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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on March 18, 2026, claims 1, 4, 11, and 16-17 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on March 18, 2026, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated December 19, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because each of Figs. 2-5 appear to show an improper exploded view. Each exploded view should include a bracket or line to show the relationship or order of assembly of various parts.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“162” directed to a hook as discussed at least at [0052]
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “160” has been used to designate different structures in Figs. 6 and 7. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that reference character “160” in Fig. 7 be replaced with reference character “162” directed to a hook as discussed at [0052]..
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification – Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method” at line 1 is implied phraseology. It is suggested that the phrase be removed from the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2, “an upper, comprising:” should read “an upper and a sole structure, the upper comprising:”
At line 3, “comprising:” should read “the knitted component comprising:”
At line 9, “a sole structure” should read “the sole structure” in light of the above objections and suggested corrections
Claim 9 is objected to because at lines 3-4, “an underfoot portion” should read “an underfoot portion of the upper”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2, “comprising:” should read “the knitted component comprising:”
At line 12, “an underfoot portion” should read “an underfoot portion of the upper”
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2, “an upper, comprising:” should read “an upper and a sole structure, the upper comprising:”
At line 3, “comprising:” should read “the knitted component comprising:”
At line 9, “a sole structure” should read “the sole structure” in light of the above objections and suggested corrections
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“lasting element” as recited at least in claims 1, 4-5, 8-12, and 16-18, and 20
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a plurality of knitted gaps that expose the lasting element from the passage” at lines 2-3. It is unclear in what way or ways the lasting element is meant to be considered exposed. For example, is the lasting element exposed to direct observation by a user, or is the lasting element meant to be exposed to contact with one or more other components of the claimed article? Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant that the lasting element is exposed “from the passage”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a plurality of knitted gaps, wherein the lasting element is positioned in the plurality of knitted gaps”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the lasting element is exposed through at least one opening in the passage” at lines 2-3. Similar to the discussion of claim 4 above, it is unclear in what way or ways the lasting element is meant to be considered exposed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein the lasting element is positioned through at least one opening in the passage”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein an exposed portion of the lasting element extends between opposite sides of the upper” at lines 10-11. Similar to the discussion of claims 4-5 above, it is unclear in what way or ways the portion of the lasting element is meant to be considered exposed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein a portion of the lasting element extends between opposite sides of the upper”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the exposed portion of the lasting element extends between the first opening and the second opening outside of the passage” at lines 3-4. Similar to the discussion of claims 4-5 and 11 above, it is unclear in what way or ways the portion of the lasting element is meant to be considered exposed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein the portion of the lasting element extends between the first opening and the second opening outside of the passage”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a plurality of openings spaced about a length of the channel at which the lasting element is exposed”. Similar to the discussion of claims 4-5 and 11-12 above, it is unclear in what way or ways the lasting element is meant to be considered exposed. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “a plurality of openings spaced about a length of the channel at which the lasting element is positioned”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 5-10, 12-16 and 19-20 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 (claims 5-8, as best can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0286898 to Manz et al. (hereinafter, “Manz”).
Regarding claim 1, Manz teaches an article of footwear, comprising: an upper (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; upper (1701) can be attached to a sole structure to form a complete a shoe such as sole structure (14) of shoe (13) of Fig. 12; Examiner notes that Manz explicitly discloses that the various embodiments and components can be combined with one another; [0445]), comprising: a knitted component, comprising: an inner perimeter edge; an outer perimeter edge (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; upper (1701) is a knitted component comprising outer perimeter (1703) and inner perimeter edge opposite and interior to edge (1703); [0358]); a passage in the knitted component that extends about the upper adjacent to the outer perimeter edge (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; passage formed by threads (1704) in knitted upper adjacent outer perimeter edge and retaining strand (1702); Examiner notes that the term "passage" is very broad and merely means "a path, channel, or duct through, over, or along which something may pass" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the preposition term "about" is very broad and merely means "in the vicinity of; near". (Prep. defn. No. 2 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); and a lasting element extending through the passage such that the lasting element is located between the upper and a sole structure (See Manz, Figs. 17A-71C; strand (1702) extending through passage and being located between upper (1701) and sole structure (14) when assembled as shoe (13); outer perimeter (1703) is arranged in the sole area in the finished shoe; [0359]); and the sole structure secured to the upper adjacent to the outer perimeter edge (outer perimeter (1703) is arranged in the sole area adjacent sole structure (14) in the finished shoe; [0359]).
Regarding claim 2, Manz (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the sole structure and the upper are secured without a strobel (a strobel sole is presented as optional by Manz and is therefore not required for securing the upper to the sole structure; [340]).
Regarding claim 3, Manz (as discussed with respect to claims 1-2 above) further teaches wherein the sole structure and the upper are secured with adhesive and/or thermal bonding (upper and sole structure are securable via welding, gluing, or sewing; [0349]).
Regarding claim 5, Manz (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the passage comprises a first end and a second end, and wherein the lasting element is exposed through at least one opening in the passage located between the first end and the second end (See Manz, Fig. 17A; passage formed around outer perimeter (1703) by threads (1704) includes first end on a medial side and a second end on a lateral side, thread (1702) being positioned and exposed through the openings along the passage between the ends; see 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion).
Regarding claim 6, Manz (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the at least one opening comprises a first opening located on a first side of the upper and a second opening located on a second side of the upper (See Manz, Fig. 17A; passage formed around outer perimeter (1703) by threads (1704) includes at least first opening at first end on a medial side and a second opening at second end on a lateral side).
Regarding claim 7, Manz (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the at least one opening comprises a first set of openings located on a first side of the upper and a second set of openings located on a second side of the upper (See Manz, Fig. 17A; passage formed around outer perimeter (1703) by threads (1704) includes a first set of openings in the passage between threads (1704) on the medial side and a second set of openings in the passage between threads (1704) on the lateral side).
Regarding claim 8, Manz (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the at least one opening comprises a first opening located on a first side of the upper and a second opening located on a second side of the upper, and wherein the lasting element extends out of the first opening and into the second opening (See Manz, Fig. 17A; passage formed around outer perimeter (1703) by threads (1704) includes at least a first opening on a medial side and a second opening on a lateral side wherein strand (1702) extends out of first opening around the outer perimeter and into the second opening).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0095377 to Tamm (hereinafter, “Tamm”).
Regarding claim 4, Manz (as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the passage comprises a structure comprising a plurality of gaps that expose the lasting element from the passage (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; passage formed by threads (1704) in knitted upper adjacent outer perimeter edge includes gaps between retaining structures (1704) in which retaining strand (1702) is positioned and exposed; see 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion).
That said, Manz is silent to the structure being a tubular knitted structure and the gaps being knitted.
However, Tamm, in a related knitted upper for footwear art, is directed to footwear having knitted uppers wherein threads are pulled through formed tunnels/channels (See Tamm; abstract; [0119]). More specifically, Tamm teaches the structure being a tubular knitted structure and the gaps being knitted (knitted upper structure includes integrally formed knitted hollow tunnels through which thread can be pulled; See Tamm, [0119]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to instead form the passage of Manz using knitted tunnels integrally formed in the knitted upper as disclosed by Tamm for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, forming a reinforced structure for withstanding tension loads (See Tamm, [0119]).
Claims 9-20 (claims 9-16 and 18-20, as best can be understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manz (as applied to claims 1 and 5 above with respect to claims 9-10), and further in view of USPN 2,413,824 to Glassman (hereinafter, “Glassman”).
Regarding claim 9, Manz (as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the at least one opening comprises a plurality of openings located about the passage (See Manz, Fig. 17A; threads (1704) forming passage around outer perimeter (1703) form a plurality of openings).
That said, Manz is silent to wherein the lasting element extends between the plurality of openings such that the lasting element extends across an underfoot portion.
However, Glassman, in a related footwear lasting art, is directed to an article of footwear and lasting for a footwear upper (See Glassman, Figs. 1-6). More specifically, Glassman teaches wherein the lasting element extends between the plurality of openings such that the lasting element extends across an underfoot portion (See Glassman, Fig. 2; lasting element (6) extends between plurality of openings in passage formed by peripheral edge strip (2); lasting element (6) extends across underfoot portion of upper; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to replace the passage structure and lasting element pathing of Manz for that of Glassman for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, drawing the edges of the upper more tightly together using the cross lacing arrangement (See Glassman, Col. 3, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 10, the modified article of footwear of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 5 above) further teaches wherein the lasting element comprises a first segment that extends across the underfoot portion and a second segment that extends across the underfoot portion, wherein the first segment and the second segment intersect (See Glassman, Fig. 2; intersecting segments of lasting element (6) extending between medial and lateral sides of upper; Examiner notes that the term "segment" is very broad and merely means "one of the parts into which something is divided; a division, portion, or section". (Defn. No. 1 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
Regarding claim 11, Manz teaches an upper (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; upper (1701) can be attached to a sole structure to form a complete a shoe such as sole structure (14) of shoe (13) of Fig. 12; Examiner notes that Manz explicitly discloses that the various embodiments and components can be combined with one another; [0445]), comprising: a knitted component, comprising: an inner perimeter edge; an outer perimeter edge (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; upper (1701) is a knitted component comprising outer perimeter (1703) and inner perimeter edge opposite and interior to edge (1703); [0358]); a passage within the knitted component, the passage extending about the knitted component adjacent to the outer perimeter edge (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; passage formed by threads (1704) in knitted upper adjacent outer perimeter edge and retaining strand (1702); Examiner notes that the term "passage" is very broad and merely means "a path, channel, or duct through, over, or along which something may pass" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the preposition term "about" is very broad and merely means "in the vicinity of; near". (Prep. defn. No. 2 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the passage comprising a first end and a second end (See Manz, Fig. 17A; passage formed around outer perimeter (1703) by threads (1704) includes first end on a medial side and a second end on a lateral side); and a lasting element extending through the passage, wherein the lasting element is exposed at a plurality of openings in the passage, the plurality of openings located between the first end and the second end (See Manz, Figs. 17A-71C; strand (1702) extending through passage; thread (1702) being positioned and exposed through the openings along the passage between the ends; see 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion).
That said, Manz is silent to wherein an exposed portion of the lasting element extends between opposite sides of the upper and across an underfoot portion.
However, Glassman, in a related footwear lasting art, is directed to an article of footwear and lasting for a footwear upper (See Glassman, Figs. 1-6). More specifically, Glassman teaches wherein an exposed portion of the lasting element extends between opposite sides of the upper and across an underfoot portion (See Glassman, Fig. 2; lasting element (6) extends between opposite sides of upper in passage formed by peripheral edge strip (2); lasting element (6) extends across underfoot portion of upper; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to replace the passage structure and lasting element pathing of Manz for that of Glassman for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, drawing the edges of the upper more tightly together using the cross lacing arrangement (See Glassman, Col. 3, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 12, the modified upper of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) further teaches wherein the plurality of openings comprise a first opening located on a first side of the upper and a second opening located on a second side of the upper, wherein the exposed portion of the lasting element extends between the first opening and the second opening outside of the passage (See Glassman, Fig. 2; openings in peripheral edge strip (2) include a first opening on a medial side and a second opening on a lateral side; a portion of the lasting element extends between the first and second openings outside of the passage; see 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion).
Regarding claim 13, the modified upper of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) further teaches wherein the lasting element comprises a strip (See Manz, Fig. 17A; strand (1702) is a length of material and considered a strip absent additional structural limitations).
Regarding claim 14, the modified upper of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) further teaches wherein the lasting element comprises a strand (See Manz, Fig. 17A; strand (1702)).
Regarding claim 15, the modified upper of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claims 11 and 14 above) further teaches wherein the strand comprises at least one of a filament, a fiber, a thread, a yarn, a cable, and a rope (See Manz, Fig. 17A; strand (1702) is at least one of a filament, thread, yarn, cable, rope).
Regarding claim 16, the modified upper of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claim 11 above) further teaches wherein the lasting element extends between the plurality of openings such that the lasting element intersects itself outside of the passage on the underfoot portion (See Glassman, Fig. 2; lasting element intersects itself outside of passage on underfoot portion of upper in modified upper of Manz as discussed above).
Regarding claim 17, Manz teaches an article of footwear, comprising: an upper (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; upper (1701) can be attached to a sole structure to form a complete a shoe such as sole structure (14) of shoe (13) of Fig. 12; Examiner notes that Manz explicitly discloses that the various embodiments and components can be combined with one another; [0445]), comprising: a knitted component, comprising: an inner perimeter edge; an outer perimeter edge (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; upper (1701) is a knitted component comprising outer perimeter (1703) and inner perimeter edge opposite and interior to edge (1703); [0358]); a passage that extends about the upper adjacent to the outer perimeter edge (See Manz, Figs. 17A-17C; passage formed by threads (1704) in knitted upper adjacent outer perimeter edge and retaining strand (1702); Examiner notes that the preposition term "about" is very broad and merely means "in the vicinity of; near". (Prep. defn. No. 2 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com); Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); and a lasting element extending at least partially through the passage and located between the upper and a sole structure attached to the upper (See Manz, Figs. 17A-71C; strand (1702) extending through passage and being located between upper (1701) and sole structure (14) when assembled as shoe (13); outer perimeter (1703) is arranged in the sole area in the finished shoe; [0359]), wherein the sole structure is attached to the upper without a strobel (a strobel sole is presented as optional by Manz and is therefore not required for securing the upper to the sole structure; [340]).
That said, Manz is silent to the passage being a channel.
However, Glassman, in a related footwear lasting art, is directed to an article of footwear and lasting for a footwear upper (See Glassman, Figs. 1-6). More specifically, Glassman teaches a passage being a channel (See Glassman, Fig. 2; lasting element (6) extends between opposite sides of upper in a channel formed by peripheral edge strip (2); lasting element (6) extends across underfoot portion of upper).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to replace the passage structure and lasting element pathing of Manz for the channel structure and lasting pathing of Glassman for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, drawing the edges of the upper more tightly together using the cross lacing arrangement (See Glassman, Col. 3, lines 4-8).
Regarding claim 18, the modified article of footwear of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claim 17 above) further teaches wherein the channel comprises a plurality of openings spaced about a length of the channel at which the lasting element is exposed (See Glassman, Fig. 2; openings in peripheral edge strip (2) forming channel through which the lasting element is positioned to extend through and be exposed in the modified article of footwear as discussed above; see 112(b) rejection above for additional discussion) .
Regarding claim 19, the modified article of footwear of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claims 17-18 above) wherein the plurality of openings comprises a first plurality of openings located on a first side of the upper and a second plurality of openings located on a second side of the upper (See Glassman, Fig. 2; openings includes a first plurality of openings on a medial side of the upper and a second plurality of openings on a lateral side of the upper).
Regarding claim 20, the modified article of footwear of Manz (i.e., Manz in view of Glassman, as discussed with respect to claims 17-19 above) further teaches wherein the lasting element extends across an underfoot portion and through each opening of the first plurality of openings and through each opening of the second plurality of openings (See Glassman, Fig. 2; lasting element extends across an underfoot portion of the upper and through each of the openings in the channel of the modified article of footwear as discussed above).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, filed March 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection unless otherwise noted below, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the strand of Manz is being used solely as a lasting/tensioning aid during assembly and is not part of any finished article, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Support for Applicant’s claim cannot be found in the disclosure of Manz, nor does Applicant cite any particular portions of Manz other than speculation based on Manz’ drawings. That said, Manz does explicitly disclose the presence of the strand lasting element in the upper as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above. Furthermore, Manz discloses that strand (1702) is positioned in edge (1703) which is arranged in the sole area in the finished sports shoe (See Man, [0359]). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Figs. 17A-17D of Manz show a pre-shape and not a completed article, Examiner notes that Manz discloses that the various embodiments and components can be combined with one another (See Manz, [0445]). For example, the upper component of Figs. 17A-17D can be used as the upper component of the shoe (13) of Fig. 12 having attached sole structure (14) as discussed in the current grounds of rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Manz does not include a lower-perimeter passage or channel and does not disclose a passage at all, Examiner again respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, Examiner notes that the term "passage" is very broad and merely means "a path, channel, or duct through, over, or along which something may pass" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Indeed, the retaining threads of Manz meet the requirements of the claimed invention by forming a path through which a lasting element may pass.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. USPN 4,027,406 to Salvatore is directed to articles of footwear having lasting element structures under an upper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights