DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to a request for continued examination (RCE) filed on 2/23/26 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination, with claims 11-20 remaining withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US Publication 2014/0137434) in view of Richard (EP 3123989) and Yao (USPN 10493881).
Regarding Claim 1, Craig teaches an article of footwear (see Figs. 1, 14A; [0026] "article of footwear 100…including a sole structure 110 and an upper 120") comprising:
an upper (120) that includes a knitted component ([0030] "upper 120 is formed from a knitted component 130"), the knitted component comprising:
a knit element ([0057] "knitted component 130 includes tongue portion 132"; [0053] "referring to Fig. 14E, tongue portion 132 is formed to have the configuration of a spacer material…to provide cushioning"),
a sole secured to the upper (see Fig. 1; [0026] "article of footwear 100…including a sole structure 110 and an upper 120"; [0026] "sole structure 110 is secured to a lower area of upper 120").
Craig does not explicitly teach that the knit element comprising:
a plurality of yarns;
a first layer forming a first surface of the knit element and comprising a first course; a second layer forming an opposite second surface of the knit element and comprising a second course;
a secured area where the first layer and the second layer are secured together, wherein at least a first knit loop of the first course of the knit element is intermeshed with a second knit loop of the second course of the knit element;
an unsecured area comprising a tubular construction where the first layer and the second layer are separated, forming a cavity therebetween;
an inlaid yarn extending through the first course and the second course of the knit element in the secured area and between the first layer and the second layer of the knit element in the unsecured area,
wherein the inlaid yarn has a first diameter in the unsecured area,
and wherein the inlaid yarn has a second diameter in the secured area.
Richard teaches the knit element (see Fig. 1; [0006] "invention relates to a compression orthosis which comprises a first knitted zone…and a second zone"; [0022] "orthosis 1 has…rear portion 4"; [0022] "rear portion 4 has a substantially rectangular surface 9"; [0028] "substantially rectangular surface 9 corresponds to a second zone Z2") comprising:
a plurality of yarns ([0006] "first knitted zone comprising a first yarn, a second yarn, and an elastic weft yarn inserted between the first and the second yarn…second zone in which the first yarn …second yarn…and the elastic weft yarn…forms"; [0025] "first knitted zone Z1 comprises a first yarn 12, a second yarn 14 and an elastic weft yarn 16"; [0028] "second zone Z2 in which the first yarn 12 forms...the second yarn 14 forms...elastic weft yarn 16...forms");
a first layer forming a first surface of the knit element and comprising a first course; a second layer forming an opposite second surface of the knit element and comprising a second course (see annotated Fig. 7 below; [0025] indicates that the first/second layers are knitted, and therefore of first/second courses, further shown in Fig. 7);
PNG
media_image1.png
336
1440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a secured area (Z1) where the first layer and the second layer are secured together, wherein at least a first knit loop of the first course of the knit element is intermeshed with a second knit loop of the second course of the knit element (see Fig. 7 for Z1; [0024] "orthosis 1 has a first knitted zone Z1", where Z1 in Fig. 7 clearly shows a first knit loop of the first course formed by 14 intermeshing with a second knit loop of the second course formed by 12, and therefore secures together first/second layers);
an unsecured area (Z2) comprising a tubular construction where the first layer and the second layer are separated, forming a cavity therebetween (see Fig. 7 for Z2; second knit loop where 14 is located in Z2; [0028] "second yarn 14 forms an outer knitted ply 24"; wherein Z2 clearly shows a separation between layers and a cavity, furthermore so with the existence of 16 between; as for tubular—inasmuch as the cavity allows for 16 to extend between and through, the cavity is tubular, inasmuch as defined by the claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation; furthermore, see Figs. 3, 8; [0028] “surface 9 corresponds to a second zone Z2”, which shows the cavity at Z2 fully enclosed which further meets the term tubular; furthermore, see Fig. 1 where Z2 is clearly of a tubular construction, as it belongs to element 4 [0020] as can be seen in Figures 1 to 3, the orthosis 1 has a substantially tubular geometry with…a rear portion 4”; [0022] “rear portion 4 has…surface 9”; furthermore, applicant’s own disclosure Fig. 6 shows element “G” which is of similar shape defining the term “tubular”, which further shows that the art meets the recitations under broadest reasonable interpretation);
an inlaid yarn (16) extending through the first course and the second course of the knit element in the secured area and between the first layer and the second layer of the knit element in the unsecured area (see Fig. 7; [0026] "weft elastic yarn 16 has at least one float which forms an intermediate ply 26 between the inner knitted ply 22 and the outer knitted ply 24", wherein 16 extends through courses formed by 12 and 14 within Z1),
wherein the inlaid yarn has a first diameter in the unsecured area (the existence of the inlaid yarn in the unsecured area indicates a first diameter),
and wherein the inlaid yarn has a second diameter in the secured area (the existence of the inlaid yarn in the secured area indicates a second diameter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Craig’s knit with that of Richard’s as a simple substitution of one knit with a spacer material for another to provide comfort ([0003],[0005]).
Modified Craig does not explicitly teach wherein the inlaid yarn is expanded in the unsecured area,
and wherein the inlaid yarn is compressed in the secured area.
Yao teaches wherein the inlaid yarn is expanded/texturized to loft (see Fig. 6; Col. 5 Lines 35-37 "definition of cubic knitting:...the thickness...is increased by stuffing loose yarn during the knitting"; Col. 5 Lines 42-44 "stuffing loose yarn in cubic knitting is as shown in Figs. 3-6. At least one loose yarn is located between pieces of double-sided fabric"; Col. 4 Lines 46-47 "due to the fluffy property of loose yarn, the thickness of the fabric may be set as required"; Col. 5 Lines 58-60 "thickness of the bag tissue is increased due to the fluffy property of the loose yarn"; Col. 5 Lines 60-67; Col. 5 Line 67-Col. 6 Line 3 "as yarns for the purpose of filling, yarns, such as...textured yarns which have excellent fluffy effect, are usually used", wherein the texturing indicates expanded to fluff/loft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Craig’s inlaid yarn as provided by Richard to be expanded/texturized to loft as taught by Yao in order to provide the option of varying thickness depending on the desired cushioning (Col. 5 Lines 60-67).
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 Craig teaches wherein the inlaid yarn is expanded/texturized to loft in the unsecured area (the inlaid yarn is in the unsecured area as provided by Richard and is expanded via texturizing as taught by Yao in Craig’s shoe, especially in light of Col. 5 Lines 60-67 of Yao),
and wherein the inlaid yarn is compressed in the secured area (the secured area has first/second layers connected to each other as taught by Richard which would therefore compress the inlaid yarn therebetween, especially in light of Col. 5 Lines 60-67 of Yao, all within Craig’s shoe).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Craig at least suggests wherein the first diameter is at least 50% larger than the second diameter (Yao Col. 5 Lines 60-67).
Modified Craig discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the first diameter being at least 50% larger than the second diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first diameter at least 50% larger than the second diameter, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, based on intended use. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the ratio of the diameters (applicant specification [0041]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Craig’s knit as provided by Richard with the areas of thickness/thinness as taught by Yao in order to provide the option of varying thickness depending on the desired cushioning (Col. 5 Lines 60-67), such that the first diameter is at least 50% larger than the second diameter depending on the amount of cushioning desired, without unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Yao further teaches wherein the inlaid yarn is a cushioning yarn textured to loft or is a multifilament polyester yarn texturized to loft (Col. 4 Line 49 "seat cushion skirt portion being knitted by cubic knitting", wherein it was previously established that the inlaid yarn is utilized in cubic knitting and is therefore a cushioning yarn; see aforementioned rejection of Claim 1 for textured to loft; fluff indicates cushion, especially in light of the recitation of intended use).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Craig already taught the knit element comprises an inlaid yarn extends through the first knit loop of the first course of the knit element intermeshed with the second knit loop of the second course of the knit element in the secured area and between the first layer and the second layer of the first knit element in the unsecured area (see rejection of Claim 1).
Modified Craig further teaches wherein the knit element further comprises one or more additional inlaid yarns textured to loft (Yao Col. 5 Lines 43-44 "At least one loose yarn is located between pieces of double-sided fabric").
As such, modified Craig at least suggests wherein the one or more additional inlaid yarns also extends as recited above (Yao Col. 5 Lines 43-44, wherein the first inlaid yarn already meets the recitation as indicated above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Craig’s spacer material as provided by Richard and Yao such that the one or more additional inlaid yarns also extend through the first knit loop and between the first/second layers as recited as modified Craig already established such a recitation for the first inlaid yarn. Inasmuch as Yao suggests that additional loose yarn would again be between the pieces of double-sided fabric similar to the first inlaid yarn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that additional inlaid yarns would similarly meet the recitation.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Craig teaches wherein the unsecured area comprises a cushioning area (Yao (Col. 4 Line 49 "seat cushion skirt portion being knitted by cubic knitting", wherein it was previously established in the rejection of Claim 1 that the inlaid yarn is utilized in cubic knitting, and is therefore a cushioning yarn; inasmuch as the inlaid yarn is a cushioning yarn and is in an unsecured area, the unsecured area is a cushioning area).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Craig at least suggests wherein the first diameter is at least twice as large as the second diameter (Yao Col. 5 Lines 60-67).
Modified Craig discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the first diameter being at least twice as large as the second diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first diameter at least twice as large as the second diameter, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range, based on intended use. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to ratio of the diameters (applicant specification [0041]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Craig’s knit as provided by Richard with the areas of thickness/thinness as taught by Yao in order to provide the option of varying thickness depending on the desired cushioning (Col. 5 Lines 60-67), such that the first diameter is at least twice as large depending on the amount of cushioning desired, without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US Publication 2014/0137434) in view of Richard (EP 3123989) and Yao (USPN 10493881), further in view of Greene (USPN 9295298).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Craig does not explicitly teach wherein the knit element comprises a plurality of cushioning areas.
Greene teaches wherein the knit element comprises a plurality of cushioning areas (see Figs. 1, 18; Col. 2 Lines 26-30 "upper may include a tongue element having a knitted component…compressible material may be located within a cavity of the knitted component"; Col. 2 Lines 34-37 "the upper may include a collar element having a knitted exterior…and an interior surface…a plurality of floating yarns may be located within a cavity of the knitted element"; Col. 13 Lines 35-37 "each of tongue element 40, collar element 50, and collar-throat element 60 includes a compressible area and a flange area").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Craig’s knit element to have more than just the tongue cushioning area as taught by Greene as Greene shows it is known to have cushioning areas in more than just the tongue in an article of footwear depending on the desired cushioning areas.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Greene further teaches wherein at least a portion of the plurality of cushioning areas comprise different dimensions and/or different shapes at different locations on the knit element (see Figs. 1, 18 for 40 and 50, or 40 and 60, having different dimensions/shapes/locations).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 6.
Greene further teaches wherein the plurality of cushioning areas are placed in at least one of an ankle area, a midfoot area, a collar area, a throat area, and an underfoot area of the upper for the article of footwear (Col. 13 Lines 35-37 "each of tongue element 40, collar element 50, and collar-throat element 60 includes a compressible area and a flange area"; 40 at midfoot, collar at collar/ankle, collar-throat at collar/ankle, throat, midfoot).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craig (US Publication 2014/0137434) in view of Richard (EP 3123989) and Yao (USPN 10493881), further in view of Lee (USPN 9551095).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Craig teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Richard further teaches wherein the secured area is adjacent to the unsecured area (see Richard Fig. 7).
Richard does not explicitly teach and wherein the secured area comprises a double jersey knit structure.
However, Richard does teach one layer of the secured area is a jersey knit structure in a spacer fabric ([0031] "the inner ply 22 has a jersey knit").
Lee teaches wherein a spacer fabric comprises a double jersey knit structure (see Figs. 1-4; Col. 2 Lines 4-8, 11-13, 17-18 "knit fabric…including a front side and a back side…knit fabric includes…second jersey stitch component…located on the front side…knit together into a jersey stitch pattern residing on the front side; and the third jersey stitch component is located on the back side and...knit together into a jersey stitch pattern residing on the back side"; Col. 7 Lines 59-60 "jersey stitch pattern 24 on both the front and back sides 26,27 of the fabric 20").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Craig’s secured area as provided by Richard to be of a double jersey knit structure as taught by Lee as a known structure to provide cushioning, moisture wicking, and non-retention in footwear (Col. 1 Lines 65-66, Col. 12 Line 5), furthermore as jersey knits are known for aesthetics in footwear (see extrinsic evidence McLaurin-Smith USPN 4961418).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11492736 in view of Craig (US Publication 2014/0137434).
The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below.
Instant Application
USPN 11492736
1. An article of footwear, comprising:
16. An upper for an article of footwear,
an upper that includes a knitted component, the knitted component comprising:
the upper comprising: a knitted component having
a knit element, comprising:
a knit element comprised of
a plurality of yarns;
a plurality of yarns, the knit element comprising:
a first layer forming a first surface of the knit element
a first layer forming a first surface
and comprising a first course;
a second layer forming an opposite second surface of the knit element
and a second layer forming an opposite second surface;
and comprising a second course;
a secured area where the first layer and the second layer are secured together, wherein at least a first knit loop of the first course of the knit element is intermeshed with a second knit loop of the second course of the knit element;
a secured area where at least a first knit loop of the knit element forms a portion of both the first layer and the second layer;
and a first unsecured area where at least a second knit loop of the knit element forms a portion of the first layer and not the second layer,
an unsecured area comprising a tubular construction where the first layer and the second layer are separated, forming a cavity therebetween; an inlaid yarn extending through the first course and the second course of the knit element in the secured area and between the first layer and the second layer of the knit element in the unsecured area,
(a first unsecured area where at least a second knit loop of the knit element forms a portion of the first layer and not the second layer),
and where at least a third knit loop of the knit element forms a portion of the second layer and not the first layer;an inlaid yarn texturized to loft,the inlaid yarn extending through the knit element between the first layer and the second layer;wherein in the first unsecured area, the second knit loop is located on a first side of the inlaid yarn forming the first layer,wherein in the first unsecured area, the third knit loop is located on a second side of the inlaid yarn forming the second layer, and
wherein the inlaid yarn is expanded and has a first diameter in the unsecured area,
wherein the inlaid yarn is lofted to a first diameter in the first unsecured area,
and wherein the inlaid yarn is compressed and has a second diameter in the secured area; and
wherein the inlaid yarn is compressed and has second diameter in the secure area,and wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter
a sole secured to the upper
2. The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first diameter is at least 50% larger than the second diameter
18. The upper of claim 16, wherein the first diameter is at least 50% larger than the second diameter
3. The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the inlaid yarn is a cushioning yarn textured to loft or is a multifilament polyester yarn texturized to loft
see Claim 16 "texturized to loft"
5. The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the unsecured area comprises a cushioning area
see Claim 16 "unsecured area" indicates cushioning
6. The article of footwear of claim 5, wherein the knit element comprises a plurality of cushioning areas
10. The article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first diameter is at least twice as large as the second diameter
18. The upper of claim 16, wherein the first diameter is at least 50% larger than the second diameter
The reference patent recites of all of the limitations of the claims of the instant application with 1) a few changes, and 2) a few exceptions, as bolded above, and as discussed herein.
Claim 1
1a) Pertaining to “of the knit element”, the USPN already teaches that the knit element has first/second layers with first/second surfaces, and therefore the surfaces would be of the knit element as recited in the instant claim.
1b) Pertaining to “first layer and the second layer are secured together, the USPN already teaches “secured area [has] a first knit loop…forms…both the first layer and the second layer” which indicates that the first/second layers are secured together via the first knit loop.
1c) pertaining to “expanded”, the USPN already teaches “lofted” which meets the recitation.
2a) Pertaining to the first layer comprising a first course and a second layer comprising a second course, the USPN already indicates that the first/second layers are of a knit, and therefore are of courses, and would have first/second courses.
2b) Pertaining to a first knit loop intermeshed with a second knit loop, the USPN already teaches that the first knit loop is of both the first/second layers, and that a second knit loop is of a first layer; as such, the first/second knit loops are intermeshed, especially as knit loops.
2c) pertaining to a tubular construction where first/second layers are separated with a cavity, the USPN already teaches that an inlaid yarn extends through and between the first/second layers, indicating a separation and cavity; and the USPN already indicates above that the first/second knit loops intermesh; as such, there is at least a partial enclosure through which the inlaid yarn extends through and between, meeting the term ‘tubular’ inasmuch as currently defined by the claims.
2d) pertaining to a sole, Craig teaches a sole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the USPN’s footwear with the sole of Craig as a known effective structure for a footwear.
Claim 3
The USPN teaches an inlaid yarn textured to loft in Claim 16 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for cushioning.
Claim 4
The USPN teaches an inlaid yarn in the first unsecured area in Claim 16 which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of being for cushioning and therefore that the unsecured area is a cushioning area.
Claim 6
The USPN teaches a cushioning area in the knit element. The USPN does not explicitly teach a plurality of cushioning areas. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the USPN to be a plurality, as a mere duplication of parts is seen as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such duplication into a plurality of cushioning areas would not have produced a new and unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. In other words, a mere duplication of parts of an element involves only routine skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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 10 that Richard teaches wires of an inner/outer surface and therefore does not teach first/second knit loops of first/second courses being intermeshed—examiner respectfully disagrees. Remarks directed attention to a google patents translation; however, examiner notes that a similar espacenet translation was already provided in the file wrapper 10/30/23. No details have been provided as to why the remarks believe that the amendments over the prior art of record. As best understood, remarks believe the translation recites “wire” and does not recite “courses” and therefore overcomes the prior art, which examiner respectfully disagrees with. Both versions of the translation are directed to yarns and to knitting (as also indicated in the remarks on page 10 in reciting [0025], [0026]), and to materials that are clearly yarn and not wire (see [0014] and [0015]). Furthermore, the existence of knitting indicates the existence of courses, as is well understood in the art. Furthermore, Fig. 7 of Richard in zones Z1 clearly show loops intermeshed as claimed. As such, amendments are not persuasive.
Pertaining to remarks on page 11 that no motivation has been found to modify Craig with a cushioning yarn of Yao in a knit element configured according to Richard—examiner respectfully disagrees. Attention is directed especially to page 5 of the previous office action of 3/15/24, wherein a motivation was provided from Yao Col. 5 Lines 60-67 to modify Craig, as already modified by Richard. Furthermore, a motivation was also provided on page 5 of the previous office action of 3/15/24 as to modifying Craig with Richard ([0003], [0005]). As such, remarks are not persuasive.
No suggestions for further differentiating the claims from the prior art of record in ways other than for the double patenting reference/parent application are suggested at this time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Podhajny (USPN 8997529) directed to intermeshed. The prior art also made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hernandez (USPN 12063984) directed to first/second knit layers with secured and unsecured areas, with the secured areas having loops intermesh into other layers, and inlaid yarn in between.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights