Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/710,496

DIRECT INJECTION FOOTWEAR MOULD ASSEMBLY AND DIRECT INJECTION FOOTWEAR BOTTOM MOULD ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 15, 2024
Examiner
THROWER, LARRY W
Art Unit
1754
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ecco Sko A/S
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
622 granted / 947 resolved
+0.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
1016
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.0%
+2.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 947 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 1-4, 8-9, 15-19 and 23-25 in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the” is misspelled as “thte.” 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. (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. Claims 1-4, 8, 15-17, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hansen (WO 2020/182260; paragraph references to corresponding US 2022/0152962). Claim 1: Hansen discloses a direct injection footwear mold assembly (abstract). The assembly includes two side basic molds (fig. 19b; 142, 144), and a bottom basic mold including a bottom mold attachment arrangement (146), the bottom basic mold having x, y and z directions and the arrangement of the bottom basic mold being arranged to fixate a bottom mold insert (176) in the z direction to the bottom basic mold (fig. 19b). Claim 2: Hansen discloses each of the two side basic molds includes a basic side mold (142, 144) and a respective side mold insert (172, 174; figs. 19a-b). Claim 3: Hansen discloses each of the two side basic molds includes a side mold attachment arrangement, the respective side mold attachment arrangements of the basic side mold (142, 144) being arranged to releasably fixate a respective side mold insert to the basic side mold (17s, 174; figs. 19a-b). Claim 4: Hansen discloses the bottom mold insert is 3D printed (¶¶ 137, 290). Claim 8: Hansen discloses the bottom mold attachment arrangement of the bottom basic mold includes two fixation points (fig. 19b). Claim 15: Hansen discloses the bottom mold attachment arrangement of the bottom basic mold includes a plurality of fixation points forming part of sequentially arranged fixation points (fig. 19b). Claim 16: Hansen discloses the fixation points are provided by guide rails in which the bottom basic mold and the bottom mold insert are capable of sliding into each other, thereby providing a fixation of the bottom mold insert onto the bottom basic mold (fig. 19b). Claim 17: Hansen discloses the two fixation points are provided by a tongue of the bottom mold insert and a groove of the bottom basic mold, said tongue and groove being configured for mutually fitting and being slidingly engageable (fig. 19b). Claim 23: Hansen discloses the two fixation points are distributed in the x direction of the bottom mold and the bottom mold insert (fig. 19b). Claim 25: Hansen discloses the bottom mold attachment arrangement of the bottom basic mold is arranged to releasably fixate the bottom mold insert in the z direction to the bottom basic mold (fig. 19b). 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. Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (WO 2020/182260; paragraph references to corresponding US 2022/0152962), as applied to claim 8 above. Hansen is silent as to the claimed distances. However, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from utilizing the claimed distances, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected a suitable distance to allow for coupling of the insert to the mold. The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious). Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (WO 2020/182260; paragraph references to corresponding US 2022/0152962), as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Huber (US 2017/0113387). Hansen is silent as to the claimed shapes. However, Huber discloses a direct injection mold assembly includes inserts having a tongue and groove configuration with the mold and having a width increasing towards a free end of the tongue and a taper in a direction of sliding engagement with each other (¶ 22; dovetail locking connections; figs. 13, 14A-C). As taught by Huber, utilizing dovetail connections between the mold and mold insert allows for precision mating and molding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the dovetail connections of Huber in the mold and insert of Hansen to allow for precision mating of the mold and insert. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F. 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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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. /LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 15, 2024
Application Filed
May 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600082
DISPENSING HEAD FOR CONTINUOUS FIBER REINFORCED FUSED FILAMENT TYPE ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12539670
Method and Device for Producing a Three-Dimensional Object in an Optically Reactive Starting Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12484588
Partially Transparent Disposable Piping Bag
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12478129
THREE-DIMENSIONAL PRINTING ALONG A CURVED SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12427701
VEHICLE TRIM COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+12.4%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 947 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month