogous art pertaining to shoes, Zheng teaches in the Abstract that cationic dyeable polyester yarn is a known yarn for shoe construction, and thus it would have been obvious to use such yarn in Bartel, since such a substation would be a simple substitution of one yarn for another to achieve the predictable result of yarn patterns.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartel as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Luedecke et al. (US 2019/0017205 A1, hereinafter Luedecke).
Regarding Claims 10-16, Bartel teaches in [0070] that multiple layers of the embroidered structure may be made of fibers arranged in selected patterns to impart stiffness and gradient load paths, but is silent on further details about what those patterns could comprise.
In analogous art pertaining to shoes, Luedecke teaches a known embroidery lattice pattern in Figure 6 across multiple layers with four portions of crossing yarn all oriented in different directions, with one pair mutually perpendicular and another pair mutually perpendicular at an angle at least suggestive of an 45° offset.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to employ a known embroidery lattice patten as Luedecke’s in Bartel, thus meeting the claimed requirements, since such a pattern would be a simple substitution of a known pattern to yield the predictable result of imparting stiffness and gradient load.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights