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(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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the following steps." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-9 and 11 recite the limitation "the liquefied component." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-2, 4-9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skirrow (US 2009/0313855).
Claim 1: Skirrow discloses a method for producing a component, including a sporting good (40). The method includes providing a polymer (¶¶ 43-46, Example 1), providing a solvent (¶ 48, Example 1), mixing the polymer with the solvent, thereby producing a liquified polymer (Example 1), curing the liquified polymer, thereby producing the component (Example 1).
Claim 2: Skirrow discloses the liquified polymer (coating composition) being applied to a second component (the shoe outsole or upper) and then cured (Example 1).
Claim 4: Skirrow discloses the sporting good being a sports shoe (¶ 37).
Claim 5: Skirrow discloses the component being an outsole of the sports shoe (¶ 41).
Claim 6: Skirrow discloses the sports shoe being a football shoe (¶ 37).
Claim 7: Skirrow discloses the polymer coating the outsole of a soccer shoe, which would include the cleat (¶ 38).
Claim 8: Skirrow discloses the liquified component being deposited onto the outsole and upper (¶ 38).
Claim 9: Skirrow discloses the liquified component being deposited onto the outsole and shoe upper (R 38).
Claim 15: Skirrow discloses the depositing being carried out by brushing or dipping (¶ 29).
Claim 20: Skirrow discloses radiation curing (¶ 47).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skirrow (US 2009/0313855), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Constantinou (US 2018/0303203).
Claim 3: Skirrow is silent as to adding texture. However, Constantinou discloses a method for producing a shoe including texturing a polymer on the shoe and then curing (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have textured the polymer film of Skirrow to tailor the aesthetics or self-cleaning ability of the component.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skirrow (US 2009/0313855), as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Schwartz (US 2007/0282562).
Claim 10: Skirrow is silent as to determining portions using maps. However, Schwartz discloses using a pressure map to determine high stress regions and making corresponding modifications to the shoe (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have used a pressure map in the method of Skirrow to identify high-stress or high-wear regions of the shoe and adjust the amount of polymer deposited in those areas.
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skirrow (US 2009/0313855), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Jones (US 2014/0020192).
Claims 11-12: Skirrow is silent as to depositing in a pattern. However, Jones discloses printing a polymer in predefined patterns on shoe components in interconnected linear strips and loops for support (abstract; fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have deposited the polymer of Skirrow in a pattern to tailor the flexibility, weight and/or aesthetics of the component.
Claim 16: Jones discloses 3D printing over all portions of the shoe (fig. 1).
Claims 13-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skirrow (US 2009/0313855), as applied to claim 2 above.
Skirrow is silent as to the claimed thickness, viscosity or contact angle. However, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from the claimed thickness, viscosity or contact angle, 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 thickness, viscosity or contact angle to tailor the flexibility, weight and/or aesthetics of the component. 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).
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