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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 23 & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 2014/0173932) in view of Podhajny (USPN 8,959,959).
Regarding Claim 1, Bell discloses a shoe upper (Figures 1-5) comprising a woven portion (Para. 29-31), wherein the woven portion comprises: a plurality of warp yarns (Para. 31 & 81-84); a plurality of weft yarns (Para. 31 & 81-84); and a stitching yarn (Para. 31 & 81-84, “lockout strand”) disposed in a first region of the woven portion (1st region, see annotated Figure 10 below), wherein a first portion of the stitching yarn in the first region is disposed in a line (line, see annotated Figure 10 below) that is oriented in a first direction (first, see annotated Figure 10 below), wherein the stitching yarn is integrally woven into the first region during a weaving process by laterally displacing the stitching yarn substantially along a weft direction and moving the stitching yarn in and out of at least one reed gap in a reed (Para. 91); a second region of the woven portion (2nd region, see annotated Figure 10 below) comprising the stitching yarn integrally woven into the woven portion, wherein the second region is physically separated from the first region by a portion of the woven portion without the stitching yarn (portion, see annotated Figure 10 below); wherein the stitching yarn is discontinuous between the first region and the second region (the first region and the second region are discontinuous since they are interrupted and broken between each other). Bell does not specifically disclose the stitching yarn extends at least partially around an eyelet. However, Podhajny discloses a stitching yarn (132, Col. 6, line 52- Col. 7, line 9) extending at least partially around an eyelet (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a stitching yarn which surrounds an eyelet, as taught by Podhajny, to the shoe of Bell in the first region, in order to provide reinforcement and instep support.
Regarding Claim 2, Bell discloses the stitching yarn has a tensile modulus greater than the tensile modulus of the warp yarns and/or the weft yarns (Para. 29-36, 78-80, “no stretch”).
Regarding Claim 4, Bell discloses the stitching yarn is located in a midfoot region of the shoe (Para. 29-33 & 78-91, Figures 1-5, particularly Para. 32).
Regarding Claim 6, Bell discloses the stitching yarn is located in a sole region of the shoe upper (Para. 29-33 & 78-91, Figures 1-5, “lockout strand extending…toward the sole”).
Regarding Claim 10, Bell discloses at least one stitching yarn comprises carbon fiber (Para. 36 & 78, “carbon fibers”).
Regarding Claim 23, Bell discloses wherein at least one stitching yarn makes an angle of between 30 degrees and 60 degrees with the warp or weft yarns between at least two different interlacing points (Figure 10, Para. 86, "45 degrees").
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Bell and Podhajny disclose the stitching yarn extends entirely around an eyelet (as modified, Podhajny, Figure 5).
Claims 3, 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 2014/0173932) in view of Podhajny (USPN 8,959,959) in further view of Dojan (US 2011/0041359).
Regarding Claim 3, Bell does not specifically disclose the stitching yarn comprises a meltable component. However, Dojan discloses a stitching yarn (42 & 43) comprises a meltable component (Para. 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a meltable component as taught by Dojan, in order to provide better reinforcement material through bonds.
Regarding Claims 8 & 9, Bell does not disclose at least one stitching yarn and/or one weft yarn and/or one warp yarn is dissolvable in a water solvent. However, Dojan discloses at least one stitching yarn and/or one weft yarn and/or one warp yarn (42 & 43) is dissolvable in a water solvent (Para. 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a water dissolvable yarn as taught by Dojan, in order to hide any temporary securing yarns on the shoe once it is fully secured together through welding or adhesive.
Claims 21, 22 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 2014/0173932) in view of Podhajny (USPN 8,959,959).
Regarding Claim 21, Bell discloses a shoe upper (Figures 1-5) comprising a woven portion (Para. 29-31), wherein the woven portion comprises: a plurality of warp yarns (Para. 31 & 81-84); a plurality of weft yarns (Para. 31 & 81-84); a first stitching yarn (Para. 31 & 81-84, “lockout strand”) disposed in a first region of the woven portion (1st region, see annotated Figure 10 below), wherein a portion of the stitching yarn in the first region is disposed in a line (line, see annotated Figure 10 below) that is oriented in a first direction (first, see annotated figure 10 below), wherein the first stitching yarn is integrally woven into the first region during a weaving process by laterally displacing the first stitching yarn substantially along a weft direction and moving the first stitching yarn in and out of at least one open reed gap in a reed (Para. 91); a second region of the woven portion (2nd region, see annotated Figure 10 below) comprising a second stitching yarn (Para. 78-80 & 83-84) integrally woven into the woven portion; wherein the second region is physically separated from the first region by a portion of the woven portion without the first stitching yarn or the second stitching yarn (portion, see annotated Figure 10 below). Bell does not specifically disclose the first stitching yarn extends at least partially around an eyelet and comprises a higher tensile modulus than the second stitching yarn. However, Podhajny discloses a stitching yarn (132, Col. 6, line 52- Col. 7, line 9) extending at least partially around an eyelet (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a stitching yarn which surrounds an eyelet, as taught by Podhajny, to the shoe of Bell, in order to provide reinforcement and instep support. The combination of Bell and Podhajny do not specifically disclose a higher tensile modulus than the second stitching yarn. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of tensile modulus for the stitching yarn in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of support and reinforcement, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the tensile modulus involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 22, Bell discloses a shoe upper (Figures 1-5) comprising a woven portion (Para. 29-31), wherein the woven portion comprises: a plurality of warp yarns (Para. 31 & 81-84); a plurality of weft yarns (Para. 31 & 81-84); a stitching yarn (Para. 31 & 81-84, “lockout strand”) disposed in a first region of the woven portion (1st region, see annotated Figure 10 below), wherein the stitching yarn in the first region comprises a first portion is oriented in a line (line, see annotated Figure 10 below) in a first direction (first, see annotated Figure 10 below), a second portion oriented in a second direction (second, see annotated Figure 10 below), and a third portion oriented in a third direction (third, see annotated Figure 10 below), wherein the stitching yarn is integrally woven into the first region during the weaving process by laterally displacing the stitching yarn substantially along the weft direction and moving the stitching yarn in and out of at least one open reed gap in a reed (Para. 91); a second region of the woven portion (2nd region, see annotated Figure 10 below) disposed along the line defined by the stitching yarn in the first direction (first, see annotated Figure 10 below), the line extending from the first region, the second region comprising the same stitching yarn used in the first region (Para. 78-80 & 83-84) integrally woven into the woven portion, wherein a linear portion of the stitching yarn in the second region extends along the line (see annotated Figure 10 below); and wherein the second region is physically separated from the first region by a portion of the woven region without the stitching yarn (portion, see annotated Figure 10 below) the stitching yarn in the second region being the same stitching yarn as in the first region (Figure 10). Bell does not specifically disclose wherein the stitching yarn in the second region is located at an edge of the woven portion to crimp the edge of the woven portion. However, Bell discloses a stitching yarn in the second region is located at an edge of the woven portion to crimp the edge of the woven portion (Figure 11, Para. 90, crimped when used as an eyelet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a stitching yarn which surrounds an edge, as taught by Bell’s embodiment of Figure 11, to the shoe of Bell, in order to provide support. Bell does not specifically disclose the first stitching yarn extends at least partially around an eyelet. However, Podhajny discloses a stitching yarn (132, Col. 6, line 52- Col. 7, line 9) extending at least partially around an eyelet (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a stitching yarn which surrounds an eyelet, as taught by Podhajny, to the shoe of Bell, in order to provide reinforcement and instep support.
Regarding Claim 25, Bell does not specifically disclose wherein the stitching yarn in the second region limits unravelling of the woven portion when the woven portion is cut. However, Bell discloses a stitching yarn in the second region which is capable of limiting unravelling of the woven portion when the woven portion is cut (Figure 11, Para. 90, crimped when used as an eyelet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a stitching yarn which surrounds an edge, as taught by Bell’s embodiment of Figure 11, to the shoe of Bell, in order to provide support.
PNG
media_image1.png
511
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights