DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/22/2026, Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 17-18 are newly added. Claims 1 and 8-11 are currently amended. Claims 1-18 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous claim objections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment.
Previous 35 USC 102 and/or 103 rejections are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "a sacrificial mold" in line 3. Claim 18 also recites “a sacrificial mold” in line 1, thus, it is unclear if they are referring to the same sacrificial mold or different sacrificial mold. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation as they are referring to the same sacrificial mold.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a shoe" in line 3. Claim 18 also recites “a shoe” in line 1, thus, it is unclear if they are referring to the same shoe or different shoe. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation as they are referring to the same shoe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0297401 (“Hartmann et al” hereinafter Hartmann) and US2016/0121545 (“Farris et al” hereinafter Farris).
Regarding Claim 1, Hartmann teaches a method of fabricating an article of footwear (abstract) using a sacrificial mold ([0165], the negative mold part is dissolvable in chemical, thus it is sacrificial) produced by an additive manufacturing technology ([0165], negative mold made through layer by layer stereolithography), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
359
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
manufacturing a sacrificial mold for an article of footwear from a soluble material by an additive manufacturing process ([0165], negative mold made through layer by layer stereolithography, where the negative mold that is printed layer by layer may be fabricated from a soluble material (e.g., a soluble resin, a soluble plastic, etc.) that is dissolvable in a chemical solvent and/or a liquid material), wherein the article of footwear (Figure 56, midsole 700) has a sole portion (see annotated Figure 56) and an upper portion (see annotated Figure 56) and defines an interior space into which a foot is inserted (see annotated Figure 56); and
fashioning the article of footwear from the sacrificial mold by introducing an expandable foam into a cavity in the sacrificial mold ([0167], the midsole material supplied to the negative mold may partially fill the negative mold, and a foaming expansion may fill the remaining volume of the negative mold, where the midsole material might be a resin foam or polymer material (e.g., polyurethane or polyurethane foam) [0243]), allowing the expandable foam to cure within the sacrificial mold to form the article of footwear having the sole portion and the upper portion and defining the interior space into which the foot is inserted ([0167] and Figure 56), and then removing the sacrificial mold by exposing it to a solvent until dissolved ([0169], the negative mold may be mechanically, chemically, or thermally released from the formed midsole such that the negative mold may be formed from a soluble resin that is at least partially dissolvable in the presence of a solvent (e.g., water, alcohol, etc.) and removed while the midsole material may be insoluble to the solvent that is used to dissolve the negative mold).
Hartmann fails to teach wherein the sacrificial mold includes an interior portion that is not accessible to the expandable foam, the interior portion defining the interior space.
However, in the same field of invention of manufacturing foamed article shoewear using molds (abstract and [0064]), Farris teaches the sacrificial mold includes an interior portion that is not accessible to the expandable foam ([0017] and [0057], the article may include a portion that is not infused with the at least one inert gas and thus not subsequently foamed which implied that these portions are not in contact with expandable foam), the interior portion defining the interior space (Figure 1, [0057] and [0060], the opening 13 between the foam members 14 are defined as the interior portion of the sacrificial mold and thus, interior space of the foamed article 12. Furthermore, the unfoamed portion may be in the form of a solid internal or surface portion of the article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by Hartmann such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Farris to form an article comprises of different characteristic at different locations ([0057]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to manufacture a shoe article with different characteristics at different portions. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sacrificial mold is manufactured from a digital model thereof (Hartmann, [0165], the negative model may be in the form of a 3D CAD file, or a 3D stereolithographic file (.STL file) that is then used to generate negative mold).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the digital model of the sacrificial mold is created from a digital model of a shoe (Hartmann, [0161]).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the digital model of the shoe is created from a digital model of a foot (Hartmann, [0161]).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the digital model of the sacrificial mold is created by offsetting surfaces thereof from surfaces of a digital model of a shoe by one or more desired distances (Hartmann, [0227] and Figure 23A, the base recess 416 may be dimensioned to provide a predetermined gap 420 between the outer periphery of the negative mold 412 and the peripheral edge 417 of the base recess 416).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the sacrificial mold is manufactured by one of a fused deposition modeling (FDM) process, a vat polymerization process (Hartmann, [0165], negative mold made through layer by layer stereolithography), or a selective laser sintering (SLS) process.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one or more design elements are introduced into one or more areas of the sacrificial mold (Hartmann, [0198], the negative mold may be designed to form cavities in a bottom side of the midsole (i.e., a side that faces the outsole) within which the adhesive pads may be inserted. In this case, adhesive pads are considered as design element under broadest reasonable interpretation and [0199], the adhesive pads may be arranged at selective locations along a bottom side of the midsole or selectively arranged in a predetermined pattern along the bottom side of the formed midsole).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 1, Hartmann discloses wherein the article of footwear is a shoe ([0007]) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the shoe cures as a single object from the expandable foam.
However, Farris discloses it is known in the art to manufacture various components of shoe foam articles such as footwear uppers, footwear collars, footwear tongues, footwear insoles, footwear midsoles ([0064]). Thus, Farris discloses the claimed invention except for the shoe cures as a single object from the expandable foam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention such that the shoe cures as a single object from the expandable foam, since it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to cure the shoe as a single object from the expandable foam in order to reduce manufacturing costs and time needed if assemblies are required.
Regarding Claim 18, Hartmann teaches a method of fabricating a shoe (abstract) using a sacrificial mold ([0165], the negative mold part is dissolvable in chemical, thus it is sacrificial) produced by an additive manufacturing technology ([0165], negative mold made through layer by layer stereolithography), the method comprising:
manufacturing a sacrificial mold for a shoe from a soluble material by an additive manufacturing process ([0165], negative mold made through layer by layer stereolithography, where the negative mold that is printed layer by layer may be fabricated from a soluble material (e.g., a soluble resin, a soluble plastic, etc.) that is dissolvable in a chemical solvent and/or a liquid material), wherein the shoe (Figure 56, midsole 700) has a sole portion (see annotated Figure 56 above) and an upper portion (see annotated Figure 56 above) and defines an interior space into which a foot is inserted(see annotated Figure 56 above) ; and
fashioning the shoe from the sacrificial mold by introducing an expandable foam into a cavity in the sacrificial mold ([0167], the midsole material supplied to the negative mold may partially fill the negative mold, and a foaming expansion may fill the remaining volume of the negative mold, where the midsole material might be a resin foam or polymer material (e.g., polyurethane or polyurethane foam) [0243]), allowing the expandable foam to cure within the sacrificial mold to form the shoe having the sole portion and the upper portion and defining the interior space into which the foot is inserted ([0167] and Figure 56), and then removing the sacrificial mold by exposing it to a solvent until dissolved ([0169], the negative mold may be mechanically, chemically, or thermally released from the formed midsole such that the negative mold may be formed from a soluble resin that is at least partially dissolvable in the presence of a solvent (e.g., water, alcohol, etc.) and removed while the midsole material may be insoluble to the solvent that is used to dissolve the negative mold).
Hartmann fails to teach wherein the sacrificial mold includes an interior portion that is not accessible to the expandable foam, the interior portion defining the interior space.
However, in the same field of invention of manufacturing foamed article shoewear using molds (abstract and [0064]), Farris teaches the sacrificial mold includes an interior portion that is not accessible to the expandable foam ([0017] and [0057], the article may include a portion that is not infused with the at least one inert gas and thus not subsequently foamed which implied that these portions are not in contact with expandable foam), the interior portion defining the interior space (Figure 1, [0057] and [0060], the opening 13 between the foam members 14 are defined as the interior portion of the sacrificial mold and thus, interior space of the foamed article 12. Furthermore, the unfoamed portion may be in the form of a solid internal or surface portion of the article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Hartmann such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Farris to form an article comprises of different characteristics at different locations ([0057]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to manufacture a shoe article with different characteristics at different portions. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0297401 (“Hartmann et al” hereinafter Hartmann) and US2016/0121545 (“Farris et al” hereinafter Farris).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein during manufacturing of the sacrificial mold, said manufacturing is temporarily paused for addition of one or more design elements into a semi-completed mold.
However, Hartmann discloses the negative mold may be designed to form cavities in a bottom side of the midsole (i.e., a side that faces the outsole) within which the adhesive pads may be inserted. ([0198]). the adhesive bonding between the midsole and the outsole provided by the adhesive pads is required to be resistant to the release mechanism utilized to release the negative mold from the formed midsole. For example, the adhesive bond may be insoluble in the presence of a solvent used to dissolve the negative mold and release the formed midsole ([0200]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the manufacturing process of the negative mold must be temporarily paused in order to insert the adhesive pads at the desired location to provide sufficient adhesion ([0198]).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Hartmann teaches the he method of claim 12, wherein the one or more design elements include one or more of cleats; spikes; attachment points for cleats or spikes; anchor points; faux stitching; ridges; logos; geometric elements; personalizations; representations of animals, objects, or scenes; tread patterns or elements; holes for laces or other fasteners; pockets or other supports for sensors; and attachment points for outsoles, midsoles, or other components (Hartmann, [0198], adhesive pad is considered as other component).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0297401 (“Hartmann et al” hereinafter Hartmann) and US2016/0121545 (“Farris et al” hereinafter Farris) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US2006/0155417 (“Cremaschi et al” hereinafter Cremaschi).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 3, Hartmann further discloses the negative model may be in the form of a 3D CAD file, or a 3D stereolithographic file (.STL file) (Hartmann, [0165]) based on the put data that includes information relating to an end users’ physical characteristics ([0161]), but fails to teach wherein the digital model of the shoe is created from a digital model of a last.
However, Cremaschi teaches the digital model of the shoe is created from a digital model of a last ([0019]-[0020], shoe last data can be used to design molds).
Hartmann and Cremaschi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using digital model data to generate mold for manufacturing footwear articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the digital model as taught by the modified Hartmann such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Cremaschi to design molds in conformity with the same manufacturing data as the shoe shape to achieve true fit product. Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to obtain digital model from various source to be use for generating mold. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0297401 (“Hartmann et al” hereinafter Hartmann) and US2016/0121545 (“Farris et al” hereinafter Farris) as applied to claims 1 or 12 above, and further in view of US2022/0000212 (Busbee).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 1, Hartmann further discloses the negative mold may be designed to form cavities in a bottom side of the midsole (i.e., a side that faces the outsole) within which the adhesive pads may be inserted ([0198]) but fails to teach wherein one or more rigid inserts are introduced into one or more areas of the sacrificial mold.
However, Busbee teaches one or more rigid inserts are introduced into one or more areas of the sacrificial mold ([0206], rigid eyelet piece may be inserted into a cavity of the second mold (e.g., negative secondary mold).
Hartmann and Busbee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing three-dimensionally printed mold to be used in manufacturing footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Hartmann such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Busbee to give advanced customized structure and bending properties to the shoe ([0243]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to implement various elements within various area of the mold to provide different properties. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more rigid inserts are introduced into the one or more areas of the mold during manufacture of the sacrificial mold (Busbee, [0206], a rigid eyelet piece may be inserted into a cavity of the second mold (e.g., negative secondary mold) and then the curable liquid may be dispensed onto the rigid eyelet piece during the process of filling (e.g., digitally filling) the second mold).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more rigid inserts are introduced into the one or more areas of the sacrificial mold during fashioning of the article of footwear (Busbee, [0206], a rigid eyelet piece may be inserted into a cavity of the second mold (e.g., negative secondary mold) and then the curable liquid may be dispensed onto the rigid eyelet piece during the process of filling (e.g., digitally filling) the second mold).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 12, Hartmann further discloses the negative mold may be designed to form cavities in a bottom side of the midsole (i.e., a side that faces the outsole) within which the adhesive pads may be inserted ([0198]) but fails to teach wherein the one or more design elements include a rigid design element.
However, Busbee teaches the one or more design elements include a rigid design element ([0206], rigid eyelet piece may be inserted into a cavity of the second mold (e.g., negative secondary mold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Hartmann such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Busbee to give advanced customized structure and bending properties to the shoe ([0243]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to implement various elements within various area of the mold to provide different properties See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 12, Hartmann further discloses the negative mold may be designed to form cavities in a bottom side of the midsole (i.e., a side that faces the outsole) within which the adhesive pads may be inserted ([0198]) but fails to teach wherein the one or more design elements are inserted in cavities in the semi-completed mold.
However, Busbee teaches the one or more design elements are inserted in cavities in the semi-completed mold ([0206], rigid eyelet piece may be inserted into a cavity of the second mold (e.g., negative secondary mold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Hartmann such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Busbee to give advanced customized structure and bending properties to the shoe ([0243]). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to implement various elements within various area of the mold to provide different properties See MPEP 2143.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0297401 (“Hartmann et al” hereinafter Hartmann) and US2016/0121545 (“Farris et al” hereinafter Farris) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US2021/0213697 (“Ponomarev et al” hereinafter Ponomarev).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Hartmann teaches the method of claim 12, Hartmann further discloses the negative mold may be designed to form cavities in a bottom side of the midsole (i.e., a side that faces the outsole) within which the adhesive pads may be inserted ([0198]) but fails to teach wherein the one or more design elements include a rigid mid-sole.
However, Ponomarev teaches the one or more design elements include a rigid mid-sole (Figure 4 and [0027], midsole element 22 are inserted within a cavity 82 of a mold 80 along with outsole 40. All midsole has some degrees of rigidity).
Hartmann and Ponomarev are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of manufacturing three-dimensionally printed mold to be used in manufacturing footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method as taught by the modified Hartmann such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Ponomarev to provide custom shape based on the user foot data. Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known way to implement various elements within various area of the mold to provide different properties See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights