Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/739,804

MULTI-LAYER EXTRUDED UPPERS FOR ARTICLES OF FOOTWEAR AND OTHER FOOT-RECEIVING DEVICES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 11, 2024
Examiner
STEELE, JENNIFER A
Art Unit
1789
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nike, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 5m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
342 granted / 708 resolved
-16.7% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 708 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Lines 8 and 9 has the phrase “wherein the first extruded filament has a width dimension of less than 3 mm wide;”. The phrase of line 8 is identical to the phrase in lines 4 and 5 “wherein the first extruded filament has a width dimension of less than 3 mm wide;”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The phrase in lines 8 and 9 regarding the width of the first extruded filament is a duplicate claim limitation to the first extruded filament width in lines 4 and 5 and does not further limit the first extruded filament. For purposes of examination, the phrase in lines 8 and 9 will be interpreted to mean the second extruded filament width. 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. 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 1, 3-5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (US 20150040428) in view of Mark (US 20160192741) and Podhajny (US 8997530). Davis is directed to an article of footwear with extruded components. The disclosed embodiments relate to portions of an article of footwear formed from an extruded member. The extruded member can be a single, continuous piece of solid material (ABST); [0006]. The single, continuous piece of solid material is equated with a first extruded filament and as evidenced by Mark cited below. Davis teaches embodiments forming a sole for an article of footwear can include an extruded member formed in a controlled geometric pattern and the sole can include one or more layers. In certain embodiments, each layer can have one or more extruded members. In certain embodiments, the layers can be non-woven layers. In certain embodiments, at least two layers can be formed from the same extruded member [0007]. Davis teaches the forming of an upper wherein one or more extruded members can be extruded directly onto an upper portion of an article of footwear. An upper or a portion of an upper can be formed from one or more extruded members. By way of example, in certain embodiments, one or more extruded members can be extruded onto fabric to form an upper, a midsole, quarter panels, heel counter, etc., and the fabric can be formed, cut, or sewn to form an article of footwear [0017]. Davis teaches FIGS. 18-20 illustrate bladder 300, according to an embodiment. In certain embodiments, bladder 300 can be incorporated into an article of footwear. For example, bladder 300 and extruded member 200 can form an upper or a portion of an upper or a sole or a portion of a sole for an article of footwear [0089]. Further evidence that it would have been obvious to employ multiple layers is shown in Fig. 1 and 9. PNG media_image1.png 658 670 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 654 708 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 546 956 media_image3.png Greyscale As shown in Fig. 20 above and as described by Davis, there are multiple layers of extruded members. The extruded members that are oriented in the medio-lateral direction are equated with the first extruded filament that are plural and non-intersecting and spaced apart segments and equated with forming a portion of a first upper component. The extruded members that are oriented in the anterior-posterior direction wherein the second extruded filaments are plural and non-intersecting and spaced apart segments and equated with forming a portion of a second upper component. Davis teaches the extruded members can be extruded onto a fabric which is equated with the fabric element claimed [0017], [0108]. Davis teaches that the extruded member can be a cured or uncured material or a reactive or nonreactive material [0057]. An uncured material that cures would inherent fuse to the adjacent layer. Davis is silent with regard to the fusing of the first upper component to the second upper component. Davis does not teach the fabric element formed at least in part with fusible material. Davis does not teach the width of the filaments. Mark provides evidence that (1) extruded members are equated with filaments (2) fusing of the extruded members to one another and (3) to a base substrate fabric. Mark is directed to an article of footwear produced by a reinforced filament that is deposited to fuse (ABST). Mark teaches an upper material as shown in Fig. 5B, where the fused filaments are deposited as spaced apart and nonintersecting filaments. Mark teaches the print heads applies a fiber reinforced composite filament and one print head applied pure or neat matrix resin that is thermoplastic or curing [0034]. Mark teaches a fused filament process FFF/FDM [0068] and the process which is also referred to as extrusion [0045], [0075] and evidence that the extrusion members of Davis are known in the art to be filaments. Mark teaches wherein the resin can be melted or cured under ambient or room pressure [0068]. Curing is equated with polymerizing. The Fused Deposition Manufacturing [0196] FDM or Fused filament fabrication [0196] FFF layers may be formed in orthogonal layers at +/- 45 degrees of alternating raster formation [0094]. Mark teaches the monofilaments have a width of 0.7 to 1.1 mm wide and 0.07-0.12 high [0072] which is less than 3 mm as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form filaments to strengthen an upper by methods such as 3D printing, e.g. FDM or FFF where the filaments are provided and cured onto the substrate to bond together. Davis and Mark differ and do not teach the base fabric has a fusible material. Podhajny is directed to a knitted component for an article of footwear including a full monofilament upper (Title). Podhajny teaches inlaid tensile elements 132 as shown in Fig. 6 that provide greater stretch resistance (col. 10, lines 11-27). Podhajny teaches fusible strands in the knit fabric as shown in Fig. 13-15B (col. 19, lines 15-28). The fusible strand 1302 in the knit component that assists with bonding portions of the monofilament strand 1301 to adjacent portions of monofilament and secure the configuration of the knit (col. 19, lines 44-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a base fabric with fusible strands motivated to secure the configuration of the knit and the upper. As to claim 3, Davis does not explicitly teach fusing the first layer to the second layer of extruded elements. Mark teaches the filaments produced by fused filament deposition and are deposited to fuse to the fill material within the first reinforcing region [0005] and therefore the extruded elements of Davis would fuse to each other. Mark teaches the filament fuses to the fill material to form a second anisotropic reinforcement region having at least one material property oriented in a second direction different from the first direction [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to fuse the filaments to the adjacent layers motivated to produce a bonded layer and layered structure that has reinforcement provided by the filaments. As to claims 4 and 5, Davis also teaches embodiments where the extruded members are oriented parallel to one another as shown in Fig. 11. Davis is silent with regard to the length of the parallel segment length and the percent overlap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the desired pattern and pattern length motivated to produce an upper with the desired strength imparted by the extruded members. As to claim 10, Davis teaches various physical properties of the extruded member can be manipulated, adjusted, altered, and/or modified. For example, in certain embodiments, the width, length, shape, wall thickness, color, density, elasticity, material, etc. of the extruded member can vary along the extruded member or between a first and second extruded member [0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ different widths for the first filament and the second filament motivated to produce the desired weight and strength of the upper. As to claim 11, Davis teaches an intersecting grid of first and second extruded members as shown in Fig. 20 wherein the extruded members (filaments) extend in different directions. Claims 2, 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al (US 20150040428) in view of Mark (US 20160192741) and Podhajny (US 8997530) and in further view of Meschter (US 20070271823). As to claims 2 and 20, Davis does not teach the first layer and second layer continuously form continuously to form (i) a lateral rear heel portion of the first layer, (ii) a lateral midfoot portion of the first layer, (iii) a forefoot portion of the first layer, (iv) a medial midfoot portion of the first layer, and (v) a medial rear heel portion of the first layer and the second layer continuously forms i) a lateral rear heel portion of the second layer, (ii) a lateral midfoot portion of the second layer, (iii) a forefoot portion of the second layer, (iv) a medial midfoot portion of the second layer, and (v) a medial rear heel portion. Mark and Podhajny do not teach the first and second layers. Podhajny teaches the fabric has fusible components (claim 20) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a base fabric with fusible strands motivated to secure the configuration of the knit and the upper. Meschter is directed to an article of footwear having an upper with thread structural elements. The thread sections are positioned to provide structural elements that, for example, restrain stretch in directions corresponding with longitudinal axes of the thread sections. In some configurations of the footwear, a first portion of the thread sections may extend between forefoot and heel regions of the footwear, and a second portion of the thread sections may extend vertically (ABST). See Fig. 1. PNG media_image4.png 564 1052 media_image4.png Greyscale Meschter teaches the thread structural elements are provided in a pattern where there are a first set of continuous filaments that are oriented in the medio-lateral direction from the heel to the forefoot and a second set of continuous filaments that are oriented in the anterior-posterior that extend lateral heel portion to the forefoot portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide continuous filament layers that extend from the heel portion to the forefoot portion motivated to restrain stretch in the directions of the threads in the areas of the heel and forefoot. As to claims 7-9, Davis does not explicitly teach a diamond shape, however Davis shows, in the figures, that diamond shapes exist, e.g. fig. 20. Davis is not specific with regard to the pattern being in the heel or forefoot region. Meschter also teaches patterns of intersecting filaments in the first and second filaments that appear as diamond shapes and therefore equated with diamond shapes (see fig. 1 of Meschter above). Meschter teaches the strands extend from the forefoot and heel region and the patterns, shown as diamonds exist in the hell and forefoot regions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide continuous filament layers in a diamond pattern in the heel portion and the forefoot portion motivated to restrain stretch the axial directions of the threads in the forefoot and heel regions of the upper. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the first and second extruded filaments are extruded to intersect to form an angle of 65°-90°. Claims 12 and dependent claims 13-19 are allowable over the prior art. Davis, Mark, Podhajny and Meschter do not teach a method using a release sheet. Sterman et al (US 20170202309) is directed to a method of printing a traced element. The method includes printing layer of a traced element and incorporating a textile strand in overlapping polymer layers. The traced element may be formed on a base layer. The traced element may be incorporated into an upper for an article of footwear (ABST). Sterman teaches the method is a three-dimensional printing system (100) (shown in Fig. 1) also referred to as additive manufacturing which are methods such as extrusion methods such as fused deposition modeling, electron beam freeform fabrication [0028]. The printing devices extrude the materials [0052]. The printing (extruding) may be done on base layers such as textiles, fabrics, knit, woven, nonwoven materials [0055]. Sterman also teaches that the printing can be formed on a tray or release paper and then removing or releasing the traced element in a separate step [0055]. Sterman does not teach the upper is formed from first and second plural, non-intersecting, spaced apart path segments. See upper formed as shown in Fig. 12 below. Sterman does not teach the method steps wherein the first and second material that form the first and second extruded filaments wherein the steps of extruding the second material includes (a) a first portion of the second layer to the release liner such that the release line extends between a first portion of the first layer and the first portion of the second layer and (b) fusing a second portion of the second layer to a second portion of the first layer and then removing the release liner and placing a portion of a second upper component between the first portion of the first layer and the first portion of the second layer and then fusing the components together. Sterman use of a release liner is broad with respect to the specific method steps required to make the upper as claimed. PNG media_image5.png 680 968 media_image5.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones et al (US 20140020192) is directed to footwear with 3D printing. Jones does not teach first and second extruding filaments that are plural and non-intersection. Jones teaches one layer of the filaments. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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. /JENNIFER A STEELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 11, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600096
GLASS MULTIPLE-PLY ROVING, RANDOM MAT FOR FORMING THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITE MATERIAL, AND GLASS-FIBER-REINFORCED THERMOPLASTIC RESIN SHEET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595601
FABRIC, AND FIBER PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591161
ELECTROCHROMIC WIRE THREAD AND RELATIVE FABRICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584370
MOLDED PRODUCT AND PROCESSED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577350
POLYIMIDE PRECURSOR, RESIN COMPOSITION, INSULATED ELECTRIC WIRE, AND FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
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
48%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+33.5%)
4y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 708 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