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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument:
First, FIG. 14 of Dealey is distinguishable from claim 1 because the alleged "webbed area" identified by the Office located between the alleged tubular structures (1400, 1404) that contain tensile elements (1408, 1410) is provided without either of the tensile elements (1408, 1410) extending through the alleged "webbed area." The Office argues a strand "forms the top of the tubular knit structure" without citation to a specific portion of Dealey. However, to the extent the Office argues a strand is present at the top of the purported "tubular knit structure" and thus also extends through the purported "webbed area" this would be contradictory to the language of claim 1 because in this scenario the strand would be part of the tubular knit structure and thus not extend through it.
Office’s Response:
Initially it should be noted that applicant fails to claim “tensile elements” extending through the webbed area. Applicant simply claims “a strand extending through the tubular knit structure”. The Office does not cite elements 1408 and 1410 as being “a tensile element” or “strand”. On the contrary the “strand” in question is a knitted strand that forms the webbed region as highlighted in annotated figure 14 and as such the strand extends through the webbed region. Furthermore this strand goes on to form the walls of the tubular knit structure. Since the tubular knit structure is formed by the strand, self-evidently the strand extends through the walls of the tubular knit structure.
Applicant’s second argument:
Second, the Office alleges that the purported "webbed region" in FIG. 14 of Dealey is an "irregular shape.” However, the edge regions of the element pointed to by the Office, i.e., 1302 in FIG. 14, is shown with entirely linear boundaries, and thus, no irregular shape is present in the cited elements. It is therefore submitted that claim 1 is allowable over Dealey. Claim 2 is allowable at least based on its dependency from claim 1. It is therefore requested that this rejection be withdrawn.
Office’s Response:
Applicant does not claim non-linear boundaries but merely “an irregular pattern”. While the claim is not specific as to what is considered an “irregular” pattern as opposed to a “regular” pattern, the webbed regions shows a triangular portion which is considered “irregular” to the extent claimed. Furthermore, the webbed region has a non-linear boundary at least at the connecting angles of the triangular boundaries. Moreover, Dealey discloses multiple embodiments which include irregular, “non-linear” patterns, e.g. Figures 2, 10 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dealey et al. (US 9,301,567).
As seen for example in the embodiment of figure 14, Dealey teaches the article of footwear (1306) as claimed including a knitted component, comprising: a tubular knit structure; a strand extending through the tubular knit structure (strand forming top of tubular knit structure); and a webbed region located adjacent to the tubular knit structure, the webbed region comprising an irregular pattern, wherein the strand further extends through the webbed region. Regarding claim 2, the knitted component further may comprise a fused surface region as in the optional embodiment set forth in column 8, lines 39-42.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3-20 insofar as definite are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dealey et al. (US 9,301,567).
Regarding claims 3, 8, 11 and 15, Dealey teaches the invention substantially as claimed as indicated previously in the rejection to claim 2. Although Dealey teaches fused surfaces they are not set forth as terminating at the webbed region and on the tubular knit structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to provide the fused areas in diverse locations on the knitted footwear article including on the tubular knit structure and terminating at the webbed region for the purpose of providing optimized strength and stiffness in different areas of the footwear. Regarding claim 4, the fused surface region comprises a fused thermoplastic polymer material (column 8, line 40). Regarding claims 5, 12, 18 and 19, the webbed region may comprise a single-jersey or double jersey knit structure as indicated by Dealey at column 9, line 39-46 (referring to jersey knit diagrams found in US 20120366882. Regarding claims 6, 9 and 16, the strand may comprise a cushioning yarn, i.e. a yarn having loft (column 8, line 22). Regarding claims 7 and 10, the cushioning yarn inherently extends through the webbed region in a compacted state, such that the cushioning yarn has a reduced diameter in the webbed region. Regarding claim 13, Delaney includes a front side and a back side, wherein a first yarn comprises a thermoplastic polymer material, wherein the first yarn extends on the back side of the non-tubular region and extends on the front side of the tubular knit structure where it is fused to form the fused surface region, and wherein a second yarn that is different from the first yarn extends on the front side of the non- tubular region. Regarding claim 14, the non-tubular region is a webbed region, and wherein the webbed region comprises an irregular pattern as seen above in annotated figure 14. Regarding claim 20, the non-fused region comprises a knit structure forming an irregular pattern that at least partially surrounds the fused surface region of the knitted component as seen above in annotated figure 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2
Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including:
-The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
-A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
-Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Danny Worrell whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANNY WORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
ldw