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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 17 have been amended, claims 1-2 and 5-20 remain pending, and claims 12 and 14 are withdrawn from consideration in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites the limitations “a forefoot region” and “a heel region” in line 2. These appear to the same elements as the ‘forefoot region’ and ‘heel region’ previously recited in claim 17. The limitations should be amended to clarify that the same elements are recited.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “forefoot strand segments” and “heel strand segments” in lines 3-4. These appear to be the same elements as the ‘strand segments in a forefoot region’ and ‘strand segments in a heel region’ previously recited in claim 17. The limitations should be amended to clarify that the same elements are recited.
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, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffa et al. (US 2012/0233882), herein Huffa, in view of Podhajny (US 2014/0245633).
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.
Podhajny teaches an article of footwear having an upper (320) comprising a knitted component (316), and a radially extending continuous strand (359) 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. At least one of the plurality of forefoot strand segments extends between a forward portion of the throat region and a forward portion (half) of the perimeter of the upper, relative to a longitudinal axis of the article of footwear (Fig. 6, 24). 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 segment into the forefoot region, as taught by Podhajny, in order to provide increased stretch-resistance in the forefoot 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) 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.
Podhajny teaches an article of footwear having an upper (320) comprising a knitted component (316), and a radially extending continuous strand (359) 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. At least one of the plurality of forefoot strand segments extends between a forward portion of the throat region and a forward portion (half) of the perimeter of the upper, relative to a longitudinal axis of the article of footwear (Fig. 6, 24). 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 segment into the forefoot region, as taught by Podhajny, in order to provide increased stretch-resistance in the forefoot 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 rows along a length of the knitted component (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 19, Huffa discloses that the article of footwear comprises a forefoot region, a midfoot region, and a heel region, and the plurality of strand segments comprise midfoot strand segments that extend from the sole structure to the throat region, and heel strand segments that extend from the sole structure to the throat region (Fig. 9), but does not disclose the plurality of strand segments include forefoot strand segments that extend from the sole structure to the throat region.
Podhajny teaches an article of footwear having an upper (320) comprising a knitted component (316), and a continuous strand (359) 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. 6, 24). 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 segment into the forefoot region, as taught by Podhajny, in order to provide increased stretch-resistance in the forefoot region, providing greater structural support to the user’s forefoot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Huffa does not teach or suggest the continuous radially extending strand. However, as seen in at least Fig. 9, Huffa does teach a continuous radially extending strand, which extends radially outward from the inner edges 155 down to the perimeter edge 153 and rearwardly to the heel edge 154.
Applicant further argues that Huffa does not teach or suggest the heel-to-forefoot spacing relationship. However, as seen in Fig. 9, Huffa clearly teaches that the spacing between strands may vary along the length of the shoe, and that the spacing toward the front of the shoe may be closer than the spacing towards the rear of the shoe. Therefore, as discussed in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, it would have been obvious 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.
Applicant argues that Podhajny does not remedy the deficiencies of Huffa. However, it is noted that Podhajny additionally teaches a radially extending continuous strand, as clearly seen in Fig. 24.
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
Prosecution Insights