DETAILED ACTION
In Application filed on 08/29/2024, Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-16 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 8-11, the purpose of consistency, the term “mold” should read as “sacrificial mold”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2022/0297401 (“Hartmann et al” hereinafter Hartmann).
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:
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;
fashioning the article of footwear from the sacrificial mold by introducing an expandable foam into a cavity in the 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 foam to cure within the mold ([0168], the crosslinking reaction lead to formation of solid foamed resin within and around the negative mold), and then removing the 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Hartmann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sacrificial mold is manufactured from a digital model thereof ([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, Hartmann teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the digital model of the sacrificial mold is created from a digital model of a shoe ([0161]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hartmann teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the digital model of the shoe is created from a digital model of a foot ([0161]).
Regarding Claim 6, 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 ([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, 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 ([0165], negative mold made through layer by layer stereolithography), or a selective laser sintering (SLS) process.
Regarding Claim 8, Hartmann teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one or more design elements are introduced into one or more areas of the mold ([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).
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0297401 (“Hartmann et al” hereinafter Hartmann).
Regarding Claim 12, 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, 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 ([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) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US2006/0155417 (“Cremaschi et al” hereinafter Cremaschi).
Regarding Claim 5, 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) ([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 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) as applied to claims 1 or 12 above, and further in view of US2022/0000212 (Busbee).
Regarding Claim 9, 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 mold.
However, Busbee teaches one or more rigid inserts are introduced into one or more areas of the 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US2021/0213697 (“Ponomarev et al” hereinafter Ponomarev).
Regarding Claim 15, 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 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.
Conclusion
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
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754