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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-20, 22-23) in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 21 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/25/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 recites the limitation “the dosing head and/or the at least one nozzle and/or the shaping carrier is additionally moved in a second movement being different from the first movement” in lines 13-15. Instant Specification provide proper antecedent basis for this limitation, in particular for underlined “the shaping carrier.” Although the limitation is recited in an originally filed claim, the limitation is not consistent with Instant Specification. Instant Specification discloses that the shaping carrier is in first movement, and the dosing head and/or the at least one nozzle is additionally moved in a second movement being different from the first movement (Instant Specification: [0032-0038], as published in US 20250073993 A1). Thus, the recited limitation has a discrepancy compared to the corresponding portions of the Instant Specification and potentially lacks 112(a) support for the underlined limitation “the shaping carrier.” Also, of note, the foreign priority application (as field on 09/03/2024, see claim 1 on page 29) does not support that the shaping carrier is additionally moved in a second movement.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-20 and 22 recite the claimed limitations with numeral symbols presented in Specification. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” See MPEP 2111.01 II. For the purpose of examination, the numeral symbols would NOT be considered to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim for further clarification of the recited limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9, 12, 17, 19, and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 9 should be corrected to “the loops” (line 4), respectively.
Claim 12 should be corrected to “the second movement” (line 4).
Claim 17 should be corrected to “during the application” (line 2).
Claim 17 should be corrected to “which is
Claims 17 and 19 should be corrected to “[[a]] the sole during the application” (lines 2-3).
Claim 22 should be corrected “, wherein the textile material comprises a shoe upper, and the shaping carrier comprises a last” (lines 1-2).
Claim 23 should be corrected to “[[a]] the dispensing axis” (line 2) and “the loops” (line 2).
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 1-20 and 22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the depositing unit and/or the shaping carrier are in a first movement moved relative to each other” and “the dosing head and/or the at least one nozzle and/or the shaping carrier is additionally moved in a second movement being different from the first movement” in lines 13-15. It is unclear how the shaping carrier in a first movement could be additionally moved in a second movement being “different” from the first movement as both first and second movements would be merged as a single movement of the shaping carrier. For the purpose of examination, the shaping carrier would be interpreted as being excluded from the second movement according to Instant Specification (see above, Specification Objection).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the length of each loop” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a length of each loop.”
Claims 2-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the at least one nozzle, and/or the dosing head and the at least one nozzle” in lines 1-2. In addition to a clerical error of repetitive recitation of the underlined phrase, it is unclear whether the limitation means (1) “the at least one nozzle and/or the dosing head,” or (2) “the dosing head and the at least one nozzle.” For the purpose of examination, either of these limitations would read on the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “which is caused to rotate by the plasticized polymer composition flowing through the nozzle housing” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what the limitation means as its active sentence literally means that “the plasticized polymer composition causes to rotate and flow the nozzle through the nozzle housing,” and such limitation is not consistent with the Instant Specification. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “the nozzle housing causes the nozzle to rotate, and the plasticized polymer composition flows through the nozzle housing.”
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the outlet” (line 2) and “the dispensing axis” (line 4). There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “an outlet” and “a dispensing axis,” respectively.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the shape of the formed loops” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a shape of the formed loops.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the distance” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a distance.”
Claims 13-15 recite the phrase “in particular” in line 2, line 2, and line 3, respectively. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of examination, the following limitation(s) would not be considered.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the movement of the shaping carrier and/or the dosing head with the at least one nozzle” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the underlined limitation means (1) “a first movement” (claim 1 lines 10-11), (2) “a second movement” (claim 1 line 14), or (3) both. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “the first movement of the shaping carrier and/or the second movement of the dosing head with the at least one nozzle” (see above, Specification Objection).
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
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 1-2, 12-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelchert* (WO 2022069583 A1, *citation is based on the equivalent of US 20240049837 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Voelchert teaches a method for producing a textile material (abstract) comprising the steps:
a. providing a shaping carrier ([0055]: shaping carrier 9; fig. 1);
b. providing a plasticizing unit for melting a polymer composition at a first temperature to provide a molten polymer composition ([0055]: an extruder with drum 2 with an inlet opening, and screw 3 as the melting apparatus in which the polymer composition is melted; fig. 1);
c. providing a depositing unit comprising a dosing head which comprises at least one nozzle ([0055]: a portion including a dosing head 6 and nozzle 7; fig. 1);
d. applying the molten polymer composition via the at least one nozzle on the shaping carrier in form of a filament forming a plurality of loops on the shaping carrier ([0011]: formation of a loop-like textile; [0055-0066]: due to the helical form of the filament exiting the outlet opening, the textile material comprises regular filament segments which intersect each other at intersecting positions, and which form circular coils.);
wherein during step d. the depositing unit and/or the shaping carrier are in a first movement moved relative to each other such that the at least one nozzle moves along a drive path which runs on the shaping carrier ([0024]: the shaping carrier is moved relative to the nozzle by means of a positioning unit); and
wherein during forming each loop the dosing head and/or the at least one nozzle and/or the shaping carrier is additionally moved in a second movement being different from the first movement along a loop depositing path with a path length ([0024-0025]; [0025]: in certain embodiments, the nozzle may be moved by means of a nozzle positioning unit, and the shaping carrier may be moved by means of a positioning unit, each independently of each other in the three-dimensional space; fig. 1-2; here, although Voelchert does not explicitly disclose that the second movement is different from the first movement, it is implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the respective independent movement of the nozzle and the shaping carrier is different from each other in order to deposit filaments on the carrier as shown in fig. 2 by generating a relative movement between the nozzle and the shaping carrier) such that the length of each loop formed on the carrier is larger than the path length of the depositing path ([0011]: the molten polymer composition is applied to the shaping carrier by means of a nozzle, which comprises an outlet opening for the molten polymer composition and a plurality of air exit openings arranged around the outlet opening, from which compressed air impinges on the exiting polymer composition such that the molten polymer composition which has exited the nozzle is applied to the shaping carrier as a helical filament; [0047-0048]: air exit openings are offset horizontally by an angle α and forms a horizontal angle β between a horizontal plane; figs. 1-4; here, although Voelchert does not explicitly disclose that the length of each loop on the carrier is larger than the path length of the depositing path (e.g., nozzle), it is implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the length of each loop on the carrier is larger than the path length of the nozzle as the polymer composition exiting the nozzle forms a helical filament around a perpendicular axis of the nozzle by impinging the compressed air from the air exit openings in the angles of α and β (see figs. 3, 4), thus, when the nozzle is apart from the shaping carrier, the discharged filament draws a larger trajectory on the shaping carrier than the one on the outlet opening 72 of the nozzle 7 as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the depositing path is different from the drive path, wherein a path length of the drive path along which the at least one nozzle moves during the formation of each loop is shorter than the path length of the depositing path during formation of each loop ([0011, 0024-0025, 0047-0048]: the nozzle and the shaping carrier move independently each other; detailed citations listed in claim 1; [0056]; figs. 1-2; here, “a path length of the drive path” is indicated by a dashed arrow, and it is at least shorter than the path length of the depositing path as the dashed arrow represents the shortest path length during formation of each loop).
Regarding claim 12, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein during the application the shaping carrier is spaced a distance from the at least one nozzle and the shape of the formed loops corresponds to a movement pattern of the at least one nozzle being defined by the first movement and second movement in an enlarged scale ([0011, 0024-0025, 0047-0048]: the nozzle and the shaping carrier move independently each other; detailed citations listed in claim 1; [0056]; figs. 1-2). Here, the formed loops collectively correspond at least to the first and second movements and compressed air from air exit openings.
Regarding claim 13, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the distance (D) between the at least one nozzle (6) and the shaping carrier (2) is between 20 mm and 110 mm, in particular between 40 mm to 60 mm ([0038]: distance between 20 mm and 110 mm). The disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 14, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the filament has a filament thickness in the range of 0.01 mm to 0.3 mm, in particular from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm ([0023]: a filament thickness of 0.01 mm to 0.2 mm). The disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 15, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the shaping carrier is moved relative to [the dosing head] and the at least one nozzle at a speed of 1 m/min to 20 m/min, in particular 5 m/min to 15 m/min or vice versa ([0026]: the shaping carrier is moved with a speed of 1 m/min to 20 m/min, relative to the nozzle; fig. 1). The disclosed range anticipates the recited range. Although Voelchert does not specifically discloses that the bracketed limitation “the dosing head” (i.e., corresponding to dosing head 6 and/or a portion right above the nozzle 7 (represented as a rectangular in fig. 1, which can also be interpreted as “the dosing head” as recited)) is also moved relative to the shaping carrier at the speed as recited, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the dosing head is fixed to the nozzle, the dosing head would move at the same speed as recited.
Regarding claim 16, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the polymer composition is applied as a continuous filament to the shaping carrier so as to form a textile segment and/or wherein the polymer composition is applied as a discontinuous filament so as to form a nonwoven-like textile segment ([0033]: a loop-like textile segment or a nonwoven-like textile segment).
Regarding claim 17, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the polymer composition has an adjustable second temperature during application, which is either selected such that the filament applied to the shaping carrier does not bond at crossover positions of filament segments, or that the second temperature is selected such that the filament applied to the shaping carrier bonds at crossover positions of filament segments by fusion ([0035]).
Regarding claim 18, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the polymer composition comprises at least one of a thermoplastic polymer, polyamide, polyether block amide, polyurethane, and polyester ([0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the fabricated textile material is a shoe upper and is bonded to a sole, or wherein the shoe upper is bonded directly to a sole during application ([0039]).
Regarding claim 20, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the movement of the shaping carrier and/or the dosing head with the at least one nozzle is controlled by a control unit ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 22, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the textile material comprises a shoe upper and the shaping carrier comprises a last ([0011]).
Claims 3-9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelchert* (WO 2022069583 A1, *citation is based on the equivalent of US 20240049837 A1) in view of Renn (US 20240246290 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that in the second movement the at least one nozzle, and/or the dosing head and the at least one nozzle are moved in at least one of a round, circular, oval, eccentric, and a pendulum movement.
Renn teaches methods and apparatuses for 3D printing using an ink jet printer (abstract, title). Renn teaches that in the second movement the at least one nozzle and/or the dosing head are moved in at least one of a round, circular, oval, eccentric, and a pendulum movement (abstract: the print head is rapidly swiveled, tilted, pivoted, or rotated during deposition to print lines or other shapes on a substrate; [0028-009] and figs. 2A-2E: pivotal movement of the tip of print head 2; [0030] and figs. 3A-B, 4-7: shaft 6 pivoting about axis of ration 7, and the pivoting tilts print head 2; [0044] and fig. 8: a dual gimbal with axes 62 and 64 controlling the orientation of print head 2).
In the same field of endeavor of 3D printing systems and methods (Voelchert: [0005]; Renn: abstract, title), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the nozzle and/or the dosing head of Voelchert to be connected to means for swiveling, tilting, pivoting, or rotating during deposition as taught by Renn in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of increasing degrees of freedom in the movement of the nozzle and/or the dosing head so as to enabling printing of a complex, non-planar, various patterning geometries with increased speed of printing process even without need of a high-performance stage to move a substrate or printing assembly (Renn: derived from abstract, [0045]). Upon the modification, it would have been also obvious that the second movement of the nozzle and/or the dosing head would contribute to the formation/deposition/patterning of a helical filament in addition to the compressed air coming out from the plurality of air exit openings (Voelchert: derived from [0011]: by preselecting the characteristics of the helix, in particular the pitch, the lead, the lead angle and the radius of the helix, the properties of the produced textile material may then be varied and adjusted selectively and at any predefined point in time; Renn: derived from abstract, [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the second movement comprises moving the at least one nozzle relative to the dosing head.
Renn teaches that the second movement comprises moving the at least one nozzle relative to the dosing head ([0028-009] and figs. 2A-2E: pivotal movement of the tip of print head 2; [0030] and figs. 3A-B, 4-7: shaft 6 pivoting about axis of ration 7, and the pivoting tilts print head 2; [0044] and fig. 8: a dual gimbal with axes 62 and 64 controlling the orientation of print head 2).
Thus, modified Voelchert teaches all the claimed limitations, and the motivation to combine applied to claim 3 equally applies here.
Regarding claims 5 and 23, modified Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 4 or 5, wherein the molten polymer composition exits the at least one nozzle through an outlet forming the filament and during the application the at least one nozzle is moved relative to a dispensing axis (D) such that the filament forms loops (Voelchert: figs. 1-4, [0011, 0047-0048]: discharging of a helical filament; Renn: [0028-009] and figs. 2A-2E: pivotal movement of the tip of print head 2; [0042-0043] and figs. 6, 7: shaft 6 pivoting about axis of ration 7, and the pivoting tilts print head 2; [0044] and fig. 8: a dual gimbal with axes 62 and 64 controlling the orientation of print head 2), and the at least one nozzle is rotated around a dispensing axis (D) such that the filament forms loops (Voelchert: figs. 1-4, [0011, 0047-0048]: discharging of a helical filament; Renn: [0044] and fig. 8: a dual gimbal with axes 62 and 64 controlling the orientation of print head 2). Upon the modification, it would have been also obvious that the second movement of the nozzle and/or the dosing head would contribute to the formation/deposition/patterning of a helical filament in addition to the compressed air coming out from the plurality of air exit openings (Voelchert: derived from [0011]; Renn: derived from abstract, [0042]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 4 or 6, wherein the nozzle is moved within a nozzle housing axially rotatably mounted therein and which is caused to rotate by the plasticized polymer composition flowing through the nozzle housing, and the nozzle extends along an outlet axis (O) which is aligned at an angle (α) with respect to the dispensing axis (D) (Voelchert: figs. 1-4, [0011, 0047-0048]: discharging of a helical filament; Renn: [0044] and fig. 8: a dual gimbal with axes 62 and 64 controlling the orientation of print head 2).
Regarding claim 8, Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the depositing unit comprises a dosing head holder to which the dosing head (a portion presented as a rectangular right above the nozzle 7) is connected ([0055]; fig. 1; here, “a dosing head holder” is implied as “a portion presented as a rectangular right above the nozzle 7” (equivalent to “the dosing head” as recited) is connected to the dosing head 6 (collectively, equivalent to “depositing unit” as recited), but does not specifically teach that the second movement comprises moving the dosing head and the at least one nozzle together relative to the dosing head holder.
Renn teaches methods and apparatuses for 3D printing using an ink jet printer (abstract, title). Renn teaches that in the second movement the second movement comprises moving the dosing head and the at least one nozzle together relative to the dosing head holder ([0028-009] and figs. 2A-2E: pivotal movement of the tip and the print head 2 together relative to the mount 16; [0030] and figs. 3A-B, 4-7: shaft 6 pivoting about axis of ration 7, and the pivoting tilts the tip and the print head 2; [0044] and fig. 8: a dual gimbal with axes 62 and 64 controlling the orientation of print head 2).
In the same field of endeavor of 3D printing systems and methods (Voelchert: [0005]; Renn: abstract, title), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the nozzle and the dosing head of Voelchert to be connected to means for swiveling, tilting, pivoting, or rotating during deposition, such as a rotatable mount, a shaft, and/or a dual gimbal, as taught by Renn in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of increasing degrees of freedom in the movement of the nozzle and/or the dosing head so as to enabling printing of a complex, non-planar, various patterning geometries with increased speed of printing process even without need of a high-performance stage to move a substrate or printing assembly (Renn: derived from abstract, [0045]). Upon the modification, it would have been also obvious that the second movement of the nozzle and/or the dosing head would contribute to the formation/deposition/patterning of a helical filament in addition to the compressed air coming out from the plurality of air exit openings (Voelchert: derived from [0011]: by preselecting the characteristics of the helix, in particular the pitch, the lead, the lead angle and the radius of the helix, the properties of the produced textile material may then be varied and adjusted selectively and at any predefined point in time; Renn: derived from abstract, [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the molten polymer composition exits the at least one nozzle through the outlet forming the filament and during the application the dosing head and the at least one nozzle are together moved relative to the dosing head holder about the dispensing axis (D) such that the filament forms loops (Voelchert: figs. 1-4, [0011, 0047-0048]: discharging of a helical filament; [0028-009] and figs. 2A-2E: pivotal movement of the tip and the print head 2 together relative to the mount 16; [0030] and figs. 3A-B, 4-7: shaft 6 pivoting about axis of ration 7, and the pivoting tilts the tip and the print head 2; [0044] and fig. 8: a dual gimbal with axes 62 and 64 controlling the orientation of print head 2). Upon the modification, it would have been also obvious that the second movement of the nozzle and/or the dosing head would contribute to the formation/deposition/patterning of a helical filament in addition to the compressed air coming out from the plurality of air exit openings (Voelchert: derived from [0011]: by preselecting the characteristics of the helix, in particular the pitch, the lead, the lead angle and the radius of the helix, the properties of the produced textile material may then be varied and adjusted selectively and at any predefined point in time; Renn: derived from abstract, [0042]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voelchert* (WO 2022069583 A1, *citation is based on the equivalent of US 20240049837 A1) and Renn (US 20240246290 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Page (US 20150367375 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Voelchert teaches the method according to claim 8, but does not specifically teach that the at least one nozzle is tilted with respect to the dosing head about an angle.
Page teaches a system for fabricating an object including an extruder for one or more deposition materials having at least one nozzle and a movable support for the nozzle (abstract). Page teaches that the at least one nozzle is tilted with respect to the dosing head about an angle ([0056-0062, 0065]; figs. 6a-b, 7a-b, 9).
In the same field of endeavor of 3D printing systems and methods (Voelchert: [0005]; Page: abstract, title), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the nozzle and the dosing head of modified Voelchert to be connected each other via flexible strips/cables or to further have a second rotational degree of freedom as taught by Page in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of allowing a nozzle to articulate in multiple directions by having multiple degrees of freedoms so as to enabling 3D fabrication in a wide range of part shapes (Page: derived from abstract, [0061, 0065]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chapiro (US 20190299522 A1) teaches additive manufacturing systems and methods, and the at least one nozzle and/or the dosing head are moved in at least one of a round, circular, oval, eccentric, and a pendulum movement ([0153-0155, 0161-0163]: nozzle assembly 20 attached to the rotation joint 132 pivotally moves; figs. 13, 15).
Beard (US 20170066196 A1) teaches an additive manufacturing system to facilitate formation of shoes (claims 1, 10; figs. 3, 9-13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights