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 Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 11/22/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (2022/0227086 of record) hereinafter Yeh in view of Hannemann et al. (US2020/0156292 of record) hereinafter Hannemann.
Regarding claim 1, Yeh teaches:
A method of manufacturing a sole structure ([0070]), the method comprising:
melting a first material in a first injection line (Fig 1, 12: second material 801, injector 701; [0003, 0065-0066]);
providing a second material in a second injection line (Fig 1, 6: first material 301, injector 201; [0051]).
injecting a first blowing agent into the first material, wherein the first blowing agent is a supercritical fluid ([0066]);
co-injecting the first material and the second material into a mold to form the sole structure (Fig 1, 6, 12: lower mold 102; [0070]), the first material being injected from a first injection chamber (Fig 12: second passage 601b) and the second material being injected from a second injection chamber (Fig 6: first passage 101b), and
wherein the first blowing agent nucleates within the mold to expand and foam the first material within the mold ([0067]).
Yeh does not teach melting a first material in a first plasticization zone of a first injection line;
melting a second material in a second plasticization zone of a second injection line;
injecting a first blowing agent into the first material within a first mixing zone of the first injection line, wherein the first blowing agent is a supercritical fluid within the first mixing zone; and
a first injection chamber that is separated from the first mixing zone by a first orifice.
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Hannemann teaches an automated injection line having a plasticization zone for melting a material (Fig 3, Annotated Fig 3; [0041]) and injecting a blowing agent into the material within a mixing zone of the injection line (Fig 3, Annotated Fig 3; [0042-0043]), wherein the blowing agent is a supercritical fluid within the mixing zone ([0045]) and a first injection chamber that is separated from the mixing zone by a first orifice (Annotated Fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second injection lines as taught by Yeh with the automated injection line having different zones as taught by Hannemann in order to improve quality and reduce variability.
Regarding claim 2, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 1.
Yeh further teaches the second material can be foamable ([0051]).
Hannemann injecting a blowing agent into a foamable material within a mixing zone of an injection line.
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches injecting a second blowing agent into the second material within a second mixing zone of the second injection line.
Regarding claim 3, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 2.
Yeh further teaches the second material can be foamable ([0051]).
Yeh further teaches a blowing agent nucleates within the mold to expand and foam a material within the mold ([0067]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein the second blowing agent nucleates within the mold to expand and foam the second material within the mold.
Regarding claim 4, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 2.
Hannemann further teaches wherein the plasticization zone is separated from the mixing zone by an orifice (Fig 3, Annotated Fig 3).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein the first plasticization zone is separated from the first mixing zone by a second orifice and the second plasticization zone is separated from the second mixing zone by a third orifice.
Regarding claim 5, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 2.
Hannemann further teaches wherein the mixing zone is separated from an injection chamber by an orifice (Fig , Annotated Fig 33: nozzle 306).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein the second mixing zone is separated from the second injection chamber by a fourth orifice.
Regarding claim 8, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 1.
Hannemann further teaches wherein a pressure gradient exists between the mold the injection chamber, such that the mold is a lower pressure than the injection chamber ([0020]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein a pressure gradient exists between the mold and each of the first injection chamber and the second injection chamber, such that the mold is a lower pressure than each of the first injection chamber and the second injection chamber.
Regarding claim 9, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 1.
Yeh further teaches wherein the first material forms a midsole of the sole structure and the second material forms an outsole of the sole structure ([0070]).
Regarding claim 10, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 1.
Yeh further teaches wherein the first blowing agent is at least one of nitrogen and carbon dioxide ([0066]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh in view of Hannemann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wardlaw et al. (US 2019/0291371 of record) hereinafter Wardlaw.
Regarding claim 6, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 1.
Yeh in view of Hannemann does not teach placing a preformed component into the mold.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding of footwear, Wardlaw teaches placing a preformed component into the mold for the motivation of controlling the movement and expansion of the expanded material of the cushioning element during use (Fig 6: functional element 640; [0043-0045, 0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Yeh in view of Hannemann to place a preformed component in the mold as taught by Wardlaw in order to control the movement and expansion of the expanded material of the cushioning element during use.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh in view of Hannemann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baghdadi et al. (US2021/0276294 of record) hereinafter Baghdadi.
Regarding claim 7, Yeh in view of Hannemann teaches the method of claim 1.
Yeh in view of Hannemann does not teach wherein at least one of the first injection chamber and the second injection chamber includes a plurality of injection chambers.
In the same field of endeavor regarding injection molding, Baghdadi teaches an injection chamber that includes a plurality of injection chambers for the motivation of effectively distributing material into the mold cavity (Fig 5-6: nozzle-receiving openings 136a-136h, nozzles 138; [0044, 0161]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection chambers as taught by Yeh in view of Hannemann with the plurality of injection chambers as taught by Baghdadi in order to effectively distribute material into the mold cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that the prior art does not teach a first injection chamber that is separated from the first mixing zone by a first orifice. However, Hannemann teaches the above limitations. As cited in the previous office action, [0042-0043] teaches a mixing zone located “downstream of the heating devices 307 and upstream of a nozzle 306” which can be seen in cited Fig 3. As cited in the previous office action, the injection chamber is interpreted to be nozzle 306. As cited in the previous office action, Fig 3 illustrates an orifice formed by the barrel 312 and the interface between the mixing zone and injection chamber which separates the two zones. As a matter of convenience, an annotated version of Fig 3 of Hannemann is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Yeh and Hannemann that the current office action should be non-final due the alleged failure to provide any motivation to combine. However, as cited in the previous and current action, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of the two references “for the motivation of improving quality and reducing variability ([0004])” as taught by Hannemann.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm 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, 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741