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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaja et al. (US 7,178,267) in view of Bishop et al. (US 2022/0330657).
Regarding claims 1, 4, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3a, 3b, a method comprising:
forming a base mold (e.g., item 4 in Fig. 1(Step C); col. 5, lines 65-66) including a base surface, a mold surface formed on an opposite side of the base mold (as shown in Fig. 1), and a plurality of vacuum ports (e.g., item 16 in Fig. 1; col. 9, lines 13-24) extending between the base mold and the mold surface;
positioning an infill material (e.g., items 10, 12 in Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 1-11; it is noticed that, when the material layers 10 and 12 are formed from thermoplastic polyurethane, the necessary time for cooling and setting is relatively short, and the resulting composite structure 15 is flexible even when set (col. 11, lines 2-6) (related to claim 4)) on the base mold, the infill material including a first surface in contact with the mold surface and a second surface formed on an opposite side of the infill material than the first surface;
applying a vacuum through the plurality of vacuum ports and to the first surface of the infill material to draw the infill material into contact with the mold surface (i.e., via a vacuum unit 18 (col. 9, lines 48-51)).
However, Skaja does not explicitly disclose, inserting the infill material into an interior void of a bladder.
In the same field of endeavor, footwear, Bishop discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1A, 4A, a bladder 132 forming an interior void 134 has a compressible component 136 (i.e., the infill material) disposed therein ([0050], lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Skaja to have the forming method of the infill material as Bishop teaches that it is known to insert the infill material into an interior void of a bladder. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claims 2, 3, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 4, an (optional) pressure unit 8 is considered as the top mold (col. 5, lines 66-67 and col. 9, lines 60-64).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 10, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3a, the pressure unit 8 creates a positive air pressure in the form of multiple air jets 36 toward the forming surface 6 (i.e., the second surface) (col. 9, lines 60-64) (related to claims 5, 10). It is noticed that, the vacuum unit 18 evacuates any air contained in the interior area 14. The negative or vacuum pressure draws the material layer 12 toward the forming surface 6 through the apertures 16 (col. 9, lines 48-53) (related to claims 6-7).
Regarding claim 8, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a heating device 2 is applied to heat the material layers 10, 12 in step B of Fig. 1(col. 5, line 65; col. 6, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 9, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, at least the forming surface 6 is provided with multiple peaks and recesses for the shaping pattern of the material layers 10 and 12 (e.g. as shown in Fig. 3a or 3b).
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaja et al. (US 7,178,267) in view of Bishop et al. (US 2022/0330657).
Regarding claims 11, 16, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3a, 3b, a method comprising:
forming a base mold (e.g., item 4 in Fig. 1(Step C); col. 5, lines 65-66) including a base surface and a mold surface formed on an opposite side of the base mold than the base surface (as shown in Fig. 1);
positioning an infill material (e.g., items 10, 12 in Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 1-11; it is noticed that, when the material layers 10 and 12 are formed from thermoplastic polyurethane, the necessary time for cooling and setting is relatively short, and the resulting composite structure 15 is flexible even when set (col. 11, lines 2-6) (related to claim 16))on the base mold, the infill material including a first surface in contact with the mold surface and a second surface formed on an opposite side of the infill material than the first surface;
drawing the infill material into contact with the mold surface of the base mold to shape the infill material into a shape of the mold surface and form an infill (e.g., the vacuum unit 18 evacuates any air contained in the interior area 14. The negative or vacuum pressure draws the material layer 12 toward the forming surface 6 through the apertures 16 (col. 9, lines 48-53)).
However, Skaja does not explicitly disclose, inserting the infill material into an interior void of a bladder.
In the same field of endeavor, footwear, Bishop discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1A, 4A, a bladder 132 forming an interior void 134 has a compressible component 136 (i.e., the infill material) disposed therein ([0050], lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Skaja to have the forming method of the infill material as Bishop teaches that it is known to insert the infill material into an interior void of a bladder. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claims 12, 15, 17, 18, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 3a, the pressure unit 8 creates a positive air pressure in the form of multiple air jets 36 toward the forming surface 6 (i.e., the second surface) (col. 9, lines 60-64) (related to claims 12, 18). It is noticed that, the vacuum unit 18 evacuates any air contained in the interior area 14. The negative or vacuum pressure draws the material layer 12 toward the forming surface 6 through the apertures 16 (col. 9, lines 48-53) (related to claims 15, 17).
Regarding claims 13, 14, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 4, an (optional) pressure unit 8 is considered as the top mold (col. 5, lines 66-67 and col. 9, lines 60-64).
Regarding claim 19, Skaja discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a heating device 2 is applied to heat the material layers 10, 12 in step B of Fig. 1(col. 5, line 65; col. 6, lines 32-34).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaja et al. (US 7,178,267) in view of Bishop et al. (US 2022/0330657).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Skaja et al. and Bishop et al. discloses the claim 11 (see above). Further, Skaja discloses that, the composite material layer (i.e., the infill material) is for the footwear structure (ABSTRACT).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights