DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 15 recites the limitation “the second thermoplastic filament”. However, the written description is completely silent to such an embodiment. The applicant is asked to clarify the scope of the claimed invention without the introduction of new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains a typo in its recitation of “the a textile element”. The examiner suggests amending the claim by deleting the “a” term. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term "preferably" is recited in lines 3 and 5, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner suggests amending the claim to delete each instance of the term “preferably”.
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 2, 11 and 4, 7, 13-14, 19 recites the limitations "the formed loops (4)", “the loops(4)” respectively. Since, claim 1 requires “a plurality of loops (4)”, it is vague as to whether the aforementioned claims refer to a different loop or the plurality of loops. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “the plurality of loops” or “at least one of the plurality of loops” in each instance.
Claim 12 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites a broad range (20 mm to 110 mm), and the claim also recites (40 mm to 60 mm) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second thermoplastic filament". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant is asked to clarify the scope of the claimed invention without the introduction of new matter.
Additionally, regarding claim 15, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites a broad range (0.01 mm to 0.3 mm), and the claim also recites (0.05 mm to 0.2 mm) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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. 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 1-5, 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voelchert et al. (US 2024/0049837 A1 – of record as CH 717906 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Volchert discloses a method for producing a textile material – (construed as a textile element (1)) to include providing the steps of: providing a shaping carrier 9; providing a polymer composition as a continuous filament of thermoplastic composition, see at least [0011], [0033], [0037] – (corresponds to a thermoplastic filament (3), in a form of a continuous thermoplastic filament); applying/laying the thermoplastic filament on the shaping carrier such that it forms a plurality of loops on the shaping carrier, see at least [0011], [0021], Fig. 2; and bonding the filament segments by fusion, see at least [0035], claim 9 – (construed as fusing the applied thermoplastic filament into a textile element).
Regarding claims 2-5, Voelchert further discloses the thermoplastic filament is in step c. is applied such that the formed loops partially overlap with each other; and is applied such that it forms crossings with itself; and wherein fusing is carried out such that the loops are materially bonded with each other at the crossings, see Fig. 2, [0035], [0042]; and fusion is carried out by heating up the shaping carrier, see at least [0021].
Regarding claims 9-14, 19, Voelchert further discloses the thermoplastic filament is applied through the nozzle 7, by a pump 5, drive 4 and dosing head 6 – (construed as forming of a pressurized medium), onto the shaping carrier, see at least [0015], [0055], Fig. 1; and have molten polymer composition exit the nozzle and is applied to the shaping carrier as a filament, see at least [0011] – (construed as the thermoplastic filament exits the at least one nozzle in a molten state and is applied onto the shaping carrier in a solidified state); and during the application the shaping carrier is spaced a distance apart from the at least one nozzle and the shape of the formed loops corresponds to a movement pattern of the at least one nozzle in an enlarged scale, clearly depicted in Fig. 1; and the distance (D) between the at least one nozzle and the shaping carrier is between 20 mm and 110 mm, in particular between 40 mm to 60 mm, see [0038]. Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II). Voelchert further discloses the thermoplastic filament exits the at least one nozzle through an outlet and wherein during the application the at least one nozzle is moved relative to a dispensing axis (z) such that the thermoplastic filament forms loops, and the at least one nozzle comprises an outlet opening and a plurality of air exit openings arranged around the outlet opening, from which a pressurized medium impinges on the thermoplastic filament, such that the thermoplastic filament which has exited the outlet opening is applied to the shaping carrier forming loops; and the at least one nozzle is rotated around a dispensing axis (z) such that the thermoplastic filament forms loops, see at least Figs, 1, 7, [0019], [0027], [0047].
Regarding claim 15, as to “the second thermoplastic filament”, the claim phrase “and/or” raises an irrebuttable presumption concerning the necessity of a second thermoplastic filament. In particular, the “or” term releases the claim of patent protection for a second thermoplastic filament and thus for the purposes of this examination will not be considered. Voelchert further discloses the thermoplastic filament has a filament thickness in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm, see [0023] – (overlaps the claimed 0.01 mm to 0.3 mm, in particular from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm). Concerning the claimed ranges: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Regarding claims 16-18, Voelchert further discloses the textile element is a shoe upper and is bonded to a sole, or wherein the shoe upper is bonded directly to a sole during fusing, see at least claim 13; and a shoe comprising the textile element forming a shoe upper, produced by a process according to claim 1, see at least claim 14; and a textile element comprises a shoe upper and the shaping carrier comprises a last, see at least claims 13, 15.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelchert et al. (US 2024/0049837 A1 – of record as CH 717906 A2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of La O’ et al. (US 2018/0271216 A1 – of record as US 10980317 B2).
Regarding claims 6-8, Voelchert does not explicitly disclose the use of protrusion or pins formed on the shaping carrier, or the use of stitching.
La O’ discloses a method for creating wound material portions for incorporation into an article of footwear, particularly an upper, see abstract. The method to include providing a last 650 – (construed as a shaping carrier) with pins 720 to in order to guide and control the location of the wound fiber on the last, see at least FIGS. 28C-D, [0085], [0088] – (construed as the shaping carrier comprises a three-dimensional pattern formed by one of protrusions and pins, for receiving the applied thermoplastic filament during step c and securing it in place until step d. is carried out); and where the system is controlled by robotic arms, see [0099] – (construed as the thermoplastic filament is wound about the protrusions by a robotic arm or a CNC machine, thereby forming the loops); and the wound material is wound onto a structural support (last) and stitched thereto to form a stable structure for use in an upper, see [0052] – (construed as the thermoplastic filament is stitched with a thermoplastic stitching filament to a carrier material).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749