DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 4/6/26 in which claims 1-8, 49-52 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 Line 2 “both faces” is recommended to read “faces”; otherwise, the limitation sounds as though antecedent basis for “faces of the one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements” was previously established, which it has not
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 49-52 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “selected” in Claim 1 Line 10 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The metes and bounds have not been defined by the original disclosure. It is unclear if the term refers to “specific” zones (and what specifies the zones), or a “user” selected zone (which would warrant additional 112(a) rejections for written description), or some other interpretation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met by the existence of zones.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unitary knit construction" in Line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “the unitary knit construction” in Claim 1 Line 13 (also in Line 15) is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear where the term was established, or if it is a typographical error. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as “a”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the resin application " in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “the resin application” in Claim 8 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Previous antecedent basis for the term is now cancelled in Claim 1. As such, it is unclear if limitations in Claim 1 were inadvertently canceled, if Claim 8 is missing limitations, or some other interpretation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the resin application is considered met by the existence of resin-impregnated strands.
The term “a unitary knit construction” in Claim 52 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term differs from “unitary knit construction” in Claim 1 Lines 13, 14; it is unclear if the terms in Claim 1 should not exist, and therefore only exist in Claim 52, or some other interpretation. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 52 will be interpreted as though the term says “the”.
The term “and/or” in Claim 52 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the indefiniteness surrounding “unitary knit construction”, it is unclear if there is a typographical error, such that “and/or” should come before “tucked.” For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted as though “and/or” came before “tucked.”
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 52 recites “strands are knitted…and/or within a unitary knit construction”; however, Claim 1, on which Claim 52 depends, seems to already establish a unitary knit construction. As such, Claim 52 broadens, instead of limits, from Claim 1, making a unitary knit construction optional. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 8-- recitations below are being treated as a product-by-process limitation. It is noted that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art; more specifically:
The structure of Claim 8 is resin-impregnated strands in a three-dimensional shape
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, 7, 8, 51, 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard (US Publication 2018/0303204) in view of Cochran (USPN 5874133), and Aristizabal et al (US Publication 2018/0055145), herein Aristizabal.
Regarding Claim 1, Woodard teaches a footwear article (it is noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; however, see Fig. 11; [0031] “article of footwear 100”) comprising:
a seamless upper (102) (for upper and its materials--[0031] “article of footwear 100 may include an upper 102”; [0035] "forming the upper 102...by using one or more yarns...polyester...inelastic...elastic ...such as spandex"; [0034] “at least a portion of the upper 102, and potentially substantially the entirety of the upper 102, may be formed of a knitted component 134”; [0035] "knitted component 134 may include yarns formed of a thermoplastic polymer material (e.g., polyurethanes, polyamides, polyolefins and nylons) that transitions from a solid state to a softened or liquid state when subjected to certain temperatures at or above its melting point and then transitions back to the solid state when cooled...to thereby form an area of bonded or continuous material that exhibits certain advantageous properties including a relatively high degree of rigidity, strength, and water resistance"; [0054] "one yarn type (e.g. a thermoplastic polymer material yarn) may be located on one surface of the central portion 196 and a different yarn type (e.g. a polyester yarn) maybe located on an opposite facing surface of the central portion 196"; as such, plurality of materials are the first/second yarn type, thermoplastic polymer material and polyester yarn respectively ;
having an upper main body comprising a plurality of portions (see Figs. 1 and 11, including instep portion; where lateral and medial side portion is along where the arrows end in Fig. 11 at 145 such as at 128, 130; [0032] “article of footwear 100…comprise…ankle opening 116…heel area 124 and a toe area 126”; [0037] “toe portion 144 of the knitted component 134…underfoot midfoot surface 148…heel portion 145”; [0054] “central portion 196”; wherein any knitted element will have portions),
wherein at least one portion (196) of the plurality of portions includes one or more strands ([0054] "one yarn type (e.g. a thermoplastic polymer material yarn) may be located on one surface of the central portion 196 and a different yarn type (e.g. a polyester yarn) maybe located on an opposite facing surface of the central portion 196", where it was previously established that 196 is formed of the unitary construction in the knitting process);
wherein each of the plurality of portions is connected to another portion of the unitary knit construction seamlessly by knitting stitches (for unitary knit construction-- see Fig. 11; [0002] “textiles…formed by…knitting machines. One particular object that may be formed from a textile is an upper for an article of footwear”; [0047] “knitted component 134 may include a seamless portion formed on the knitting machine 178”); [0034] “the entirety of the upper 102, may be formed of a knitted component 134…after a knitting process”; for connected-- see Fig. 11; [0047] “knitted component 134 may include a seamless portion formed on the knitting machine 178”, where knitting indicates stitches and seamless indicates connected), the plurality of portions of the unitary knit construction comprising:
a lateral side portion, a toe portion, a medial side portion, an ankle portion, an instep portion, and a heel portion (see Figs. 1 and 11 instep portion; where lateral and medial side portion is along where the arrows end in Fig. 11 at 145; see aforementioned [0032], [0037]; [0054] “central portion 196, which may include at least a portion of the first side 128, the second side 130, and the underfoot portion 136”),
the heel portion is formed by an insert (see Fig. 11; [0037] "heel portion 145", insert being the area of 145 where the arrows begin),
the insert having loops that attach the insert to the medial side portion and the lateral side portion ([0053] "first edge 204 may represent a first course of the knitted component…and the first edge 204 may form a rear (e.g., heel-side portion of the collar 118", where course indicates loops, especially in light of [0052] “knitting machine…may hold loops forming the terminal outer portions of the overfoot side 188…knitting machine may continue knitting…186 while simultaneously re-joining the loops held on the needle bed as the pattern widens. The rejoining of the loops is depicted by the arrows 202. The rejoining of the loops may form the connection structure 192”; [0049] "connection structure 192 may be formed after the knitting process…heel portion 145…may be formed with a similar process”; wherein the loops of the insert connect to the loops of the medial side portion and the loops of the lateral side portion to attach the insert to the medial side portion and the lateral side portion in Fig. 10 for 192 of 144 toe; rejoining of loops 202; similarly for 145 of Fig. 11; see [0053]).
Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein at least one portion (196) of the plurality of portions is a polymer reinforcing portion including one or more polymer-reinforcing strands,
wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands are aligned within one or more selected zones of the seamless upper to create two or more differing structural functions within the seamless upper;
the at least one portion containing the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprises one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements comprising: a matrix phase; and a reinforcing phase comprised of the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands embedded within the matrix phase.
However, as aforementioned, Woodard does utilize polyurethane as the thermoplastic polymer material as the first yarn type, and polyester as the second yarn type (see and [0035] and [0054]),
and Woodard does suggest a molding process with the thermoplastic polymer material and polyester ([0035] "knitted component 134 may include yarns formed of a thermoplastic polymer material (e.g., polyurethanes, polyamides, polyolefins and nylons) that transitions from a solid state to a softened or liquid state when subjected to certain temperatures at or above its melting point and then transitions back to the solid state when cooled...to thereby form an area of bonded or continuous material that exhibits certain advantageous properties including a relatively high degree of rigidity, strength, and water resistance" indicating molding with the polyurethane; in light of [0054] "one yarn type (e.g. a thermoplastic polymer material yarn) may be located on one surface of the central portion 196 and a different yarn type (e.g. a polyester yarn) maybe located on an opposite facing surface of the central portion 196", the polyester, being on the opposite surface of the thermoplastic polymer material polyurethane, would also be molded; wherein it is well known in the art by one of ordinary skill in the art that the transition when subjected to certain temperatures at or above its melting point and then the transition back to the solid state when cooled is considered a molding process, even if it is molded to a same or similar shape upon cooling).
Cochran teaches a footwear article wherein at least one portion of the plurality of portions is a polymer reinforcing portion including one or more polymer-reinforcing strands (Col. 7 Lines 48, 53-54 "Example 1...(B) polyester knit fabric…of polyester yarn"; Col. 7 Lines 48, 64-67 "Example 1...as each ply (B) was laid up, it had been wet with…cross-linking polyurethane-forming liquid matrix material"; Col. 7 Line 48, Col. 8 Lines 3-5 Example 1...resulting product, after curing, comprised alternating plies of a composite composed of fabric (B) dispersed in a matrix of thermoset polyurethane formed in situ"; Col. 8 Lines 44-46, 58-59, 66-67 "the following…polyurethane-forming composition was used in the foregoing Examples 1...100 parts of Part A and 304 parts of Part B by weight were metered and mixed to form the polyurethane matrix...cured polyurethane resin showed excellent hydrolytic stability" as for mold-- Col. 7 Lines 7-9 "mold parts (14) and (16) are brought together to shape the structure under pressure as the polyurethane matrix is formed and cured"; Col. 9 Line 52, 57-60 "Example 4…ply (B)...placed ...against a male mold shaped as a last for a shoe. Ply (B) was then wet out...as in the preceding examples using a resin"; Col. 9 Line 67 "film (B) stretched to conform to the mold"; wherein one or more polymer reinforcing elements is interpreted as the polymer reinforcing portion; wherein the polyurethane matrix material is the polymer reinforcing portion, wherein it is known in the art that polyurethane is a polymer; wherein this liquid material cures and around the dispersed polyester knit and therefore is a reinforcing portion; wherein a knit polyester fabric constitutes portions; wherein the knit polyester is the polymer-reinforcing strand knit, wherein the cured polyurethane matrix is the polymer reinforcing portion; wherein the knit polyester is dispersed within the cured polyurethane matrix, and therefore the polymer reinforcing portion comprises the polymer-reinforcing strand);
the at least one portion containing the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprises one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements comprising: a matrix phase; and a reinforcing phase comprised of the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands embedded within the matrix phase (wherein the cured product is the one or more polymer reinforcing elements, wherein it is fiber-reinforced via the polyester being the fiber, inasmuch as the polyester is a yarn and yarn is made of fiber; wherein it is a fabric at least due to the polyester knit fabric; wherein the matrix phase of material is the polyurethane liquid matrix; wherein the reinforcing phase of material is the knit polyester; inasmuch as the polyester is dispersed, it is embedded, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand in this process; wherein the generated product comprises the matrix; wherein the one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements are taught inasmuch as the at least one portion placed through a resin application, resin activation and/or molding process comprising a matrix phase and reinforcing phase as recited is taught by Cochran, resulting in the transformation to the one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements).
Even though Woodard only suggests its polyurethane being the thermoplastic material undergoing molding, inasmuch as its polyester would undergo a similar process as it is understood to be a moldable material and is opposite the thermoplastic material surface when Woodard undergoes molding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodard with Cochran inasmuch as Cochran utilizes the same materials (polyester and polyurethane), as a simple substitution of one method for another to bond the materials together, furthermore in order to shape to a desired aesthetic, such as a shoe (Col. 7 Lines 7-9; Col. 9 Lines 57-60, 67), especially as it is known in the art that heat softening then cooling to solid is part of a molding process (see extrinsic evidence Seamarks et al USPN 9642413), and Woodard is also a shoe.
As such, modified Woodard further teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands are aligned within one or more selected zones of the seamless upper to create two or more differing structural functions within the seamless upper (wherein an existence of a polymer-reinforcing strand, provided by Cochran, indicates aligning within a zone and a first structural function; wherein an area without the strand, such as at the matrix only as provided by Cochran, indicates a second differing structural function).
Woodard at least suggests an entirely seamless upper (the upper itself is seamless, as previously taught).
Nevertheless, Aristizabal teaches an entirely seamless upper ([0041] "a V-bed knitting machine can be used to provide a knitted shoe upper that is entirely…formed into a three-dimensional shape using a knitting process only, as opposed to a knitting process in combination with another joining process, such as a sewing or linking process"; [0068] "fabrication of various three-dimensional shoes...including seamless knitted shoes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodard’s upper to be entirely seamless as taught by Aristizabal, as it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture, in order to provide comfort ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Woodard further teaches wherein the plurality of portions further comprises one or more appendages that are knitted into shapes ([0034] "knitted component may form an underfoot portion 136…at least partially form, a midsole and/or an outsole”; [0037] “toe portion 144 of the knitted component”; [0037] “heel portion 145…may extend from the underfoot portion 136”; wherein 136, also central portion 196, is of the upper main body) and
connected to the upper main body seamlessly via knitting stitches (see Figs. 10, 11; [0049] “underfoot side 186 of the toe portion 144…overfoot side 188 of the toe portion 144””; [0049] “connection structure 192 may secure the underfoot side 186 to the overfoot side 188. The connection structure 192 may be formed with the rest of the knitted component (e.g. an integral one-piece element)” which is applicable to 145 as well, extending from upper main body; see also Fig. 11—144 and/or 145 are of the seamless upper and therefore seamlessly connected to the upper main body of the seamless upper via knitting stitches of the seamless upper).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Woodard further teaches wherein the one or more appendages comprise one or more of: a sole; an insole; a tongue; a heel support; a side support; another upper layer; an inner layer; a terry loop cushion assembly structure; a liner; and a lattice structure, the lattice structure comprising knit void spaces thereby creating a cage for the seamless upper (see [0034] above where a midsole and/or an outsole is formed with underfoot portion 136 of a knitted component, wherein any knit has void spaces).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Woodard further teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands are knitted on both faces of the one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements (see rejection of Claim 1, where the polyester is knitted as the polymer-reinforced strand, meeting the recitation; where the layer of the upper formed would have at least two faces).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Cochran further teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprise resin-impregnated strands (Col. 7 Lines 48, 53 "Example 1...(B) polyester knit fabric"; Col. 7 Lines 48, 64-67 "Example 1...as each ply (B) was laid up, it had been wet with…cross-linking polyurethane-forming liquid matrix material", wherein it is known in art that wetting is resin-impregnating (see extrinsic evidence Fujii et al 4166889 Col. 5 Lines 45-47 "wet process which comprises …impregnating a substrate with a solution of the polyurethane resin"; Col. 6 Lines 16-19 "sheet material of this invention...useful as...leather substitutes for shoes, footwear"), and therefore the polyester becomes pre-impregnated strands),
and the resin application comprises the resin-impregnated strands being molded into a three-dimensional shape with heat and pressure (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- in light of applicant [029] and extrinsic evidence Fujii et al USPN 4166889, resin application and/or molding process is interpreted as wet resin molding process; Col. 7 Lines 7-9 "mold parts (14) and (16) are brought together to shape the structure under pressure as the polyurethane matrix is formed and cured", wherein it is known that molding involves heat (see extrinsic evidence Seamarks et al USPN 9642413) in addition to pressure in order to form a desired shape; inasmuch as the process and resin-impregnation is taught, therefore the molding would be of the resin-impregnated strands; see claim interpretation).
Regarding Claim 51, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Woodard further teaches wherein the two or more differing structural functions comprise two or more of: heel stiffness for structural support; arch support for foot stability; ankle flexibility for movement; toe density for reinforcement; instep ventilation for breathability; and lateral support for roll-over prevention (Woodard taught the central portion 196 with the strands as provided by Cochran, and therefore the differing structural functions in this portion; see Fig. 11 wherein central portion 196 include the arch and lateral areas; as such, modified Woodard teaches the arch area which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for support and foot stability; modified Woodard teaches the lateral area which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of support and roll-over prevention).
Regarding Claim 52, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Woodard further teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands are knitted, interlooped, plaited, tucked, and/or within a unitary knit construction (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections— Cochran Col. 7 Lines 48, 53-54 taught the knit polymer-reinforcing strand of polyester within Woodard’s unitary knit construction).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 49, 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard (US Publication 2018/0303204) in view of Cochran (USPN 5874133), and Aristizabal et al (US Publication 2018/0055145), herein Aristizabal, further in view of Hoying et al (US Publication 2019/0231021), herein Hoying.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprise aramid yarn.
However, modified Woodard does teach that its one or more polymer-reinforcing strand is polyester (see aforementioned as provided by Cochran).
Hoying teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprise aramid yarn (see title "method for manufacturing a shoe upper"; [0218] "yarn or threads, respectively, used for the knit fabric of the present invention usually comprise fibers…fibers may include natural or synthetic materials….among the synthetic fibers are polymer-based fibers such as polypropylene, acrylic, polyamide ("PA"), for example, Nylon, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate ("PET)", PBT, PU (e.g. thermoplastic PU, elastane, or spandex), para-aramid (e.g., Kevlar), synthetic silks)...which can be ...high-performance fibers"; see Fig. 8; [0221] "fiber...530...are acrylic or spandex", wherein para-aramid is aramid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodard’s polyester yarn to be of Hoying’s para-aramid as a simple substitution of one known knitted upper material for another, especially as Hoying teaches as such, especially for high-performance uses ([0218]), wherein it is known in the art to utilize such a material in a footwear molding process ([0272] “possible to give the knit fabric a three-dimensional shape by means of the polymer coating by compression-molding. The polymer coating may be thermoplastic urethane (TPU)”; [0277] “knit fabric may be pressed into a three-dimensional shape in a machine for compression-molding”; wherein it is known in the art that aramid may be compression molded in a shoe (see extrinsic evidence Farys et al 2002/0144434).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 2.
Modified Woodard further teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprises polymer reinforcement fibers operable to support the at least one portion of the plurality of portions (see aforementioned rejection of Claim 1 in light of Cochran wherein the polyester is a polymer reinforcement fiber that supports the cured polyurethane matrix).
Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer reinforcement fibers comprise carbon fibers.
However, modified Woodard does teach that its one or more polymer-reinforcing strand is polyester (see aforementioned as provided by Cochran).
Hoying teaches wherein the polymer reinforcement fibers comprise carbon fibers (see title "method for manufacturing a shoe upper"; [0218] "yarn or threads, respectively, used for the knit fabric of the present invention usually comprise fibers…fibers may include natural or synthetic materials….among the synthetic fibers are polymer-based fibers such as polypropylene, acrylic, polyamide ("PA"), for example, Nylon, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate ("PET)", PBT, PU (e.g. thermoplastic PU, elastane, or spandex), para-aramid (e.g., Kevlar), synthetic silks)...which can be ...high-performance fibers or technical fibers"; see Fig. 8; [0221] "fiber...530...are acrylic or spandex"; [0236] "individual technical fibers with their properties which are of interest for the manufacture of knit fabric for the present invention…[0241] "carbon fiber…stable…high tensile strength; low weight; low thermal expansion; very strong when stretched or bent…conductivity").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodard’s polyester yarn to be of Hoying’s carbon fiber as a simple substitution of one known knitted upper material for another, especially as Hoying teaches as such, especially for strength ([0241]), wherein it is known in the art to utilize such a material in a footwear molding process ([0272] “possible to give the knit fabric a three-dimensional shape by means of the polymer coating by compression-molding. The polymer coating may be thermoplastic urethane (TPU)”; [0277] “knit fabric may be pressed into a three-dimensional shape in a machine for compression-molding”, wherein it is known in the art that carbon fiber can be compression-molded (see extrinsic evidence Reynolds et al USPN 7335177).
Regarding Claim 49, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprise a meta-aramid.
However, modified Woodard does teach that its one or more polymer-reinforcing strand is polyester (see aforementioned as provided by Cochran).
