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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 11/13/2025. Currently claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/13/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent Application No 18/576,684 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Degandt (EP 3786 353 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Degandt”, in view of Wu (GB 2 456 177 A), hereafter, referred to as “Wu”.
Regarding claim 1, Degandt teaches a method for obtaining an article formed from a thermoplastic matrix (para. [0056]: "examples of articles are shoe soles"), said method comprising:
formulating inputs comprising at least one source of thermoplastic material (claim 1: "the composite granules comprise a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE)") and at least one source of filler (claim 1: "particles and/or fibre fragments");
mixing and grinding said inputs (para. [0051]: "cutting up or grinding textile waste; “mechanically mixing'');
injection molding said ground mixture to obtain the article (para. [0059]: "by injection moulding"; the injection moulding process is interpreted as a moulding process where the material is pressed in a mould);
that the source of filler including articles to be recycled comprising at least one textile material (claim 4: "textile waste products or recycled textile material").
But Degandt fails to explicitly teach the use of a thermos-compressing process to obtain the article. However, However, Wu teaches in claim 1, to manufacture shoe soles by steps of mixing and stirring recycled raw materials, rubbers and other additive ingredients, followed by molding and shaping. Wu also teaches to use heating and pressurization by a hydraulic device for curing and shaping to form the article (claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Wu, and substitute the injection molding process with a thermos-compressing process, because that would allow to form an article to obtain predictable results, which would also be an environmental-friendly process (KSR Rationale B, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with molded article of recycled source, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the substitution.
Regarding claim 2, Degandt teaches a method comprising formulating inputs, the source of filler comprises one of a group including articles of clothing, footwear, and accessories to be recycled; by teaching to use textile waste products or recycled textile material (claim 4).
Regarding claim 3, Degandt teaches a method for obtaining an article (shoe sole) (para. [0056]) formed from a thermoplastic matrix (abstract). But Degandt fails to explicitly teach in formulating inputs, the inputs comprise of footwear articles to be recycled which has a textile upper and a sole made of thermoplastic material. However, Wu teaches in claim 1, to use recycled shoes for the manufacturing of shoe sole. Wu teaches that a raw material {10), which comprises a recycled main body comprised of used and discarded recycled shoes 11, including general used sports shoes, leather shoes, work shoes, informal footwear, which can be any type of broken and discarded shoes, and both indoor and outdoor shoes can be recycled and used for manufacturing the environmental-protection shoe sole (page 10, lines 13-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Wu, and use footwear articles to be recycled which has a textile upper and a sole made of thermoplastic material, because that would lead to an environmentally friendly process.
Regarding claim 4, Degandt teaches a method, wherein the textile material is based on polyester, polyamide, aramid, polypropylene or a blend of at least two of these polymers; by teaching in claim 1, to use particles and/or fibre fragments comprise thermoplastic synthetic material selected from the group of polyamides, polyesters or polyolefins, optionally in combination with TPE.
Regarding claims 7, and 11-13, Degandt teaches a method, wherein the fibre scraps are mixed with thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) and compounded to form composite granules comprising 25% (v/v) fibre scraps, thereby teaching that fibre composition plays an influencing factor on the property of the final article, and would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the input composition comprising between 10% and 30% by weight of textile material (as claimed in claim 7); and the inputs being formulated to have a weight ratio of at most 0.4 between the textile material and the thermoplastic material (as claimed in claim 11), and the mass ratio between the textile filler material and the thermoplastic material is 0.3 (as claimed in claim 12), and the inputs are formulated to have a mass ratio of at least 0.5 between the textile material and the thermoplastic material (as claimed in claim 13) to form appropriate article with desired property would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 9, Degandt teaches a method, wherein the source of thermoplastic material comprises articles to be recycled comprising at least one thermoplastic material (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches a method, wherein the source of thermoplastic material comprises components of footwear articles to be recycled; by teaching to use recycled shoes in the manufacturing of environmental-protection shoe sole (page 3, lines 3-14; page 10, line 12 - page 11, line 9).
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches a method providing for thermos-compressing the ground mixture to the shape of the article; by teaching in claim 5, heating and pressurized by a hydraulic device for curing and shaping to thereby form a shoe sole of environmental-protection material.
Regarding claim 16, Wu teaches a method, wherein the components of footwear articles to be recycled include at least soles of footwear articles; by teaching to use shoe (that includes sole) as source material (page 3, lines 3-14; page 10, line 12 - page 11, line 9).
Claims 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Degandt (EP 3 786 353 A1), in view of Wu (GB 2 456 177 A), in view of Skaja (WO 2009/042599 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Skaja”.
Regarding claims 5-6, Degandt, and Wu together teach a method for obtaining an article (shoe sole) (para. [0056]) formed from a thermoplastic matrix (abstract). But Degandt-Wu fail to explicitly teach the use of textile material comprising elastane. However, Skaja teaches that polymeric materials may be recycled as granules for use to manufacture shoe, including various thermoplastic and elastomeric materials. Non limiting examples of materials that include ethylene-vinyl acetate, polyethylene, and polyurethane (equivalent to elastane) material. Moreover, various types of textiles could also be used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Skaja, and use of textile material comprising elastane (polyurethane) to yield predictable results, and by using recycled materials in an environmentally friendly process. Skaja further teaches that any combination of granules of different types of materials, different shapes, and/or different sizes may be used to form the article (shoe sole). Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan based on the teaching of Skaja, that the textile material comprises yams and/or fibers formed from at least two different materials.
Regarding claim 8, Degandt, and together teach a method for obtaining an article (shoe sole) (para. [0056]) formed from a thermoplastic matrix (abstract). But Degandt and Wu fail to explicitly teach the use of latex. However, Skaja teaches in claims 27, and 37 to use latex in the manufacturing of shoe. Skaja teaches that the latex as binding material (claims 27, and 37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Skaja, and use of latex material to yield predictable results, because it would provide required binding for the manufactured article. It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the latex composition amount would play an influencing factor on the property of the final article, and therefore would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the latex composition between 10% and 25% by weight of latex (as claimed in claim 8); would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Degandt (EP 3 786 353 A1), in view of Wu (GB 2 456 177 A), in view of Krause (US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0220746 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Krause”.
Regarding claim 15, Degandt and Wu together teach a method for obtaining an article (shoe sole) (para. [0056]) formed from a thermoplastic matrix (abstract). But Degandt, and Wu fail to explicitly teach providing for thermo-compressing the ground mixture in the form of a plate, the article then being shaped by molding said plate. However, Krause teaches in Figs. 5A-5B, a rubber mixture 28 being compressed using a hydraulic press, and the mixture is pressed into a sheet 34 after curing as shown in Fig. 6 (para. [0026-0027]). Krause further teaches in Fig. 8 that the die being used on the sheet 34, and teaches in Fig 9, that a shoe sole 38 cut (shaped) from the rubber mixture, which can then be placed into a piece of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Krause, and combine the feature of providing for thermo-compressing the ground mixture in the form of a plate, the article then being shaped by molding said plate, by using recycled materials in an environmentally friendly process to yield predictable results.
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. Additionally, in response to Applicant's submission of Terminal Disclaimer and approval thereupon, the double patenting rejection of record is withdrawn.
Because the rejections are being maintained on the independent claim, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742