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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 1, the newly added limitation “that defines a non-geometric” was not set forth in application as originally filed. as such is new matter. Additionally in claim 2, the newly added limitation “a boundary that extends along a meandering path” was not set forth in the application as originally filed. As such these limitations are new matter.
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 1-7 insofar as definite are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dealey et al. (US 9,301,567) in view of Panian et al. (US 2016/0058099)
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. However, applicant’s new matter recitation of defining a non-geometric shape is not explicitly set forth in Dealey. Panian teaches a similar knit upper with web portions having non-geometrical shapes [0079], lines 22-24. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different shape designs including geometrical and non-geometrical shapes for the purpose of optimizing the aesthetic appear of the shoe upper. Regarding claim 2, the irregular, non-geometric shape has a boundary that extends along a meandering path given that such part is not straight and turns multiple times. Regarding claim 3, the component comprises a fused surface region as in the optional embodiment set forth in column 8, lines 39-42. 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, 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, the strand may comprise a cushioning yarn, i.e. a yarn having loft (column 8, line 22). Regarding claims 7, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, W-F.
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 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
Prosecution Insights