Hoying teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprise aramid yarn (see title "method for manufacturing a shoe upper"; [0218] "yarn or threads, respectively, used for the knit fabric of the present invention usually comprise fibers…fibers may include natural or synthetic materials….among the synthetic fibers are polymer-based fibers such as polypropylene, acrylic, polyamide ("PA"), for example, Nylon, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate ("PET)", PBT, PU (e.g. thermoplastic PU, elastane, or spandex), para-aramid (e.g., Kevlar), synthetic silks)...which can be ...high-performance fibers or technical fibers"; [0236] "individual technical fibers with their properties which are of interest for the manufacture of knit fabric for the present invention…[0239] "meta aramides"; see Fig. 8; [0221] "fiber...530...are acrylic or spandex").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodard’s polyester yarn to be of Hoying’s meta-aramid as a simple substitution of one known knitted upper material for another, especially as Hoying teaches as such, especially for desired tensile strength (see extrinsic evidence Seamarks et al USPN 9642413), wherein it is known in the art to utilize such a material in a footwear molding process ([0272] “possible to give the knit fabric a three-dimensional shape by means of the polymer coating by compression-molding. The polymer coating may be thermoplastic urethane (TPU)”; [0277] “knit fabric may be pressed into a three-dimensional shape in a machine for compression-molding”; wherein it is known in the art that aramid may be compression molded in a shoe (see extrinsic evidence Farys et al 2002/0144434).
Regarding Claim 50, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Woodard does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprise a para-aramid.
However, modified Woodard does teach that its one or more polymer-reinforcing strand is polyester (see aforementioned as provided by Cochran).
Hoying teaches wherein the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands comprise a para-aramid (see title "method for manufacturing a shoe upper"; [0218] "yarn or threads, respectively, used for the knit fabric of the present invention usually comprise fibers…fibers may include natural or synthetic materials….among the synthetic fibers are polymer-based fibers such as polypropylene, acrylic, polyamide ("PA"), for example, Nylon, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate ("PET)", PBT, PU (e.g. thermoplastic PU, elastane, or spandex), para-aramid (e.g., Kevlar), synthetic silks)...which can be ...high-performance fibers"; see Fig. 8; [0221] "fiber...530...are acrylic or spandex").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodard’s polyester yarn to be of Hoying’s para-aramid as a simple substitution of one known knitted upper material for another, especially as Hoying teaches as such, especially for high-performance uses ([0218]), wherein it is known in the art to utilize such a material in a footwear molding process ([0272] “possible to give the knit fabric a three-dimensional shape by means of the polymer coating by compression-molding. The polymer coating may be thermoplastic urethane (TPU)”; [0277] “knit fabric may be pressed into a three-dimensional shape in a machine for compression-molding”; wherein it is known in the art that aramid may be compression molded in a shoe (see extrinsic evidence Farys et al 2002/0144434).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard (US Publication 2018/0303204) in view of Cochran (USPN 5874133), Aristizabal et al (US Publication 2018/0055145), herein Aristizabal, and Hoying et al (US Publication 2019/0231021), herein Hoying, further in view of Bohringer et al (US Publication 2017/0176146), herein Bohringer.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Woodard teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Modified Woodard does not explicitly teach where one or more reinforcement weft knitting warp yarns are knitted across selected portions of the plurality of portions in one or more directions,
and wherein the one or more reinforcement weft knitted warp yarns are integrated into one or more components or layers of the seamless upper.
Bohringer teaches where one or more reinforcement weft knitting warp yarns are knitted across selected portions of the plurality of portions in one or more directions (see Fig. 1A; structural element 3b; [0091] "knitted textile fabric in the form of...warp-knitted fabric and/or weft-knitted fabric; [0087] "knitted fabric 3 includes ...needle loops 3a and a multiplicity of at least one other structural element 3b"; [0087] "fabric 3 is ...UHMW-PE; [0126] "knitted textile fabric 3 takes the form of a two-dimension textile sheet material"; [0101] "3b is selected from the group of tuck loop, float, inlay, partial insertion and filler thread", where the existence of 3b indicates reinforcement, wherein Fig. 1A shows 3b knitted/among loops, and across loops).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Woodard with the reinforcement weft knitting warp yarn of Bohringer to improve mechanical stability and/or integrity, further enhancing a ballistic-protective performance ([0101]), especially as modified Woodard contains carbon fiber known for ballistic-protective performance (see extrinsic evidence Moran et al US Publication 2015/0184979).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Woodard teaches and wherein the one or more reinforcement weft knitted warp inserted yarns are integrated into one or more components or layers of the seamless upper (Woodard teaches at least one layer of a seamless upper, where the reinforcement weft knitting warp yarn of Bohringer would be incorporated into the seamless upper).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 49-52 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 6 that the cited references do not teach “reinforcement fibers are architecturally engineered into performance zones to create load-bearing composite behavior” and therefore the claims are allowable—examiner respectfully disagrees, especially as such limitations are not claimed. Inasmuch as modified Woodard teaches the claimed structure, the prior art teaches the claimed invention.
Pertaining to remarks on page 6 that Cochran teaches away from the claimed invention, because Cochran’s polymer matrix “changes flexibility and breathability, the opposite of engineered textile architecture” and therefore cannot be used—examiner respectfully disagrees. The concept of teaching away is whether the primary reference teaches away from utilizing a particular modification, not the alleged engineered textile architecture of the application. Primary reference Woodard is not addressed on page 6.
Pertaining to remarks on page 7 that Woodard and Podhajny does not teach (at least) polymer-reinforced strands and therefore cannot be used—examiner respectfully disagrees, as the remarks are piecemeal. Modified Woodard is utilized to teach polymer-reinforced strands (and other structures). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Pertaining to remarks on page 7 that Cochran’s lamination and encapsulation approach is incompatible with Woodard’s knitted structure because it would destroy the knit architecture—examiner respectfully disagrees. Cochran teaches a knit structure; as such, there is no evidence of destroying Woodard’s knit.
Pertaining to remarks on page 7 that Cochran teaches cutting and rolling and therefore cannot be used—examiner respectfully disagrees. Remarks misconstrue the rejection, as Cochran was not utilized to teach cutting and rolling, but the material arrangement. Furthermore, in response to such an argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and/or MPEP 707.07(f). Summarily, beginning page 7 of the previous office action 11/5/25, Woodard already teaches knit polyurethane and polyester and suggests molding these materials, and is silent about the matrix arrangement. Cochran teaches the knit polyester within a polyurethane matrix, and molding. The argued cutting/rolling is not required in the arrangement.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that Podhajny does not teach structural reinforcement and was not applicable—examiner respectfully disagrees. The remarks misconstrue the rejection, and Podhajny was utilized to teach the V-bed limitations, page 11 of the office action 11/5/25, even though the claims were product by process.
Pertaining to remarks on page 8 that there are no zone-based differing structural functions—examiner respectfully disagrees and directs attention to the rejections herein. Even if amendments are further made to narrow the broadest reasonable interpretation, examiner notes that related recitations have been previously rejected with Zavala (USPN 10306946), which has been used in multiple rejections during prosecution, as recently as the office action of 3/28/25. Zavala clearly teaches that Woodard’s knit structures of first/second polymer-reinforcing strands can be half gauge or full gauge, respectively, such that there would be differing structural functions. Attention is also directed to the pertinent art section herein.
Pertaining to remarks beginning on page 8 that there is no motivation to combine Cochran and Woodard’s knit because Cochran’s encapsulation would eliminate the breathability, flexibility ,and textile characteristics of Woodard’s knit—examiner respectfully disagrees. As aforementioned, no evidence is presented of destroying Woodard’s textile characteristics, as both Cochran and Woodard are knit. There is also no evidence that Cochran eliminates breathability and flexibility. On the contrary, Cochran explicitly teaches being utilized in footwear for breathability and flexibility (see Col. 1 Lines 34-48).
Pertaining to remarks on page 10 that there is a European allowance with EP 3567146—no reference has been presented in an information disclosure statement, nor any non-patent literature pertaining to the rejections/allowances. Furthermore, patent offices examine independently. Neither amendments or nor remarks herein have been persuasive to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Dua et al (USPN 8490299) directed to knit densities being greater in certain areas of the shoe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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 on 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights