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
Applicant’s amendment of 08/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-20 are presented.
Claims 1 and 7 are presented in independent form and are amended.
Dependent claims 11 and 13 are amended.
Claims 19-20 remain withdrawn and are amended.
The present office action treats claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-18 on the merits.
The present office action is a final rejection.
Drawings
A replacement sheet was received on 08/06/2025. This replacement sheet is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 08/06/2025 (see p. 8-11 of the reply) are fully considered.
Regarding Drawing Objections (p. 8): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Applicant’s replacement sheet of 08/06/2025 renders the drawing objection applied in the previous office action moot.
Regarding Claim Objections (p. 9): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Applicant’s amendment of 08/06/2025 renders the claim objection applied in the previous office action moot.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 9-11): Applicant’s have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Littlefield, US 1,382,658, newly cited] in view of [Valentine, US 1,802,361, newly cited], [Craig, US 2014/0137434, previously cited] in view of [Huffa, US 2019/0335857, previously cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Littlefield discloses (Figs. 1-2):
a top portion (“insole”; p. 1 line 44; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) configured to be coupled to an upper (p. 1 line 31), the top portion being woven (p. 1 line 64) such that the top portion includes weft plies 16 that are interlaced with warp plies 12, 14 (i.e. the combined 12 and 14), the warp plies 12, 14 each following a non-linear, undulating path that extends from a heel region to the forefoot region (in the same way that the combined first, second, and third segments identified hereinbelow follow such a path),
wherein at least one of the warp plies (i.e. one of 12; see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below) defines a first segment (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below) in a midfoot region that extends in a longitudinal direction from a heel end toward a toe end (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below), and at least one of a second segment (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below) that extends from the first segment toward a medial side in the forefoot region (see annotated Figs. 1 – a below) and a third segment (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below) that extends from the first segment toward a lateral side in the heel region (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below) wherein warp plies and weft plies intersect in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side (as in annotated Figs. 1-2 – a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1060
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Littlefield does not expressly disclose wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side.
Rather, in Littlefield, warp plies and weft plies appear to intersect each other is a biased fashion (Fig. 1).
However, Valentine teaches a woven (p. 1 line 56) top portion (“innersole”; p. 1 line 78) comprising weft plies 2 interlaced with warp plies 1, 3 (i.e. the combined 1 and 3) wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other (Figs. 1 and 3) in a heel region on a lateral side and a medial side (Figs. 1 and 3).
It 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 to have modified the top portion of Littlefield such that its warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side in order to yield the predictable result of a top portion whose warp plies and weft plies are securely interlaced with one another via their perpendicular arrangement; one of ordinary skill would expect secure interlacing to take place if the warp and weft plies intersected in a biased fashion as appears to be the case in Littlefield Fig. 1 or if the warp and weft plies intersected perpendicularly as in the modified Littlefield based on the teachings of Valentine.
Littlefield does not expressly disclose:
An article of footwear defining a lateral side and a medial side, the article of footwear comprising:
an upper comprising an outward facing portion directly coupled to an inward facing portion, the outward facing portion comprising a polyester yarn, the outward facing portion at least partially externally exposed in a forefoot region, and the inward facing portion comprising a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high-molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn, the inward facing portion being rigid and configured to reduce stretching of the footwear upper,
a top portion that is coupled to the upper, the top portion being woven such that the top portion includes weft plies that are interlaced with warp plies, the warp plies each following a non-linear, undulating path that extends from a heel region to the forefoot region,
wherein at least one of the warp plies defines a first segment in a midfoot region that extends in a longitudinal direction from a heel end toward a toe end, and at least one of a second segment that extends from the first segment toward the medial side in the forefoot region and a third segment that extends from the first segment toward the lateral side in the heel region, and wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side of the article of footwear.
However and in further view of Littlefield: Littlefield teaches the top portion is configured to be coupled to an upper (p. 1 line 31).
Craig teaches (Figs. 1-11):
An article of footwear 100 (i.e. “article of footwear 100”; para 26) defining a lateral side (para 9) and a medial side (para 10), comprising:
an upper 130 (i.e. “knitted component 130”; para 30) comprising an outward facing portion (see annotated Fig. 11D – a below) directly coupled to (upper 130 is “formed of unitary knit construction (i.e., as a one-piece element)” (para 30) such that inward facing and outward facing portions are directly coupled to each other via at least the structure of the unitary one-piece construction of upper 130, including at least at ankle opening 123) an inward facing portion (see annotated Fig. 11D – a below), the outward facing portion at least partially externally exposed (para 32; see also Fig. 3) in a forefoot region (see annotated Fig. 11D – a below), and a top portion 110 (i.e. “sole structure 110”; para 28) that is coupled to the upper (para 26; Figs. 1-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
606
1032
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Craig further teaches an “upper generally extends over the instep and toe areas of the foot” (para 2) and the top portion “110 is located under and supports a foot of a wearer, upper 120 provides a comfortable and secure covering for the foot” (para 26).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that it is coupled to an upper comprising an outward facing portion directly coupled to an inward facing portion, the outward facing portion, the outward facing portion at least partially externally exposed in a forefoot region, and the inward facing portion, the inward facing portion being rigid and configured to reduce stretching of the footwear upper, as in Craig, in order to yield an article of footwear defining a lateral and medial side wherein the upper is configured to comfortably and/or securely cover instep and/or toe areas of the wearer’s foot and wherein the top portion is configured to support the foot of the wearer, as taught by Craig.
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at an article of footwear defining a lateral side and a medial side, the article of footwear comprising: an upper comprising an outward facing portion directly coupled to an inward facing portion, the outward facing portion at least partially externally exposed in a forefoot region,
a top portion that is coupled to the upper, the top portion being woven such that the top portion includes weft plies that are interlaced with warp plies, the warp plies each following a non-linear, undulating path that extends from a heel region to the forefoot region,
wherein at least one of the warp plies defines a first segment in a midfoot region that extends in a longitudinal direction from a heel end toward a toe end, and at least one of a second segment that extends from the first segment toward the medial side in the forefoot region and a third segment that extends from the first segment toward the lateral side in the heel region, and wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side of the article of footwear.
The modified Littlefield does not expressly disclose
the outward facing portion comprising a polyester yarn.
the inward facing portion comprising a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high- molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn, the inward facing portion being rigid and configured to reduce stretching of the footwear upper.
However, and in further view of Craig: Craig as embodied in para 43 teaches “the properties that a particular type of yarn will impart to…knitted component 130…depend upon the materials that form the various filaments and fibers…Polyester is a hydrophobic material that also provides relatively high durability” (para 43).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that its inward facing portion and outward facing portion comprise polyester yarn, as in Craig para 43, in order to render the shoe hydrophobic and durable, as taught by Craig (para 43).
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at the outward facing portion formed from a polyester yarn as claimed and the inward facing portion formed from a polyester yarn.
Thus although the modified Littlefield’s inward facing portion comprises polyester yarn, the modified Littlefield does not meet the limitation the inward facing portion comprises a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high- molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn, the inward facing portion being rigid and configured to reduce stretching of the footwear upper.
However, in further view of Craig: Craig does teach the material composition of the upper may “include separate filaments that are each formed of different materials… may include filaments that are each formed of two or more different materials…materials…may be selected to impart a variety of properties” (para 43). Thus Craig at least teaches that the upper is open to modification and expressly teaches a combination of plural components as possible components thereof. However, Craig is silent as to any UHMWPE component.
However, Huffa teaches, and in relation to knit uppers (Abstract) teaches that UHMWPE is an appropriate material therefore (para 148) and further teaches that a knit upper can be made from a combination of UHMWPE yarn (“on the first spool”; para 148) and another thermoplastic yarn (“second material…thermoplastic polymer…knitting machine can…pull the strands of the second material…and interloop them with the first strand…strands in certain regions can be…a combination of strands, which can be interloped and connected directly with strands of the second material or combination of strands in predefined locations” (para 148). Huffa further teaches UHMWPE is “a strong fiber with minimal stretch” (para 110).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that its inward facing portion comprises a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high- molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn in order to arrive at an upper that is strong at locations where the UHMWPE is disposed, as suggested by Huffa (paras 110, 148). One would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Craig teaches “high strength” (para 43) is a relevant property of a material disclosed by Craig.
In adopting the modification, the limitation the inward facing portion being rigid and configured to reduce stretching of the footwear upper would be met insofar as the modified inward facing portion comprises the combination of polyester yarn and UHMWPE yarn, and the UHMWPE present in the inward facing portion has “minimal stretch” (para 110 of Huffa), resulting in rigidity to the inward facing portion and, as a result, the capability of reducing stretching as claimed.
Regarding claim 2:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig and Huffa teach the article of footwear of claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Littlefield does not meet the limitation wherein the inward facing portion is directly coupled to the outward facing portion by at least one of knitting, braiding, or weaving.
However and in further view of Craig, Craig further teaches wherein the inward facing portion is directly coupled to the outward facing portion by at least one of knitting (“formed as a one-piece element through a knitting process”; para 35), braiding, or weaving.
Craig further teaches “Advantages of knitted component 130 include stretch and recovery properties, as well as enhanced fit and comfort.” (para 24).
It 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 to have modified the modified Craig such that the inward facing portion is directly coupled to the outward facing portion by knitting in order to provide the article of footwear with enhanced stretch and/or recovery properties; and/or to afford enhanced fit and/or comfort, as taught by Craig (para 24).
Regarding claim 5:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig and Huffa teach the article of footwear of claim 1, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 1 above, the modified Littlefield does not meet the limitation wherein the inward facing portion extends along the outward facing portion in the forefoot region, the midfoot region, and the heel region of the footwear upper.
However and in further view of Craig: Craig teaches wherein the inward facing portion extends along the outward facing portion in the forefoot (see annotated Fig. 11D – b below), a midfoot (see annotated Fig. 11D – b below) region, and the heel region (see annotated Fig. 11D – b below) of the footwear upper.
PNG
media_image3.png
608
1032
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that its inward facing portion extends along the outward facing portion in the forefoot region, the midfoot region, and the heel region of the footwear upper in order to yield the predicable result of an article of footwear whose inward facing portion and outward facing portion are configured to cover a forefoot portion of the wearer’s foot, a midfoot portion of the wearer’s foot, and a heel portion of the wearer’s foot.
Regarding claim 6:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig and Huffa teach the article of footwear of claim 5, as set forth above.
As applied to claim 5 above, the modified Littlefield does not meet the limitation wherein the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity defined by the footwear upper at least in the forefoot and midfoot regions.
However and in further view of Craig: Craig teaches wherein the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity (see annotated Fig. 11D – c below) defined by the footwear upper at least in the forefoot and midfoot regions (see annotated Fig. 11D – c below).
PNG
media_image4.png
607
1032
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity defined by the footwear upper at least in the forefoot and midfoot regions in order to yield the predicable result of an article of footwear whose inward facing portion is configured to directly cover a forefoot portion of a wearer’s foot and a midfoot portion of a wearer’s foot.
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Littlefield, US 1,382,658, newly cited], [Valentine, US 1,802,361, newly cited], [Craig, US 2014/0137434, previously cited] and [Huffa, US 2019/0335857, previously cited] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of [Abdeen, WO 2019/229427 A1, previously cited].
Regarding claim 3:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig and Huffa teach the article of footwear of claim 1, as set forth above.
Although the modified Littlefield teaches a composition of the inward facing portion is at least some percentage of UHMWPE yarn (refer to above treatment of claim 1), the modified upper does not expressly meet the limitation a composition of the inward facing portion is at least 70% UHMWPE yarn.
However, and in relation to a “liner…, e.g….a boot, a shoe or a sock” (page 6 lines 27-29), Abdeen teaches the composition of a fabric comprising UHMWPE of 60-100% and 0-40% polyester:
“In embodiments the yarn comprises at least one of (i)…ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene…and/or at least one of (i) ….polyester,…In embodiments the yarn comprises …at least 60wt% (i) and/or no more than 40wt% (ii).” (the paragraph spanning pages 5-6)
(It is noted that Abdeen used the character (i) to refer to the polyester in the second line of the excerpt above; however, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the recitation of polyester should have been preceded by the correct indicator “(ii)”.
Abdeen further teaches: “Suitable cut-resistant fibres include one of, or a blend of two or more of aramid (including para-aramid ), ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high strength polypropylene, high strength polyvinyl alcohol, high strength liquid crystal polyesters, and fibre glass. In embodiments the liner comprises ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene and/or fibre glass. Typically, the liner comprises cut-resistant fibres together with conventional fibres. (page 5 lines 24-30).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified Littlefield as applied to claim 1 comprises polyester conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and UHMWPE fiber. Although the modification as applied to claim 1 does not refer to a cut-resistant property of the UHMWPE fiber, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified upper’s composition is a blend of conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and a different fiber (i.e. UHMWPE) having a special property (i.e. affording good strength owing to the high strength of UHMWPE; refer to above treatment of claim 1) different from that of the conventional fiber. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would consider Abdeen’s compositional teaching to be relevant to the combination of conventional fiber and UHMWPE fiber found in the modified upper as applied to claim 1.
Because Abdeen is concerned with balancing properties of conventional and specialty fibers and provides for adjusting the yarn composition, the percentage range is considered as a results effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired degree of durability and cost to the upper, it 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 to have modified the footwear upper of the modified Littlefield such that the composition of the inward facing portion is at least 70% UHMWPE yarn in order to afford a high durability to the upper while maintaining a good balance of cost to the upper owing to the balance of the yarn comprising the conventional yarn (i.e. polyester) and accordingly the overall composition of the inward facing portion. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the change insofar as Craig teaches the motivation to vary physical properties via choice of yarn (para 44).
Regarding claim 4:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig and Huffa teach the article of footwear of claim 1, as set forth above.
Although the modified Littlefield teaches a composition of the inward facing portion is at least some percentage of UHMWPE yarn (refer to above treatment of claim 1), the modified upper does not expressly meet the limitation a composition of the inward facing portion is at least 90% UHMWPE yarn.
However, and in relation to a “liner…, e.g….a boot, a shoe or a sock” (page 6 lines 27-29), Abdeen teaches the composition of a fabric comprising UHMWPE of 60-100% and 0-40% polyester:
“In embodiments the yarn comprises at least one of (i)…ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene…and/or at least one of (i) ….polyester,…In embodiments the yarn comprises …at least 60wt% (i) and/or no more than 40wt% (ii).” (the paragraph spanning pages 5-6)
(It is noted that Abdeen used the character (i) to refer to the polyester in the second line of the excerpt above; however, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the recitation of polyester should have been preceded by the correct indicator “(ii)”.
Abdeen further teaches: “Suitable cut-resistant fibres include one of, or a blend of two or more of aramid (including para-aramid ), ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high strength polypropylene, high strength polyvinyl alcohol, high strength liquid crystal polyesters, and fibre glass. In embodiments the liner comprises ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene and/or fibre glass. Typically, the liner comprises cut-resistant fibres together with conventional fibres. (page 5 lines 24-30).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified Littlefield as applied to claim 1 comprises polyester conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and UHMWPE fiber. Although the modification as applied to claim 1 does not refer to a cut-resistant property of the UHMWPE fiber, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified upper’s composition is a blend of conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and a different fiber (i.e. UHMWPE) having a special property (i.e. affording good strength owing to the high strength of UHMWPE; refer to above treatment of claim 1) different from that of the conventional fiber. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would consider Abdeen’s compositional teaching to be relevant to the combination of conventional fiber and UHMWPE fiber found in the modified upper as applied to claim 1.
Because Abdeen is concerned with balancing properties of conventional and specialty fibers and provides for adjusting the yarn composition, the percentage range is considered as a results effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired degree of durability and cost to the upper, it 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 to have modified the footwear upper of the modified Littlefield such that the composition of the inward facing portion is at least 90% UHMWPE yarn in order to afford good durability to the upper while maintaining a good balance of cost to the upper owing to the balance of the yarn comprising the conventional yarn (i.e. polyester) and accordingly the overall composition of the inward facing portion. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the change insofar as Craig teaches the motivation to vary physical properties via choice of yarn (para 44).
Claim(s) 7, 10-11, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Littlefield, US 1,382,658, newly cited] in view of [Valentine, US 1,802,361, newly cited], [Craig, US 2014/0137434, previously cited] in view of [Huffa, US 2019/0335857, previously cited].
Regarding claim 7:
Littlefield discloses (Figs. 1-2):
a top portion (“insole”; p. 1 line 44; no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) configured to be coupled to an upper (p. 1 line 31), the top portion being woven (p. 1 line 64) such that the top portion includes weft plies 16 that are interlaced with warp plies 12, 14 (i.e. the combined 12 and 14), the warp plies 12, 14 each following an undulating, longitudinal path along the top portion (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – b below) that corresponds to a trajectory of a center of pressure of a foot that the article of footwear is configured to receive (the path corresponds to some trajectory of a center of pressure of afoot of a wearer under a use condition; it is noted that the top portion is configured such that a wearer’s foot can be pressed thereupon in a variety of manners by selective placement of the foot and application of pressure including but not limited to during the various processes of donning and doffing the footwear, walking and running, shifting one’s weight such that the limitation is met), each of the undulating, longitudinal paths extending from a heel region to the medial side of a forefoot region (as in annotated Figs. 1-2 – b below), and the weft plies extending laterally across the top portion (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – b below).
wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side (as in annotated Figs. 1-2 – b below)
PNG
media_image5.png
1057
757
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Littlefield does not expressly disclose wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side.
Rather, in Littlefield, warp plies and weft plies appear to intersect each other is a biased fashion (Fig. 1).
However, Valentine teaches a woven (p. 1 line 56) top portion (“innersole”; p. 1 line 78) comprising weft plies 2 interlaced with warp plies 1, 3 (i.e. the combined 1 and 3) wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other (Figs. 1 and 3) in a heel region on a lateral side and a medial side (Figs. 1 and 3).
It 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 to have modified the top portion of Littlefield such that its warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side in order to yield the predictable result of a top portion whose warp plies and weft plies are securely interlaced with one another via their perpendicular arrangement; one of ordinary skill would expect secure interlacing to take place if the warp and weft plies intersected in a biased fashion as appears to be the case in Littlefield Fig. 1 or if the warp and weft plies intersected perpendicularly as in the modified Littlefield based on the teachings of Valentine.
Littlefield does not expressly disclose:
An article of footwear defining a lateral side and a medial side, the article of footwear comprising:
an inward facing portion knitted together with an outward facing portion forming an upper;
wherein the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity of the article of footwear and is formed from a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn to be rigid and reduce stretching of the article of footwear, and the outward facing portion is at least partially externally exposed in a forefoot region; and
a top portion coupled to the upper, the top portion being woven such that the top portion includes weft plies that are interlaced with warp plies, each of the warp plies following an undulating, longitudinal path along the top portion that corresponds to a trajectory of a center of pressure of a foot that the article of footwear is configured to receive, each of the undulating, longitudinal paths extending from a heel region to the medial side of the forefoot region of the article of footwear, and the weft plies extending laterally across the top portion, and
wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side of the article of footwear.
However and in further view of Littlefield: Littlefield teaches the top portion is configured to be coupled to an upper (p. 1 line 31).
Craig teaches (Figs. 1-11):
An article of footwear 100 (i.e. “article of footwear 100”; para 26) defining a lateral side (para 9) and a medial side (para 10), comprising:
an inward facing portion (see annotated Fig. 11D – a presented in above addressing of claim 1) knitted together with (“formed as a one-piece element through a knitting process”; para 35) an outward facing portion (see annotated Fig. 11D – a presented in above addressing of claim 1) forming an upper 130 (i.e. “knitted component 130”; para 30);
wherein the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity (see annotated Fig. 11D – c presented in above addressing of claim 6) of the article of footwear
and the outward facing portion is at least partially externally exposed (para 32; see also Fig. 3) in a forefoot region (see annotated Fig. 11D – a presented in above addressing of claim 1); and
a top portion (“sole structure 110”; para 26) coupled to the upper.
Craig further teaches an “upper generally extends over the instep and toe areas of the foot” (para 2) and the top portion “110 is located under and supports a foot of a wearer, upper 120 provides a comfortable and secure covering for the foot” (para 26).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that it is coupled to an upper comprising an inward facing portion knitted together with an outward facing portion forming the upper; wherein the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity of the article of footwear, and the outward facing portion is at least partially externally exposed in a forefoot region, as in Craig, in order to yield an article of footwear defining a lateral and medial side wherein the upper is configured to comfortably and/or securely cover instep and/or toe areas of the wearer’s foot and wherein the top portion is configured to support the foot of the wearer, as taught by Craig.
In adopting the modification, one would arrive at an article of footwear defining a lateral side and a medial side, the article of footwear comprising: an inward facing portion knitted together with an outward facing portion forming an upper; wherein the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity of the article of footwear, and the outward facing portion is at least partially externally exposed in a forefoot region; and a top portion coupled to the upper, the top portion being woven such that the top portion includes weft plies that are interlaced with warp plies, each of the warp plies following an undulating, longitudinal path along the top portion that corresponds to a trajectory of a center of pressure of a foot that the article of footwear is configured to receive, each of the undulating, longitudinal paths extending from a heel region to the medial side of the forefoot region of the article of footwear, and the weft plies extending laterally across the top portion, and wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other in the heel region on the lateral side and the medial side of the article of footwear.
The modified Littlefield does not expressly disclose
the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity of the article of footwear and is formed from a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn to be rigid and reduce stretching of the article of footwear
However, and in further view of Craig: Craig as embodied in para 43 teaches “the properties that a particular type of yarn will impart to…knitted component 130…depend upon the materials that form the various filaments and fibers…Polyester is a hydrophobic material that also provides relatively high durability” (para 43).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that its inward facing portion is formed from polyester yarn, as in Craig para 43, in order to render the shoe hydrophobic and durable, as taught by Craig (para 43).
Thus although the modified Littlefield’s inward facing portion comprises polyester yarn, the modified Littlefield does not meet the limitation the inward facing portion is formed from a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn to be rigid and reduce stretching of the article of footwear.
However, in further view of Craig: Craig does teach the material composition of the upper may “include separate filaments that are each formed of different materials… may include filaments that are each formed of two or more different materials…materials…may be selected to impart a variety of properties” (para 43). Thus Craig at least teaches that the upper is open to modification and expressly teaches a combination of plural components as possible components thereof. However, Craig is silent as to any UHMWPE component.
However, Huffa teaches, and in relation to knit uppers (Abstract) teaches that UHMWPE is an appropriate material therefore (para 148) and further teaches that a knit upper can be made from a combination of UHMWPE yarn (“on the first spool”; para 148) and another thermoplastic yarn (“second material…thermoplastic polymer…knitting machine can…pull the strands of the second material…and interloop them with the first strand…strands in certain regions can be…a combination of strands, which can be interloped and connected directly with strands of the second material or combination of strands in predefined locations” (para 148). Huffa further teaches UHMWPE is “a strong fiber with minimal stretch” (para 110).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that its inward facing portion is formed from a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn to be rigid and reduce stretching of the article of footwear in order to arrive at an upper that is strong at locations where the UHMWPE is disposed, as suggested by Huffa (paras 110, 148). One would be motivated to adopt the modification insofar as Craig teaches “high strength” (para 43) is a relevant property of a material disclosed by Craig.
In adopting the modification, the limitation “the inward facing portion is exposed to an interior cavity of the article of footwear and is formed from a combination of polyester yarn and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) yarn to be rigid and reduce stretching of the article of footwear” would be met insofar as the modified inward facing portion comprises the combination of polyester yarn and UHMWPE yarn, and the UHMWPE present in the inward facing portion has “minimal stretch” (para 110 of Huffa), resulting in rigidity to the inward facing portion and, as a result, the capability of reducing stretching as claimed.
Regarding claim 10:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig, and Huffa teach The article of footwear of claim 7, as set forth above.
Littlefield further discloses wherein a plurality of the weft plies in a metatarsal section of the top portion are configured to extend in parallel with a virtual metatarsal line (plurality of weft plies, as modified, intersect perpendicularly with warp plies; see above treatment of claim 7; accordingly, at least two of the weft plies in a metatarsal section are configured to extend in parallel with a virtual metatarsal line that is perpendicular to one of the warp plies; it is noted claim 7 does not limit any particular arrangement of the virtual metatarsal line.
Regarding claim 11:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig, and Huffa teach The article of footwear of claim 10, as set forth above.
Littlefield further does not expressly disclose wherein the virtual metatarsal line extends across the top portion from a point on the medial side of the top portion at about 0.73 times a length of the top portion measured from a heel end of the top portion and extending across the top portion and back toward the heel end at an angle of about 20 degrees from a line extending across the top portion from the point on the medial side and perpendicular to the length.
However and in further view of Littlefield, Littlefield, while not expressly to scale, appears to disclose:
the virtual metatarsal line extends across the top portion from a point (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – c below) on the medial side of the top portion at what appears to be about 0.73 times a length (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – c below) of the top portion measured from a heel end of the top portion and extending across the top portion and back toward the heel end at an angle that appears to be of about 20 degrees from a line (see annotated Figs. 1-2 – c below) extending across the top portion from the point on the medial side and perpendicular to the length.
In annotated Figs. 1-2 – c below, the a plurality of the weft plies in a metatarsal section of the top portion of the modified Littlefield are configured to extend in parallel with the virtual metatarsal line insofar as the weft plies run perpendicular to the warp plies as modified (see above treatment of claim 7) and the 12, 14 are perpendicular to the virtual metatarsal line on the medial side of the top portion (i.e. nearest the point on the medial side at about 0.73 times the length) such that the weft plies running perpendicular to warp plies 12, 14 on the medial side are parallel to the virtual metatarsal line identified.
PNG
media_image6.png
1057
1136
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that the virtual metatarsal line extends across the top portion from a point on the medial side of the top portion at about 0.73 times a length of the top portion measured from a heel end of the top portion and extending across the top portion and back toward the heel end at an angle of about 20 degrees from a line extending across the top portion from the point on the medial side and perpendicular to the length, as appears would be the case in Fig. 1 as set forth above when the warp and weft plies are arranged perpendicularly to one another as they are in the modified Littlefield, in order to yield the predictable result of an article of footwear whose contoured shape at the medial side near the point on the medial side at about 0.73 times the length of the top portion is curved in such a way so as to comfortably fit a foot of a wearer and/or curved in such a way as to be aesthetically desirable by a user and/or an observer of the article of footwear.
Regarding claim 13:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig, and Huffa teach The article of footwear of claim 7, as set forth above.
Littlefield further discloses wherein the warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other (as in above treatment of claim 7; wherein Littlefield is modified such that warp plies and weft plies intersect perpendicularly with respect to each other; see above treatment of claim 7) in a heel strike section within the heel region (see annotated Fig. 1-2 – d below), and wherein the heel strike section is an area of the top portion extending between a first line (see annotated Fig. 1-2 – d below) extending tangentially along the lateral side of the top portion in the heel region and laterally outward at an angle (see annotated Fig. 1-2 – d below) of about 37 degrees from a line (see annotated Fig. 1-2 – d below) extending tangentially across a heel end of the top portion and a second line (see annotated Fig. 1-2 – d below), parallel with the first line, spaced a distance (see annotated Fig. 1-2 – d below) from the first line.
PNG
media_image7.png
1057
658
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig, and Huffa teach The article of footwear of claim 7, as set forth above.
Littlefield further discloses wherein a concentration of intersections of the warp and weft plies are higher in at least one of a heel strike section, an arch section, or a metatarsal section.
(See annotated Fig. 1 – e below wherein a metatarsal section and a heel strike section are identified; a concentration of intersections is higher in the metatarsal section than in the heel strike section).
PNG
media_image8.png
1057
632
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Littlefield, US 1,382,658, newly cited], [Valentine, US 1,802,361, newly cited], [Craig, US 2014/0137434, previously cited], [Huffa, US 2019/0335857, previously cited] as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of [Dupre, US 2017/0095034, newly cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig, and Huffa teach The article of footwear of claim 7, as set forth above.
Littlefield does not expressly disclose wherein the weft and warp plies comprise carbon polymer filler material.
However, Dupre teaches a ply 702 (i.e. “strand 702”; para 196) appropriate for a footwear top portion (“footwear plates 300-300i”; para 195) comprising carbon polymer filler material (“each strand 702 include at least one of carbon fibers...and polymer fibers. Fibers such as carbon fibers...may provide a high Young's modulus while ...polymer fibers (e.g., synthetic fibers) provide a medium modulus”; para 196).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that its weft and warp plies comprise carbon polymer filler material in order to impart a degree of medium-to-high modulus thereto, as taught by Dupre (para 196), and/or in order to yield the predictable result of weft and warp plies whose material of construction is satisfactory for the purpose of providing a rib as desired by Littlefield (p. 1 line 24); one of ordinary skill would be need to select some material for this purpose and would expect the carbon polymer filler material taught by Dupre to perform adequately therefor.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Littlefield, US 1,382,658, newly cited], [Valentine, US 1,802,361, newly cited], [Craig, US 2014/0137434, previously cited], [Huffa, US 2019/0335857, previously cited] as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of [Schwartz, US 2019/0373985, previously cited].
Regarding claim 14:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig, and Huffa teach The article of footwear of claim 13, as set forth above.
Littlefield does not expressly disclose wherein the distance is about 35 mm.
Littlefield, while not expressly to scale, appears to show the distance of being about 35 mm (see above treatment of claim 13).
However, Schwartz teaches a top portion (“shoe insole”; Abstract) wherein a structure configured to support a heel 55 (i.e. “heel pad[] 55”; para 15) is “approximately 35 mm” at its “largest width” (para 15).
It 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 to have modified the modified Littlefield such that its distance is about 35 mm in order to provide the top portion with increased strength within the heel strike region wherein said heel strike region is capable of accommodating a human heel that spans a dimension of about 35 mm.
Claims 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Littlefield, US 1,382,658, newly cited], [Valentine, US 1,802,361, newly cited], [Craig, US 2014/0137434, previously cited] and [Huffa, US 2019/0335857, previously cited] as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of [Abdeen, WO 2019/229427 A1, previously cited].
Regarding claim 17:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig and Huffa teach the article of footwear of claim 7, as set forth above.
Although the modified Littlefield teaches a composition of the inward facing portion is at least some percentage of UHMWPE yarn (refer to above treatment of claim 1), the modified upper does not expressly meet the limitation a composition of the inward facing portion is at least 70% UHMWPE yarn.
However, and in relation to a “liner…, e.g….a boot, a shoe or a sock” (page 6 lines 27-29), Abdeen teaches the composition of a fabric comprising UHMWPE of 60-100% and 0-40% polyester:
“In embodiments the yarn comprises at least one of (i)…ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene…and/or at least one of (i) ….polyester,…In embodiments the yarn comprises …at least 60wt% (i) and/or no more than 40wt% (ii).” (the paragraph spanning pages 5-6)
(It is noted that Abdeen used the character (i) to refer to the polyester in the second line of the excerpt above; however, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the recitation of polyester should have been preceded by the correct indicator “(ii)”.
Abdeen further teaches: “Suitable cut-resistant fibres include one of, or a blend of two or more of aramid (including para-aramid ), ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high strength polypropylene, high strength polyvinyl alcohol, high strength liquid crystal polyesters, and fibre glass. In embodiments the liner comprises ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene and/or fibre glass. Typically, the liner comprises cut-resistant fibres together with conventional fibres. (page 5 lines 24-30).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified Littlefield as applied to claim 1 comprises polyester conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and UHMWPE fiber. Although the modification as applied to claim 1 does not refer to a cut-resistant property of the UHMWPE fiber, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified upper’s composition is a blend of conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and a different fiber (i.e. UHMWPE) having a special property (i.e. affording good strength owing to the high strength of UHMWPE; refer to above treatment of claim 1) different from that of the conventional fiber. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would consider Abdeen’s compositional teaching to be relevant to the combination of conventional fiber and UHMWPE fiber found in the modified upper as applied to claim 1.
Because Abdeen is concerned with balancing properties of conventional and specialty fibers and provides for adjusting the yarn composition, the percentage range is considered as a results effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired degree of durability and cost to the upper, it 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 to have modified the footwear upper of the modified Littlefield such that the composition of the inward facing portion is at least 70% UHMWPE yarn in order to afford a high durability to the upper while maintaining a good balance of cost to the upper owing to the balance of the yarn comprising the conventional yarn (i.e. polyester) and accordingly the overall composition of the inward facing portion. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the change insofar as Craig teaches the motivation to vary physical properties via choice of yarn (para 44).
Regarding claim 18:
Littlefield in view of Valentine, Craig and Huffa teach the article of footwear of claim 17, as set forth above.
Although the modified Littlefield teaches a composition of the inward facing portion is at least some percentage of UHMWPE yarn (refer to above treatment of claim 1), the modified upper does not expressly meet the limitation a composition of the inward facing portion is at least 90% UHMWPE yarn.
However, and in relation to a “liner…, e.g….a boot, a shoe or a sock” (page 6 lines 27-29), Abdeen teaches the composition of a fabric comprising UHMWPE of 60-100% and 0-40% polyester:
“In embodiments the yarn comprises at least one of (i)…ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene…and/or at least one of (i) ….polyester,…In embodiments the yarn comprises …at least 60wt% (i) and/or no more than 40wt% (ii).” (the paragraph spanning pages 5-6)
(It is noted that Abdeen used the character (i) to refer to the polyester in the second line of the excerpt above; however, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the recitation of polyester should have been preceded by the correct indicator “(ii)”.
Abdeen further teaches: “Suitable cut-resistant fibres include one of, or a blend of two or more of aramid (including para-aramid ), ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high strength polypropylene, high strength polyvinyl alcohol, high strength liquid crystal polyesters, and fibre glass. In embodiments the liner comprises ultra-high-molecular- weight polyethylene and/or fibre glass. Typically, the liner comprises cut-resistant fibres together with conventional fibres. (page 5 lines 24-30).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified Littlefield as applied to claim 1 comprises polyester conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and UHMWPE fiber. Although the modification as applied to claim 1 does not refer to a cut-resistant property of the UHMWPE fiber, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the modified upper’s composition is a blend of conventional fiber (i.e. polyester) and a different fiber (i.e. UHMWPE) having a special property (i.e. affording good strength owing to the high strength of UHMWPE; refer to above treatment of claim 1) different from that of the conventional fiber. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would consider Abdeen’s compositional teaching to be relevant to the combination of conventional fiber and UHMWPE fiber found in the modified upper as applied to claim 1.
Because Abdeen is concerned with balancing properties of conventional and specialty fibers and provides for adjusting the yarn composition, the percentage range is considered as a results effective variable such that one of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed percentage values through routine experimentation in order to provide desired degree of durability and cost to the upper, it 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 to have modified the footwear upper of the modified Littlefield such that the composition of the inward facing portion is at least 90% UHMWPE yarn in order to afford good durability to the upper while maintaining a good balance of cost to the upper owing to the balance of the yarn comprising the conventional yarn (i.e. polyester) and accordingly the overall composition of the inward facing portion. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to adopt the change insofar as Craig teaches the motivation to vary physical properties via choice of yarn (para 44).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/G.A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights