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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim 19 has been canceled, claims 1-2, 5-18, and 20 remain pending, and claims 12 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 depends from claim 19, which has been canceled. It appears that claim 20 should depend from claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 5-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffa et al. (US 2012/0233882), herein Huffa, in view of Dojan (US 10,912,349).
Regarding claim 1, Huffa discloses an article of footwear (100) having a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region, the article of footwear comprising: an upper comprising a knitted component (150) having a first side and a second side and a plurality of rows extending between the first side and the second side, the first side being a perimeter of the upper and the second side being a throat region of the upper; a continuous strand (152) integrated with the knitted component to form a plurality of strand segments that extend within respective ones of the plurality of rows of the knitted component between the first side and the second side, the plurality of strands including a plurality of midfoot strand segments that extend from the perimeter to the throat region and a plurality of heel strand segments that extend from the perimeter to the throat region (Fig. 9); and a sole structure (110), wherein the continuous strand is a radially extending strand (as seen in Fig. 9 the strand extends radially outward from the instep edges 155), wherein at least a portion of the first side of the knitted component is secured to the sole structure (paragraphs 0034, 0057-0059; Fig. 2, 9).
Huffa does not disclose the plurality of strand segments include forefoot strand segments that extend from the sole structure to the throat region.
Dojan teaches an article of footwear having an upper comprising a knitted component (42, 43), and a radially extending strand (41) integrated with the knitted component and forming a plurality of strand segments. The strand segments include forefoot strand segments, midfoot strand segments, and heel strand segments that extend from the sole structure to the throat region (Fig. 12E, 12F). At least one of the plurality of forefoot strand segments extends between a forward portion of the throat region and a forward portion of the perimeter of the upper at a toe end, relative to a longitudinal axis of the article of footwear (Fig. 1, 12F). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the strand segments of Huffa into the forefoot region at a toe end, as taught by Dojan, in order to provide increased stretch-resistance in the forefoot/toe region, providing greater structural support to the user’s forefoot.
Regarding claim 2, Huffa discloses that the continuous strand is integrated with the knitted component so that the plurality of strand segments are spaced apart along a length of the knitted component (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Huffa discloses that the strand segment may have different spacing along the length of the upper (Fig. 9), but does not specifically disclose that adjacent ones of the heel strand segments are spaced further apart than adjacent ones of the forefoot strand segments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjacent ones of the heel strand segments spaced further apart than adjacent ones of the forefoot strand segments, in order to provide greater stretch resistance and structural support in the forefoot region, and greater flexibility in the heel region, depending on the needs of the individual user.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 20, Huffa does not disclose the specific ratio of average spacing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a ratio of an average spacing between adjacent ones of the heel strand segments and an average spacing between adjacent ones of the forefoot strand segments greater than 1.5:1, or between 2:1 and 5:1 in order to provide greater stretch resistance and structural support in the forefoot region, and greater flexibility in the heel region, depending on the needs of the individual user. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Huffa discloses various numbers of rows between strand segments (Fig. 9), but does not disclose the specific ratio of an average number of rows between adjacent ones of the heel strand segments and adjacent ones of the forefoot strand segments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a ratio of an average number of rows between adjacent ones of the heel strand segments and adjacent ones of the forefoot strand segments greater than 1.5:1, or between 2:1 and 5:1, in order to provide greater stretch resistance and structural support in the forefoot region, and greater flexibility in the heel region, depending on the needs of the individual user. The claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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.
Regarding claim 10, Huffa discloses that the article of footwear comprises a medial side and lateral side, and the plurality of strand segments include medial side strand segments and lateral side strand segments (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Huffa discloses that an amount of medial side strand segments is the same as an amount of lateral side strand segments (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Huffa discloses that the medial side strand segments and the lateral side strand segments are positioned symmetrically relative to a longitudinal axis of the article of footwear (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Huffa discloses that the plurality of strand segments extend to the second side of the knitted component in a forward half of the throat region (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Huffa discloses that the plurality of strand segments extend to the second side of the knitted component in a rearward half of the throat region (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 17, Huffa discloses a knitted component (150) of an article of footwear comprising: a first side extending along a perimeter (153) of the knitted component to define a lower edge of the knitted component and a pair of heel edges (154) that can be joined together; a second side (155) that defines a throat region and/or a collar region; a plurality of rows extending between the first side and the second side; and a continuous strand (152) integrated with the knitted component to form a plurality of strand segments, the plurality of strands each extending within respective ones of the plurality of rows of the knitted component between the first side and the second side, wherein the continuous strand is a radially extending strand (as seen in Fig. 9 the strand extends radially outward from the instep edges) (paragraphs 0034, 0057-0059; Fig. 2, 9).
Huffa does not disclose the plurality of strand segments include forefoot strand segments that extend from the sole structure to the throat region.
Dojan teaches an article of footwear having an upper comprising a knitted component (42, 43), and a radially extending strand (41) integrated with the knitted component and forming a plurality of strand segments. The strand segments include forefoot strand segments, midfoot strand segments, and heel strand segments that extend from the sole structure to the throat region (Fig. 12E, 12F). Forefoot strand segments extend from a forward portion of the perimeter of the upper at a toe end to the second side (Fig. 1, 12F). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the strand segments of Huffa into the forefoot region at a toe end, as taught by Dojan, in order to provide increased stretch-resistance in the forefoot/toe region, providing greater structural support to the user’s forefoot.
Huffa discloses that the strand segment may have different spacing along the length of the upper (Fig. 9), but does not specifically disclose that adjacent ones of the heel strand segments are spaced further apart than adjacent ones of the forefoot strand segments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjacent ones of the heel strand segments spaced further apart than adjacent ones of the forefoot strand segments, in order to provide greater stretch resistance and structural support in the forefoot region, and greater flexibility in the heel region, depending on the needs of the individual user.
Regarding claim 18, Huffa discloses that the continuous strand is integrated with the knitted component so that the plurality of strand segments are spaced apart along rows along a length of the knitted component (Fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the tensile strand element shown in Dojan is positioned between material layers of the footwear upper and is not a continuous strand integrated with a knitted component through the knitting process. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Huffa clearly discloses a continuous strand integrated with a knitted component through the knitting process. Dojan merely teaches the location of a tensile strand within the forefoot/toe region of an upper. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the tensile strand of Huffa may be integrated with the knitted component in the forefoot/toe region, as taught by Dojan.
Applicant further argues that in order to arrive at the claimed subject matter, a person of ordinary skill would have to alter the structure of Dojan's layered tensile-element structure to become a continuous inlaid strand, and then integrate that modified strand into Huffa's knitted rows. However, the rejection does not propose such a complicated and roundabout combination. Instead, the rejection merely proposes extending the tensile strand of Huffa, which is already disclosed as a continuous inlaid strand, to the location of the forefoot/toe, as taught by Dojan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
