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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/25 has been entered.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is not clear what is meant by the limitation that the loops are “configured as a ball control feature”. Specifically, in what way are the loops “configured”, considering that “configured” has a definition of shaped or put together in a particular way or form. It is not clear how the claimed configured loops differ from the identical structure wherein the loops are not so configured. The claimed structure is not clear.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 17, 24-25, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0022993 in view of Stassinopoulos, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0163514.
Wildeman discloses the loop portion of a hook and loop fastening system. The loop portion comprises a base substrate having yarns which extend from second surface through the substrate to form loops on the first surface. The structure can be thermally bonded to hold the loops in place. See figures as well as paragraph 0006, 0030, 0035, 0036. The fastener can be used for diapers which are apparel. The bonding layer can polyolefin or polyurethane as well as SBR latex. See paragraph 0056. The figures show base substrate 230 through which the loops extend. There is no intermediate layer between the base sheet and the series of loops. Note that the claims as currently written do not preclude any additional layers but recites that the first side of the base sheet is defined by a single layer of the base sheet which is met by the structure of Wildeman.
Wildeman does not teach employing the fastener materials on shoes.
However, Stassinopoulos teaches that it was known to form entire shoe uppers from hook and loop material, see paragraph 0003, but does not teach the particularly claimed hook and loop material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the loop system of Wideman as the entire shoe upper as taught by Stassinopoulos.
Once the shoe upper was formed from a structure of loops as taught by Wideman, the loops would necessarily function as a ball control feature and would define a foot receiving cavity .
Claim(s) 2, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wildeman in view of Stassinopoulos as applied to claims above, and further in view of JP 592225700.
Wildeman in view of Stassinopoulos disclose a shoe structure with an outer surface formed from loops having the claimed structure.
Wildeman doses not clearly teach employing bondable or meltable strands as the loops.
However, JP ‘700 discloses a fastener material wherein the loops are tufted through a substrate. See paragraph 0057. The loops can be thermally bonded by melting the strands to bond the strands to the backing material. See example. The loops can be tufted into a backing material such as woven, knitted, spunbond or other type of nonwoven fabric. See page 3 of the translation. The fastener material can be used on disposable products such as diapers which are apparel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed a meltable strand to form the tufted loops of Wildeman in order to provide the reverse bonding without having to employ an additional material.
Claim(s) 10-14, 16, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Wildeman in view of Stassinopoulos as set forth above and further in view of Tomsovic et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0005257.
Wildeman teaches loop fastener materials as set forth above.
Wildeman does not teach varying the density of the loops, using different colors to make the loops or a particular thread size.
However, Tomsovic teaches that the shape, density and composition of the hooks and loops in a hook and loop closure system can be selected to obtain the desired level of securement between the hook and loop components and to have provided the desired appearance to the final product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have varied the density, position, shape and composition of the loops including size and color to provide the desired level of securement.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 requires that the first side of the base sheet is formed by a single layer of the base sheet and thus overcomes the references. However, in Wildeman the side of the base sheet from which the loops project is a single layer, for example, see the figures and layer 230 which is a single layer .
With regard to the limitation that the loops are configured as ball control features, since Wildeman in view of Stassinopoulos teaches the loops forming the surface of the shoe upper, it is reasonable to expect that the loops would perform the claimed function of ball control, since the structure is the same and therefore it is reasonable to expect that they could be used in the same way, (to perform a ball control function). No particular configuration or structure is set forth to impart ball control features, therefore it is reasonable to expect that the loops having the same structure would be able to perform the use of ball control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789