Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/642,535

UPPER FOR AN ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR WITH A LATTICE STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 22, 2024
Examiner
WORRELL JR, LARRY D
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Nike, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
1190 granted / 1441 resolved
+12.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1460
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§102
36.0%
-4.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1441 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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 1-5, 7-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huffa et al. (US 2012/0233882). Claims 1, 7, 8, 15 and 16: As seen at least in the embodiment of figure 9, Huffa teaches the knitted component (upper) for an article of footwear as claimed including a knitted lattice structure, comprising: a plurality of lattice bands, wherein at least a portion of the plurality of lattice bands comprise a common knit structure. PNG media_image1.png 812 916 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 2 and 9, the plurality of lattice bands are intersecting at their peripheries. Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17, the plurality of lattice bands define a plurality of openings wherein the lattice structure extends across a lateral and medial side of the upper. Regarding claims 4 and 10, the common knit structure comprises: at least one common yarn; and/or knitted loops that are intermeshed given the unitary knit construction. Regarding claims 5 and 12, the knitted lattice structure comprises at least one high-tenacity yarn ((132, 152), [0048], lines 17-21)). Regarding claim 14, the knitted lattice structure is located on at least one of a medial side, a lateral side, and a throat area of the upper as seen in figure 9. Regarding claim 18, the plurality of openings expose underlying portions of the knitted component forming part of the upper as seen for example in figures 12A-12E. Regarding claim 19, the knitted lattice structure extends around a heel area of the upper. Regarding claim 20, the knitted lattice structure extends in a throat area of the upper. 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 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Huffa et al. (US 2012/0233882). Huffa teaches the invention substantially as claimed as indicated above in the rejection claims 5 and 12. However, the high tenacity is not specially set forth as being about 5 g/D to about 10 g/D. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different high tenacity yarns including those having a tenacity of about 5 g/D to about 10 g/D in order to optimize the strength and stretch resistance of the knitted upper while maintaining flexibility and comfort. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 22, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 17, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595604
Sewing Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595605
SEWING MACHINE FRAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595599
MULTI-COMB JACQUARD THREE-DIMENSIONAL JACQUARD MESH FABRIC AND ITS PREPARATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584250
KNITTED ARTICLE, IN PARTICULAR FOR AN ORTHOPAEDIC BRACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584255
TUFTING MACHINE AND METHOD OF TUFTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+9.6%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1441 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month