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 amendment filed 9/29/25 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 49, 50 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/28/25.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 Line 4 before “knit void spaces” delete “a”
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 Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 1-- the 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 1 Line 4 is a knit seamless upper
The structure of Claim 1 Lines 11-14 is one or more polymer-reinforcing strands in one or more zones
The structure of Claim 1 Lines 27-32 is a heel insert having loops attached to medial/lateral side portions
The structure of Claim 1 Lines 33-38 is at least one portion comprising the one or more knit polymer-reinforcing strands embedded with a matrix phase
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 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 Podhajny et al (USPN 10294591), herein Podhajny.
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) formed through a knitting process performed by a flat knitting machine (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 ; for knitted and seamless via machine--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”); for flat—see claim interpretation; this recitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Woodard’s seamless upper method results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other upper forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the flat knitting machine method as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; for required structure-- [0034] “the entirety of the upper 102, may be formed of a knitted component 134…after a knitting process…on a flat knitting machine as described in Fig. 8”),
the seamless upper includes 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 including 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 knitted into shape through the knitting process and is connected to another portion of the unitary knit construction seamlessly by knitting stitches that are generated in the knitting process (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 generated in the knitting process (see Fig. 11; [0037] "heel portion 145", insert being the area of 145 where the arrows begin),
the insert having loops ([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”),
Woodard at least suggests wherein the insert has been produced by the knitting machine moving stitches for the heel portion to a needle bed and subsequently attaching the loops of the insert to the medial side portion and the lateral side portion to attach the insert to the medial side portion and the lateral side portion (see claim interpretation; this recitation is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Woodard’s heel forming method of attaching the insert’s loops to medial/lateral loops results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other heel forming methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use the heel forming method of utilizing a needle bed before subsequent attachment as claimed since such a process is a well-known technique in the art; for required structure-- the medial side portion having loops and the lateral side portion having loops in [0053]; 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 the footwear article with one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements,
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 and pressed into one or more zones so as to create the seamless upper without requiring cutting and joining,
the at least one portion of the plurality of portions being placed through a resin application, resin activation, and/or molding process subsequent to the knitting process to transform the at least one portion into the one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements comprising a matrix phase of material generated during the resin application, resin activation and/or molding process and a reinforcing phase of material 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).
Furthermore, see claim interpretation-- the recitation “subsequent to the knitting process” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation. Therefore, even if Woodard’s method results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to Woodard’s method as claimed since such “subsequent to knitting” process is a well-known technique in the art. Nevertheless, inasmuch as [0034] “the knitted component 134 as it may appear after a knitting process”, then to be able to subject knitted component 134 to transitions means that the knitting process has already occurred, and transitions are subsequent to a knitting process; where the one or more polymer reinforcing elements is the at least one portion after the molding process that now exhibits advantageous properties.
Cochran teaches a footwear article with one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements (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 at least one portion of the plurality of portions is a polymer reinforcing portion including one or more polymer-reinforcing strands (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 of the plurality of portions being placed through a resin application, resin activation, and/or molding process subsequent to the knitting process to transform the at least one portion into the one or more polymer reinforcing composite elements comprising a matrix phase of material generated during the resin application, resin activation, and/or molding process and a reinforcing phase of material comprised of the one or more polymer-reinforcing strands embedded within the matrix phase (in light of applicant [0029], resin application, resin activation and/or molding process is interpreted as molding process which could be dry or wet; wherein, similarly as aforementioned, “subsequent to the knitting process” is product by process, but is further supported inasmuch as the polyester is already knit; 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 and pressed into one or more zones so as to create the seamless upper without requiring cutting and joining (for aligned and pressed—Cochran teaches the Col. 7 Lines 7-9 for mold parts 14 and 16 which teaches “pressure” for pressed, and Fig. 3 showing 14 and 16 aligned with the mold, which would be applied to the seamless upper of Woodard; for without cutting/joining-- inasmuch as Woodard teaches a seamless upper, there is no cutting or joining; furthermore, modifying Woodard with the materials of Cochran still results in being seamless, and therefore without requiring cutting or joining, regardless of whether there is cutting in Cochran’s process performed on Woodard).
Woodard does not explicitly teach that the flat knitting machine is V-bed.
However, see claim interpretation and rejection above, wherein the recitation is treated as product by process.
Nevertheless, Podhajny teaches wherein a V-bed flat knitting machine is utilized for a seamless upper (see Fig. 19; Col. 15 Lines 57-59 "knitting machine 1764 may include two needle beds…angled thereby forming a v-bed"; see Fig. 21, Col. 19 Line 7 "knitted component 2000" for seamless knitted upper; Col. 2 Lines 29-30 "method of assembling an article of footwear incorporating a knitted component into an upper").
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 flat knitting machine to be a V-bed as taught by Podhajny, especially as Woodard Fig. 8 and Podhajny Fig. 19 are similar, as a known effective flat knitting machine for a seamless upper, wherein it is known in the art that V-beds are flat knitting machines (see extrinsic evidence Podhajny USPN 8973410).
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 through the knitting process ([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 that are generated in the knitting process (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 in the knitting process).
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 composite reinforcing elements during the knitting process (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 (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).
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 Podhajny et al (USPN 10294591), herein Podhajny, 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), Podhajny et al (USPN 10294591), herein Podhajny, 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 during the knitting process 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 during the knitting process 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, 50 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 Woodard does not teach a seamless upper as examiner only indicated [0002] and Fig. 11—examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 11, labeled 134, clearly shows a seamless upper. Remarks also do not take into account the recitations previously already recited for now canceled “upper comprised of a plurality of materials” which indicated [0034], teaching that at least a portion (and also explicitly the entirety of the upper 102), is seamless knitted component 134. The description of Fig. 11 in [0028] also indicates that it applies to Figs. 2-9, wherein Fig. 2-9 are clearly indicated with a seamless upper other than a finishing seam 170. Regardless of whether there is a finishing seam 170, a seamless upper has been made. The claims are directed to a product, not a method, and therefore regardless of whether there is an eventual seam or not, the claims are met by the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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