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 application filed on 3/11/2024. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 12 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
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, 3-4, and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hannon et al. (WO 2005/037543 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Hannon”, in view of Jones et al. (WO 2014/015037 A2), hereafter, referred to as “Jones”.
Regarding claim 1, Hannon teaches in claim 15 a method of forming a liquid-proof footwear by providing a liquid-proof barrier layer and a textile layer, and the textile layer being affixed (attached) to the barrier layer. Hannon teaches that the formed layered product for footwear, comprises of: a waterproof and water vapor permeable membrane (14) having a first side and a second side, the membrane comprising a membrane material which is waterproof and water vapor permeable (Hannon, Abstract, Page 12 Lines 1-28, Page 14 Lines 19-33, and Figs. 3-8). Hannon also teaches the layered product comprises a thermoplastic material (24) which covers a portion of the first side of the membrane and comprises a three-dimensional build layer onto the first side of the membrane such that the thermoplastic material of the at least one three-dimensional build layer (24) is bonded to the membrane material of the membrane to create a waterproof region (Hannon, Abstract, Page 1 Line 25 - Page 2 Line 10, Page 12 Lines 1-34, and Figs. 5-6). Hannon teaches a first textile (12) between the first side of the membrane and the three-dimensional build layer (Hannon, Page 12 Lines 1-28 and Figs 3-6). Hannon teaches the three-dimensional build layer is a hot melt adhesive that is rolled onto the at least one first textile (Hannon, Page 18 Lines 5-21). Hannon teaches that when a hot melt adhesive is rolled onto a textile, the hot melt adhesive seeps between the spaces of the yarn onto the underlying layer (Hannon, Page 2 Lines 2-5, 31- 35). Therefore, Hannon teaches that the thermoplastic material is bonded to the membrane material of the membrane through the at least one first textile.
But Hannon is silent regarding the three-dimensional build layer being printed onto the membrane. However, Jones teaches a layered product for footwear comprising a base layer and a thermoplastic three-dimensional build layer printed onto a part of the base layer to form a waterproof (enclosed region of air or other gas or fluid) region (Jones, para. [0001, 0063-0065, 0074-0076, 0093], Figs. 4-5, and 10-13). Both Hannon and Jones are analogous art as they both teach layered products for footwear comprising a base layer and a thermoplastic layer disposed on the base layer to create a waterproof region. 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 teachings of Jones, and to modify Hannon and print the thermoplastic layer of Hannon onto the membrane of Hannon, which would allow for a waterproof region formed with any desired pattern (Jones, para. [0065 and 0069-0070]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hannon teaches that the first textile comprises polyamide (nylon) monofilaments (Hannon, Page 2 Lines 31-35, Page 12 Lines 1-28, and Page 17 Lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hannon teaches that the membrane material comprises a porous membrane material (Hannon, Page 17 lines 16-21) and the thermoplastic material of the three-dimensional build layer extends into the pores of the porous membrane material (Hannon, Page 1 Line 32 - Page 2 Line 35, Page 12 Lines 1-34, and Page 18 Lines 5-21).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hannon teaches that the membrane material comprises a nonporous membrane material, wherein the thermoplastic material of the at least one three-dimensional build layer is melted with the non-porous membrane material (Hannon, Page 1 Line 32 - Page 2 Line 35, Page 12 Lines 1-34, Page 17 lines 16-21, and Page 18 Lines 5-21).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hannon teaches that the thermoplastic material comprises polyurethane (Hannon, Page 18 Lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hannon teaches that the thermoplastic material comprises a thermoplastic blend (hot melt polyurethane adhesive) (Hannon, Page 1 Lines 32-36 and Page 18 Lines 5- 11) and covers a seam to form a flexible and durable seam (Hannon, Page 6 Lines 17-19, Page 7 Lines 22- 31, and Fig. 6). Therefore, the thermoplastic material is a flexible thermoplastic and satisfies the claimed limitation of a thermoplastic elastomer and/or blend.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hannon teaches that the three-dimensional build layer comprises a polyurethane (Hannon, Page 1 Lines 32-36 and Page 18 Lines 5-11) and covers a seam to form a flexible and durable seam (Hannon, Page 6 Lines 17-19, Page 7 Lines 22-31, and Fig. 6). Therefore, the three-dimensional build layer is a flexible material and satisfies the claimed limitation of an elastic material.
Regarding claim 10, modified Hannon teaches that the membrane comprises at least one seam (Hannon, Abstract, Page 12 Lines 1-34, and Figs 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hannon teaches that that the seam is covered by the three-dimensional build layer which forms a waterproof seal of the seam (Hannon, Page 10 Lines 15-24, Page 12 Lines 1-28, and Fig 6).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hannon teaches that the first textile has a somewhat open structure to allow for easy penetration of the thermoplastic material and to allow for durable, liquid-proof seals (Hannon, Page 2 Lines 31-35, Page 5 Lines 4-10). Although modified Hannon is silent regarding the specific porosity of the first textile, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to create the first textile to have a porosity that renders obvious the claimed ranges with a reasonable expectation of allowing the thermoplastic material to penetrate the textile to form a durable, liquid-proof seal, see MPEP 2144.05, I & II.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hannon teaches that the membrane material comprises an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Hannon, Page 17 Lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hannon teaches that a shape of the waterproof and water vapor permeable membrane is a three-dimensional bootie (Hannon, Page 11 Lines 31-36, Page 14 Lines 9-15 and Figs 15-16) comprising at least one seam on a bottom thereof, wherein the seam is covered by the three-dimensional build layer which forms a waterproof seal of the seam (Hannon, Page 10 Lines 15-24, Page 12 Lines 1-28, and Fig 6).
Regarding claims 15, Jones teaches that the 3D printing comprises selectively depositing the thermoplastic material onto the first textile layer from a dispenser, by teaching that the layered product for footwear comprising a base layer and a thermoplastic three-dimensional build layer is 3D printed onto a part of the base layer to form a waterproof (enclosed region of air or other gas or fluid) region (Jones, para. [0001, 0063-0065, 0074-0076, 0093], Figs. 4-5, and 10-13). Jones also teaches the adjusting of the distance between the printhead 92 and the upper 20 (depositing surface) (para. [0072]). It would be obvious to any ordinary artisan to control the gap at an optimized value between the printhead and substrate, as gap is crucial in 3D printing because it controls material deposition, print quality, adhesion, and prevents collisions, with too small a gap causing nozzle clogs and too large a gap leading to ink mist, droplet inaccuracy, and poor layer bonding, affecting everything from part strength to dimensional accuracy. Therefore, maintaining a distance of 0.05 mm to 0.15 mm to a first textile printing surface from the dispenser, would be a matter of gap optimization, which would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 16, Jones teaches that the 3D printing comprises selectively depositing the thermoplastic material onto the first textile layer from a dispenser, by teaching that the layered product for footwear comprising a base layer and a thermoplastic three-dimensional build layer is 3D printed onto a part of the base layer to form a waterproof (enclosed region of air or other gas or fluid) region (Jones, para. [0001, 0063-0065, 0074-0076, 0093], Figs. 4-5, and 10-13). Jones also teaches the adjusting of the temperature of the material during 3D printing process (para. [0078]). It would be obvious to any ordinary artisan to control the melting temperature at an optimized value, as temperature is critical in 3D printing for polyurethane on fabric for footwear because it controls material flow by controlling viscosity, layer adhesion, part strength, ensuring the flexible, durable, and defect-free soles and components bond well to fabric without melting or deforming the base material. Therefore, maintaining the thermoplastic material is deposition temperature at 210-250 °C, would be a matter of temperature optimization, which would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 applies here. Hannon teaches a footwear comprising an upper and a sole, wherein the upper comprises a layered product, comprising: a waterproof and water vapor permeable membrane (14) having a first side and a second side, the membrane comprising a membrane material which is waterproof and water vapor permeable (Hannon, Abstract, Page 7 Lines 12-18, Page 12 Lines 1-28, Page 14 Lines 19-33, and Figs 3-8). Hannon teaches the layered product comprises a thermoplastic material (24) which covers a portion of the first side of the membrane and comprises a three-dimensional build layer onto the first side of the membrane such that the thermoplastic material of the at least one three-dimensional build layer (24) is bonded to the membrane material of the membrane to create a waterproof region (Hannon, Abstract, Page 1 Line 25 - Page 2 Line 10, Page 12 Lines 1-34, and Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hannon teaches that the upper comprises an outer material and the layered product is part of the outer material (Hannon, Abstract, Page 7 Lines 12-18, Page 12 Lines 1-28).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hannon teaches that the thermoplastic material forms at least a part of the sole (Hannon, Abstract, Page 1 Lines 25-page 2, line 10, Page 12 Lines 1-28).
Regarding claim 20, modified Hannon teaches that the textile-attached waterproof and water vapor permeable membrane forms at least part of the upper ((Hannon, Abstract, Page 1 Lines 25-page 2, line 10, Page 7 Lines 12-18, Page 12 Lines 1-28).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hannon et al. {WO 2005/037543 A1), in view of Jones et al. (WO 2014/015037 A2), further in view of Podhajny (US Patent Number 8997530 B1), hereafter, referred to as “Podhajny”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hannon teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1-2. Modified Hannon teaches the first textile comprises filaments (Hannon, Page 2 Lines 31-35 and Page 12 Lines 1-28). Modified Hannon teaches the thermoplastic material is melted when applied to the layered product including the first textile (Hannon, Page 1 Line 36 - Page 2 Line 10, Page 18 Lines 5-11, and Fig. 6; Jones, Par 0074-0077).
But modified Hannon is silent regarding that at least part of the filaments of the first textile is at least partly melted with the thermoplastic material. However, Podhajny teaches a layered product for footwear comprising a textile layer where the textile comprises fusible filaments (Podhajny, Abstract, Col. 8 Lines 19-40, Col. 12 Lines 60-63, Col. 20 Lines 23-41, and Col. 21 7-28). Both modified Hannon and Podhajny are analogous art as they both teach layered products for footwear comprising a textile layer of filaments. 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 teachings of Podhajny, and have at least some of the filaments of modified Hannon to be fusible and at least partly melt with the thermoplastic material of modified Hannon, because that would allow for improved rigidity of the layered structure (Podhajny, Col. 8 Lines 19-40).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hannon et al. (WO 2005/037543 A1), in view of Jones et al. (WO 2014/015037 A2), further in view of Bowser (US Patent Number 5116650 A), hereafter, referred to as “Bowser”.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hannon teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 5. Modified Hannon teaches a porous, PTFE membrane (Hannon, Page 17 Lines 16-21). But modified Hannon is silent regarding the membrane material having a bubble point of less than 400 kPa. However, Bowser teaches a porous PTFE membrane that has a bubble point of 15-20 psi (103-137 kPa) (Bowser, Col. 3 Lines 48-54 and Col. 5 Lines 15-22), which lies within the claimed range of less than 400 kPa and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Both modified Hannon and Bowser are analogous art as they both teach porous PTFE membranes. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing date the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bowser, and create the membrane of modified Hannon to have a bubble point within the claimed range, because that would allow for a membrane with sufficient pore size to be both waterproof but also gas permeable (Bowser, Col. 1 Line 67 - Col. 2 Line 7).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hannon et al. (WO 2005/037543 A1), in view of Jones et al. (WO 2014/015037 A2), further in view of Komatsu et al. (JP 2003145697 A), hereafter referred to as “Komatsu”.
Regarding claims 12, modified Hannon teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1-2. Modified Hannon teaches the first textile has a somewhat open structure to allow for easy penetration of the thermoplastic material and to allow for durable, liquid-proof seals (Hannon, Page 2 Lines 31-35, Page 5 Lines 4-10). But modified Hannon is silent regarding the textile having a porosity of at least 0.5 g/m2/μm.
However, Komatsu teaches a laminate for footwear (shoe) (Komatsu, Par. 0050) wherein the laminate comprises a porous polyamide textile (Komatsu, Par. 0005-0006 and 0023) wherein the porous film has a basis weight of 13.5 g/m2 and a thickness of 18 μm (Komatsu, para. [0056]). Using the means for calculating porosity provided in the instant specification page 6, this results in a porosity of 0. 75 g/m2/μm, which lies within the claimed ranges greater than 0.5 g/m2/μm, and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Both modified Hannon and Komatsu teach laminates for footwear comprising a porous polyamide layer (Hannon, Page 2 Lines 31-35, Page 12 Lines 1-28, and Page 17 Lines 21-24). 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 teachings of Komatsu, and create the textile layer of modified Hannon to have a porosity within the claimed range, because that would allow for excellent breathability and flexibility (Komatsu, para. [0001 and 0005]).
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