Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-3, 8-12, and 23 in the reply filed on 06 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that examination of additional groups would not present a burden. This is not found persuasive because the identified groups recite elements unique to their respective groups and thus a search for one is not necessarily coextensive with a search for another.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13, 15-22, and 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 October 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
1. Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by US 2012/0055044 to Dojan et al. (“Dojan”).
With regard to Claims 1-2 and 10-11, Dojan teaches a method of direct printing on a textile footwear upper yielding three-dimensional features thereby, the method comprising positioning a portion of the upper featuring an irregular surface topology substantially flat in a three-dimensional printing system, printing material thereon leaving exposed portions between printed areas, and solidifying the material such that it adheres to the printed substrate (see Abstract; FIGs. 8A-8B, 9B, 11A-11D; ¶¶ [0026], [0036]-[0039], [0043]-[0044]).
With regard to Claim 3, Dojan teaches ejecting print material from a printhead nozzle in a of droplets and/or a semi-solid material (see FIG. 8B; ¶¶ [0043]-[0044]).
With regard to Claim 8, Dojan teaches deposition of multiple layers to achieve a desired thickness (see ¶¶ [0039], [0043]).
With regard to Claims 9 and 23, Dojan teaches deposition of multiple diverse layers of color material (see ¶ [0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
2. Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dojan.
With regard to Claim 12, Dojan teaches printing material on an irregular surface of a footwear upper (see FIG. 6); however the reference does not expressly teach adjusting the claimed parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have adjusted any of the claimed parameters to accurately deposit material on desired irregular surface features in order to reduce waste.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights