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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 6/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 18, 19, and 40-42 remain pending in the application, with Claim 1 being newly amended, Claims 40-42 being newly added, and Claims 21-23, 26-29, and 35-38 being newly canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-final Office Action mailed 02/17/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a lower part” in Claim 41 should read “said lower part” as a lower part has already been recited in Claim 40, from which Claim 41 depends. Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folschweiler (US 4562606) in view of Stockbridge et al. (US 2020/0281314).
Regarding Claim 1, Folschweiler teaches a method of manufacturing footwear by a direct injection production (DIP), said method comprising: providing a direct injection mold (3, 10), which is attachable to injection molding equipment and is configured for at least partly channeling injection material to a mold cavity (col. 2 ll. 6 teaches “Plastic material is injected into the second mold cavity,” therein the mols is clearly attachable to injection molding equipment and configured for channeling injection material to a mold cavity), providing at least one premanufactured sole part of a sole structure (5), positioning the at least one premanufactured sole part in relation to the direct injection mold (fig. 3 shows the premanufactured sole part (5) positioned on the direct injection mold), positioning a footwear upper (12) in relation to the direct injection mold (fig. 3 shows the upper (12) positioned on the direct injection mold), injecting injection material into said mold cavity , said cavity being at least partly formed by said direct injection mold, said injection material configured for attaching said footwear upper to said at least one premanufactured sole part, said injection material upon curing providing an attaching sole part (13) of the sole structure of said footwear (col. 2 ll. 3-8 teaches “A second mold cavity (FIGS. 3 and 4) is produced using the bottom mold 3 and outer sole portion 5, a pair of side molds 10, and a last 11 with an upper 12 thereon. Plastic material is injected into the second mold cavity to produce an inner sole portion 13 connecting the outer sole portion 5 to the upper 12,” therein the injection material is clearly injected into a cavity formed in part by the mold, the injection material clearly attaching by forming an attaching sole part the upper and the premanufactured sole part).
Folschweiler does not teach wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part is a sole part that has been manufactured by a supercritical foaming process.
Attention is drawn to Stockbridge et al. which teaches an analogous sole part for an article of footwear. Stockbridge et al. teaches a premanufactured sole part of a sole structure, wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part is a sole part that has been manufactured by a supercritical foaming process (fig. 1 shows the method of molding a pre-expanded polymer material then expanding the material via the use of supercritical fluid injection; Abstract teaches “A sole structure for articles of footwear and a method of manufacturing them comprising at least one polymeric foamed component expanded through supercritical fluid (SCF) expansion of a shaped pre-expanded polymeric material.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Folschweiler to include the teachings of Stockbridge et al. such that said at least one premanufactured sole part is a sole part that has been manufactured by a supercritical foaming process as the use of supercritical fluids to foam a sole component is more environmentally friendly and produces stronger and tougher foamed articles (paragraph [0007], “SCFs also provide more cost effective and safer alternatives from other foaming or extracting agents. The use of SCFs in foaming processes has been known to improve impact strength and toughness of the resulting foam products.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler further teaches wherein said attaching sole part (13) that serves for attaching said footwear upper to said at least one premanufactured sole part, may serve as at least part of a further sole part of the sole structure of said footwear (figs. 3 and 4 show the attaching sole part (13) serving as the midsole, and therein a further sole part of the sole structure).
Regarding Claim 3, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler further teaches wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part (5) is configured to form an outsole or a midsole (figs. 3 and 4 show the premanufactured sole part (5) forming an outsole).
Regarding Claim 6, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Folschweiler does not teach wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part is premanufactured by subjecting a basic part to a supercritical foaming agent, whereby the basic part is expanded into a preform.
Attention is drawn to Stockbridge et al. which teaches an analogous sole part for an article of footwear. Stockbridge et al. teaches a premanufactured sole part of a sole structure, wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part is a sole part that has been manufactured by a supercritical foaming process (fig. 1 shows the method of molding a pre-expanded polymer material then expanding the material via the use of supercritical fluid injection; Abstract teaches “A sole structure for articles of footwear and a method of manufacturing them comprising at least one polymeric foamed component expanded through supercritical fluid (SCF) expansion of a shaped pre-expanded polymeric material.”). Stockbridge et al. further teaches wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part is premanufactured by subjecting a basic part to a supercritical foaming agent, whereby the basic part is expanded into a preform (fig. 1 shows the method of forming the sole part, including first molding a pre-expanded polymer material (considered as equivalent to the basic part) then subjecting the pre-expanded polymer material to supercritical fluid to expand the sole part, which would clearly form a preform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Folschweiler to include the teachings of Stockbridge et al. such that said at least one premanufactured sole part is premanufactured by subjecting a basic part to a supercritical foaming agent, whereby the basic part is expanded into a preform as the use of supercritical fluids to foam a sole component is more environmentally friendly and produces stronger and tougher foamed articles (paragraph [0007], “SCFs also provide more cost effective and safer alternatives from other foaming or extracting agents. The use of SCFs in foaming processes has been known to improve impact strength and toughness of the resulting foam products.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler does not teach wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part (5) comprises TPU (Thermoplastic Polyurethane), TPE (Thermoplastic Elastomer), Polyether Block Amide, natural rubber, synthetic rubber, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (Col. 1 ll. 63-66 teaches “The mold cavity 1 is filled with a plastic material such as polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane through injection orifice (not shown) to produce a first or outer sole portion 5.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler further teaches wherein said injection material comprises PU (Polyurethane), latex, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or thermoplastic rubber (TR) (col. 2 ll. 6-7 teaches “Plastic material is injected into the second mold cavity to produce an inner sole portion 13,” wherein the plastic material is referring to PU or PVC, as cited prior in Col. 1 ll. 63-66: “The mold cavity 1 is filled with a plastic material such as polyvinyl chloride or polyurethane through injection orifice (not shown) to produce a first or outer sole portion 5.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler further teaches wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part (5) is configured with a ground facing surface (6) and a foot facing surface (see annotated Fig.) and wherein said foot facing surface comprises at least one indentation (8) for receiving injection material (annotated fig. 4 shows the ground facing surface and the foot facing surfacing of the premanufactured sole part (5) having an indentation (8) for receiving injection material).
Regarding Claim 40, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler further teaches wherein said mold cavity is at least partly formed by said at least one premanufactured sole part (5) positioned in a lower part of said direct injection mold (fig. 3 shows the mold cavity being partly formed by the premanufactured sole part (5) being positioned in a lower part of the direct injection mold; col. 2 ll. 3-6 teaches “A second mold cavity (FIGS. 3 and 4) is produced using the bottom mold 3 and outer sole portion 5, a pair of side molds 10, and a last 11 with an upper 12 thereon.”).
Regarding Claim 41, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 40, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler further teaches wherein said mold cavity is further formed by at least one indentation (see annotated Fig.) for receiving injection material in said at least one premanufactured sole part, which premanufactured sole part is positioned in a lower part of said direct injection mold (annotated fig. 4 shows the mold cavity being formed by an indentation for receiving injection material in the premanufactured sole part (3) positioned in the lower part of the direction injection mold).
Regarding Claim 42, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 41, as discussed in the rejections above. Folschweiler further teaches wherein said at least one indentation (see annotated Fig.) for receiving injection material in said at least one premanufactured sole part is arranged to reach into a lower part (see annotated Fig.) of said premanufactured sole part (3) (annotated fig. 4 shows the indentations reaching into a lower part of the premanufactured sole part).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Folschweiler (US 4562606) in view of Stockbridge et al. (US 2020/0281314), and further in view of Frasson et al. (US 8197736).
Regarding Claim 18, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above.
Folschweiler does not teach wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part comprises a bonding layer on at least part of a surface subjected to said injection material.
Attention is drawn to Frasson et al., which teaches an analogous method of manufacturing. Frasson et al. teaches a method of manufacturing footwear by a direct injection production (DIP), said method comprising: providing a direct injection mold (13), which is attachable to injection molding equipment and is configured for at least partly channeling injection material to a mold cavity (col. 4 ll. 50 teaches “such overmolding can be performed by injection,” therein the mold is clearly attachable to injection molding equipment and configured for channeling injection material to a mold cavity), providing at least one premanufactured sole part of a sole structure (20), positioning the premanufactured sole part in relation to the direct injection mold (fig. 5 shows the premanufactured sole part (20) positioned on the direct injection mold), injecting injection material into said mold cavity , said cavity being at least partly formed by said direct injection mold, (fig. 5 shows the injection material having been injected into the cavity formed at least partly by the direct injection mold). Frasson et al. further teaches wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part comprises a bonding layer (18) on at least part of a surface subjected to said injection material (fig. 4 shows the premanufactured sole part (20) having a bonding layer (18) on the upper surface that is subjected to the injection material, as shown in fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Folschweiler to include the teachings of Frasson et al. such that said at least one premanufactured sole part comprises a bonding layer on at least part of a surface subjected to said injection material so as to add strength and stability to the sole structure.
Regarding Claim 19, Folschweiler teaches all of the limitations of the method of manufacturing of Claim 18, as discussed in the rejections above.
Folschweiler does not teach wherein said bonding layer comprises materials selected from the group consisting of: glue, textile, woven or non-woven materials, and scrim.
Attention is drawn to Frasson et al., which teaches an analogous method of manufacturing. Frasson et al. teaches a method of manufacturing footwear by a direct injection production (DIP), said method comprising: providing a direct injection mold (13), which is attachable to injection molding equipment and is configured for at least partly channeling injection material to a mold cavity (col. 4 ll. 50 teaches “such overmolding can be performed by injection,” therein the mold is clearly attachable to injection molding equipment and configured for channeling injection material to a mold cavity), providing at least one premanufactured sole part of a sole structure (20), positioning the premanufactured sole part in relation to the direct injection mold (fig. 5 shows the premanufactured sole part (20) positioned on the direct injection mold), injecting injection material into said mold cavity , said cavity being at least partly formed by said direct injection mold, (fig. 5 shows the injection material having been injected into the cavity formed at least partly by the direct injection mold), and wherein said at least one premanufactured sole part comprises a bonding layer (18) on at least part of a surface subjected to said injection material (fig. 4 shows the premanufactured sole part (20) having a bonding layer (18) on the upper surface that is subjected to the injection material, as shown in fig. 5). Frasson et al. further teaches wherein said bonding layer comprises materials selected from the group consisting of: glue, textile, woven or non-woven materials, and scrim (col. 4 ll. 18, “an element 18 made of fabric or nonwoven fabric”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Folschweiler to include the teachings of Frasson et al. such that said bonding layer comprises materials selected from the group consisting of: glue, textile, woven or non-woven materials, and scrim so as to add strength and stability to the sole structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claim 1, Applicant submits that Stockbridge does not teach or suggest that the expanded sole structure can be attached in a shoe structure by an injection molding process. Applicant further submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have replaced the outsole of Folschweiler with a SCF sole part from Stockbridge, as Stockbridge teaches a different sole part. Applicant submits that the Office Action is silent as to teaching incorporating an SCF sole part in an article of footwear by DIP processing. Finally, Applicant submits that as an SCF material has a lower density than a sole part manufactured by injected polyurethane, the modification of an SCF-manufactured sole part with the construction of Folschweiler goes against the teachings of Stockbridge.
Examiner disagrees, and submits that the rejection over Folschweiler in view of Stockbridge is obvious. First, Examiner notes that Stockbridge is relied upon for the teaching the premanufactured sole part being manufactured by SCF process, not for the teaching of direct injection. Stockbridge therein does not need to teach or suggest that the expanded sole structure can be attached in a shoe structure by an injection molding process. Further, Stockbridge does teach that the premanufactured sole part formed by a SCF process can act as the outsole. For example, paragraph [0141] of Stockbridge teaches “[0141] After the pre-expanded polymer is foamed, the SCF-expanded polymer material may be attached to other components of footwear such as an upper or outsole materials. In another embodiment, the expansion polymer material may fully form both the sole and portions or all of the upper,” wherein when the SCF component is fully forming the sole, this would clearly include the outsole. Stockbridge further does not teach away from using the SCF sole part as an outsole. Examiner notes that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." (see MPEP 2141.02 VI). Further, Examiner submits that as Stockbridge does not teach away from incorporating an SCF sole part in an article of footwear by DIP processing, as again Stockbridge does teach alternatives but not does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage attaching the SCF component by DIP, and that as Folschweiler does teach attaching a premanufactured sole part to a sole via DIP processing, there is no need for the explicit teachings of attachment between an SCF premanufactured sole part and a sole by DIP processing. Finally, Examiner submits that nothing in Stockbridge appears to teach away from incorporating a lower density SCF with a higher density DIP material, and therein the modification of an SCF-manufactured sole part with the construction of Folschweiler would clearly not go against the teachings of Stockbridge. For at least these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Folschweiler in view of Stockbridge is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (571)272-4888. 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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
