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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/22/26 has been partially entered (see drawings section). Claims 1-9, 12-18, 20-23 remain pending in the application, with Claim 12 remaining withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/22/25.
Drawings
The drawings of 1/22/26 are not entered.
Despite remarks 1/22/26 page 12 indicating that Fig. 18F has been replaced, no drawing of Fig. 18F has been provided in the drawing submission of 1/22/26
Furthermore, the drawing submission of 1/22/26 did not label “replacement sheet” at the top of each sheet; as such, to enter the drawings would be such that only the Figures submitted on 1/22/26 would constitute the drawings of the application, which would warrant a plethora of drawing objections; as such, the drawings are not entered, and the drawing objections indicated on 10/22/25 non-final rejection are repeated herein--
Herein: the drawings are objected to because of the following:
The quality of the following figures has deteriorated from that of the parent application(s); examiner recommends resubmission
Figs. 5B, 7, 18G-18J (though non-elected, the quality should still be consistent)
Figs. 12A-12E
Fig. 18F does not match the original figure submitted in original parent application 16/426,706; as the instant application is a continuation and not a continuation-in-part, the figure is considered new matter and should be reverted; otherwise, the application will be considered with a priority date of 9/16/24
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[00185] still has two different descriptions for reference 1350; the first description is “initial three dimensional garment base data 1350” while the second recitation is “three dimensional body map data 1350”; should the descriptions be synonymous, the first description should read initial three dimensional garment base/body map data 1350”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 7, 14, 17, 22 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 Line 4 delete “direction” and substitute –directional—for consistency
Review is requested of Claim 7 “one or more designations of lockdown areas in at least one of the textile structural units that includes at least one of: a length of braid structure, a direction of a braided structure”; Assuming support in [00174] with “areas of higher lockdown 1352 in the garment structure (e.g., areas with extended lengths of solid, braided structure, including braided structure oriented in the correction direction(s) to provide the desired lockdown direction(s) and areas of increased of increased air permeability 1354”), the options of length and direction are not mutually exclusive, but direction is an example of the length
Claim 7 Line 3 delete “braid” and substitute –a braided—for consistency
Claim 7 Line 3 after “direction of” delete “a” and substitute –the--
Claim 14 Line 4 delete “direction” and substitute –directional—Claim 17 is objected to for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 7
Claim 22 is objected to for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 7
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-18, 22, 23 is/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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “adding at least one lockdown area to at least one of the textile structural units” in Claim 1 Lines 17-18 is considered new matter. No support has been found, especially in light of remarks indicating support for amendments in [00167]-[00174] for adding more than one lockdown area to a single structural unit, which is currently recited as an option in the term. As best understood from the indicated specification section and Figs. 12A-12E, a single structural unit would only ever have a single lockdown area, though a single structural unit may have multiple lockdown directions/property lines. This interpretation is further supported by [00190] Fig. 13B indicating the two instances of 1354 as being areas, and indicating 1352 as high lockdown areas (indicating another instance 1352 is not shown). This interpretation is further supported by the Claim indicating that a lockdown area has first and second directional information (which seems directed to lockdown directions/property lines), and therefore how a single structural unit has a single lockdown areas. The aforementioned is opposed to interpreting “area” as a “direction”/”property line”, such that a structural unit would have more than one lockdown “area” as currently claimed, and is therefore new matter.
The term “weaker” in Claim 2 Line 3 is considered new matter. As best understood, the desired support is from [00169] “lesser (but still useful/advantageous) ‘lockdown’”. However, the term “lesser” does not necessarily have the same metes and bounds as the term “weaker”. Examiner recommends using the term from the original disclosure.
The term “wherein the at least one lockdown area includes a third directional information in which weaker lockdown or stretch resistance is applied” in Claim 2 is considered new matter. Assuming that the specification antecedent basis for the recitation is Fig. 12C in [00169] “lesser (but still useful/advantageous) ‘lockdown’”), the recitation is considered new matter. Assuming Claim 1 is directed to Figs. 12B, 12D, or 12E embodiment, no support is found for an embodiment that combines any of the embodiments together in a single lockdown area, let alone a single structural unit. Based on [00167] indicating that the embodiments are examples of units in a structural library, the only combination supported is on the upper, not of the unit or area.
The term “wherein the at least one lockdown area includes a third directional information in which weaker lockdown or stretch resistance is applied relative to the first direction information” in Claim 2 is further considered new matter for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 2 above. The term recites the option of a combination of first and third information in a same lockdown area, which is not supported.
The term “the at least one lockdown area includes a third directional information in which weaker lockdown or stretch resistance is applied relative to the first direction information” in Claim 2 is considered new matter. Claim 1 claims both a “regular” stretch and an “increased” stretch in a same lockdown area. Claim 2 then indicates that there is a “lesser” stretch area in addition to the aforementioned stretch areas. As best understood, Claim 1 is directed to Figs. 12B, D, E, while the third directional information of Claim 2 is directed to Fig. 12C. However, no embodiment in Figs. 12A-12E recites this 3-directional information combination such that Fig. 12C would be combined with Figs. 12B, D, or E.
The term “one or more designations of lockdown areas in at least one of the textile structural units” in Claim 7 Lines 1-3 is considered new matter for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1. No support is found for more than one lockdown area in a single structural unit.
Claim 13 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1, 7.
Claim 22 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 7.
The term “one or more designations of lockdown areas in at least one of the textile structural units that includes at least one of: a length of braid structure, a direction of a braided structure, and an area of increased air permeability” in Claim 22 Lines 1-4 is considered new matter. As best understood, the support desired for the amendment is in [00174]. However, no support is found for a single lockdown area having more than one of the designations listed (length, direction, area) as a combination. [00174] merely states that areas of higher lockdown 1352 can be areas of extended length, including structures oriented in the correct orientation, and areas of increased air permeability, which indicates that length is a lockdown area, air permeability is a lockdown area, and not that a lockdown area can be both air permeability and length (let alone direction).
Claim 23 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-18, 22, 23 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “at least one lockdown area to at least one of the textile structural units” in Claim 1 Lines 17-18 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejection above, it is unclear how the term should be interpreted. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered one lockdown area per textile structural unit, wherein there can be a plurality of textile structural units and therefore a plurality of lockdown areas.
The term “increased” in Claim 1 Line 20 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the increase is relative to; assuming Claim 1 finds support in embodiments Figs. 12B, 12D, and 12E which talk about both an increased stretch or flexibility and having stretch resistance, it seems that the increase is relative to an unclaimed embodiment of Fig. 12A. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be considered met as relative to another lockdown area/structural textile unit.
The term “the at least one lockdown area includes a third directional information in which weaker lockdown or stretch resistance is applied relative to the first direction information” in Claim 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. As best understood ,the claim is directed to Fig. 12C embodiment with [00169]’s recitation of “lesser.” However, the term is unclear in light of its dependency with Claim 1, which is assumed to find support in embodiments Figs. 12B, 12D, and 12E. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejection above, it is unclear how a single lockdown area could have both first and third directional information as recited.
Especially in light of the various 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, the term “the at least one lockdown area includes a first directional information…a second directional information” in Claim 1 Lines 18-20 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. it is unclear if the claims intended to recite the various embodiments in Figs. 12A-12E as individual options, especially in light of Claim 2, such that a single lockdown area could have a first directional information, or a second directional information, or a third directional information. However, examiner notes that even if Claim 1 were amended to recite “or”, Claim 3 would still be indefinite under U.S.C. 112(b) and be further rejected under U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit—options cannot be separated out between independent and dependent claims, because to indicate Claim 2 as a third option is to further broaden Claim 1, or try to remove one of the options required in Claim 1 (indefinite and new matter, as no combinations of embodiments exist of Claim 2 Fig. 12C with another embodiment).
The term “one or more designations of lockdown areas in at least one of the textile structural units in Claim 7 Lines 1-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejections, it is unclear how a single unit could have more than one lockdown area.
Claim 13 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 2.
The term “one or more designations of lockdown areas in at least one of the textile structural units in Claim 22 Lines 1-3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1. Especially in light of the 112(a) new matter rejections, it is unclear how a single unit could have more than one lockdown area.
Claim 22 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1, 7.
Claim 23 is rejected for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 1.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Based on [00167]-[00174], the amendments to Claims 1 and 13 already incorporate the recitations of Claims 3, 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 13-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon et al (USPN 10021939), herein Andon, in view of Lee et al (US Publication 2001/0020222), herein Lee, and Colaianni et al (USPN 10228682), herein Colaianni.
Regarding Claim 1, Andon teaches a method of manufacturing a custom footwear upper (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; see Claim 1: "A method…to manufacture a knit footwear upper"; abstract “methods for designing (e.g., customization) of…articles of footwear”), comprising:
generating three-dimensional base data for a footwear upper design (Claim 13 "receive input data indicating selection of a knit footwear upper design; generate, in a first interface, a graphical representation of the knit footwear upper design"; Claim 19 "appearance of the knit footwear upper comprises a three-dimensional image");
receiving, from a designer module, one or more inputs relating to a structure of the three-dimensional base data for the footwear upper design (Claim 13 "receive design input for the knit footwear upper design; visually update, based on the received design input, an appearance of the graphical representation of the knit footwear upper design", wherein the claimed “structure” is taught by “appearance”; wherein the designer module is at least 103, 105; Col. 5 Lines 27-31 "design computer 102 may contain various modules, including a design module 103 for processing various design change made to a footwear design via user interface 115. Design module 103 may also render images of the footwear design in accordance with the processed design changes"; Col. 5 Lines 43-44 "structural evaluation module 105"; wherein the receiving here is from 103);
automatically generating, using a translation module, a custom footwear upper design based on the three-dimensional base data and the received one or more inputs (translation module being 104; Col. 5 Lines 32-35 "design computer 102 may include a grading module 104 for processing and determining changes that may be applied to a footwear design based on a grading change (e.g., increase or decrease in footwear size)", wherein it was previously established that the upper design is based on the three-dimensional base data and the received one or more inputs);
generating custom footwear upper input data for the custom footwear upper design (Claim 13 "provide, to one or more other computing devices, manufacturing data created based at least on the one or more recommended design modifications"),
wherein the custom footwear upper input data includes instructions for generating the custom footwear upper on a computer-controlled textile production machine to physically produce the custom footwear upper including the custom footwear upper design (Claim 13 "wherein the one or more other computing devices control one or more knitting machines, based on the manufacturing data, to manufacture a knit footwear upper"; wherein “computer controlled textile generating machine” teaches “computing devices controlling knit machine”; wherein the manufacturing data is based on modifications and therefore produces custom footwear),
wherein the custom footwear upper design includes a plurality of textile structural units (Claim 20 "receive design input for a plurality of knit structures")
wherein each of the textile structural units is located at a different respective location on the custom footwear upper design (Claim 20 "for each knit structure...determine a zone of the selected knit footwear upper design associated with the knit structure", wherein different zones indicates different locations),
based on receiving an evaluation from the designer module, modifying the custom footwear upper input data to include modifications to at least one of the textile structural units of the custom footwear upper design (wherein the receiving here is from 105; Col. 5 Lines 43-44 "structural evaluation module 105"; Claim 1 "recommending, by the computing device, based on determining that the received design input does not satisfy a first structural integrity characteristic associated with the selected knit footwear upper design, one or more design modifications to have the selected knit footwear upper design conform with the first structural integrity characteristic"); and
wherein the receiving of the evaluation includes adding at least one lockdown area to at least one of the textile structural units (Col. 5 Lines 46-56 "structural evaluation module 105 may extract information associated with a base footwear design and compare that information with data from structural rules component 120 to determine whether a design change conforms to the predetermined structural rules and/or physical limitations associated with the base footwear design and/or knitting machine used to manufacture the footwear upper. In some aspects of the present disclosure, the evaluation module 105 may operatively communicate with a database (or other suitable form of storage) storing a plurality of predetermined structural integrity characteristics"), wherein structural characteristics teach lockdown); and
forming the custom footwear upper by controlling the computer-controlled textile production machine to use the modified custom footwear upper input data to create the custom footwear upper (Claim 1 “providing, by the computing device, to one or more other computing devices, manufacturing data created based at least on the one or more recommended design modifications, wherein the one or more other computing devices control one or more knitting machines, based on the manufacturing data, to manufacture a knit footwear upper", wherein textile production teaches textile generating machine).
Andon does not explicitly teach that the three-dimensional base data for a footwear is generated based on a scan of a wearer’s foot.
Lee teaches generating, based on a scan of a wearer's foot, three-dimensional base data for a footwear upper design (see Fig. 1 for measuring customer foot; [0041] "shape measuring unit 10 scans an object and captures its image using CCD (charge coupled device) cameras...and then extracts 3-dimensional shape information"; see Fig. 4; [0055] "extracting the shape information of the customer foot S10" wherein Fig. 4 S10 says "extract 3D shape information of customer foot"; [0057] "the step S10 includes the steps of scanning the object…storing captured image data"; see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon’s three-dimensional base data to be from a scan of a wearer’s foot as a known method of making customized footwear (abstract), which Andon does as well.
Andon does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one lockdown area includes a first directional information in which lockdown or stretch resistance is applied,
and a second directional information in which increased stretch or flexibility is applied.
Colaianni teaches wherein receiving the evaluation includes adding at least one lockdown area to a textile structural unit, wherein the at least one lockdown area includes directional information in which lockdown or stretch resistance is applied (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--for directional information on stretch resistance-- Col. 2 Lines 41-43 "Embodiments of the present invention enable a user to intuitively generate a pattern that is customized to the shape of the user's body"; Col. 6 Lines 19-22 "The sample data can serve as a starting point for the manufacture of the piece of apparel, and the data may subsequently be modified and adjusted...The sample data may provide a 'design blank'"; Col. 6 Lines 25-31 "The design blank may...comprise information, such as the external look and shape of the piece of apparel. The design blank may also comprise a provision for some technical area, such as, for example, breathable constructions in determined areas, non-customizable areas, and/or portions with more or less stretch built-in that the rest of the piece of apparel"; Col. 15 Lines 35-37 "Non-limiting examples of the piece of apparel may include...a shoe, in particular a shoe upper"; wherein portions with more or less stretch built-in than the rest of the apparel indicates that there is a rest of apparel that has a non-zero “baseline” stretch, wherein a baseline stretch indicates directional information in terms of what direction the stretch is in, and therefore information about lockdown or stretch resistance; wherein the baseline stretch is non-zero in order to have “less stretch”; for textile--Col. 8 Lines 5-7 “step of modifying the pattern data can comprise modifying the at least one textile pattern of the piece of apparel by the user”);
and a second directional information in which increased stretch or flexibility is applied (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 6 Lines 25-31; wherein portions with more stretch built-in than the rest of the apparel/baseline stretch indicates increased stretch, wherein an increased stretch indicates directional information in terms of what direction the stretch is in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon to add these parameters (such as stretch directional information) as taught by Colaianni as it is known to modify a customized shoe design for its stretch capabilities (Col. 2 Lines 41-43, Col. 6 Lines 25-31) based on intended use.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Colaianni further teaches wherein the at least one lockdown area includes a third directional information in which weaker lockdown or stretch resistance is applied relative to the first directional information (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—Col. 6 Lines 25-31, wherein another portion with more stretch would have weaker stretch resistance than the baseline stretch of the first directional information).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Modified Andon further teaches wherein the receiving of the evaluation includes adding a property related to mobility, stretch, or flexibility to at least one of the textile structural units (see Andon Col. 5 Lines 46-56 "structural evaluation module 105 may extract information associated with a base footwear design and compare that information with data from structural rules component 120 to determine whether a design change conforms to the predetermined structural rules and/or physical limitations associated with the base footwear design and/or knitting machine used to manufacture the footwear upper. In some aspects of the present disclosure, the evaluation module 105 may operatively communicate with a database (or other suitable form of storage) storing a plurality of predetermined structural integrity characteristics"; see Colaianni Col. 6 Lines 25-31 wherein more/less stretch relates to mobility, stretch, or flexibility; for textile--Col. 8 Lines 5-7 “step of modifying the pattern data can comprise modifying the at least one textile pattern of the piece of apparel by the user”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Andon does not explicitly teach wherein receiving the evaluation includes adding at least one breathability area of at least one of the textile structural units.
However, Andon does teach adding structural characteristics to a textile structural unit (Col. 5 Lines 46-56 "structural evaluation module 105 may extract information associated with a base footwear design and compare that information with data from structural rules component 120 to determine whether a design change conforms to the predetermined structural rules and/or physical limitations associated with the base footwear design and/or knitting machine used to manufacture the footwear upper. In some aspects of the present disclosure, the evaluation module 105 may operatively communicate with a database (or other suitable form of storage) storing a plurality of predetermined structural integrity characteristics").
Colaianni already teaches adding at least one breathability area of a textile structural unit (Col. 2 Lines 41-43 "Embodiments of the present invention enable a user to intuitively generate a pattern that is customized to the shape of the user's body"; Col. 6 Lines 19-22 "The sample data can serve as a starting point for the manufacture of the piece of apparel, and the data may subsequently be modified and adjusted...The sample data may provide a 'design blank'"; Col. 6 Lines 25-31 "The design blank may...comprise information, such as the external look and shape of the piece of apparel. The design blank may also comprise a provision for some technical area, such as, for example, breathable constructions in determined areas, non-customizable areas, and/or portions with more or less stretch built-in that the rest of the piece of apparel", wherein breathable teaches breathability; Col. 15 Lines 35-37 "Non-limiting examples of the piece of apparel may include...a shoe, in particular a shoe upper"; for textile--Col. 8 Lines 5-7 “step of modifying the pattern data can comprise modifying the at least one textile pattern of the piece of apparel by the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon to add parameters (such as breathability) as taught by Colaianni as it is known to modify a customized shoe design for its breathability (Col. 2 Lines 41-43, Col. 6 Lines 25-31) based on intended use.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Andon does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving of the evaluation includes receiving one or more designations of lockdown areas in at least one of the textile structural units that includes at least one of: a length of braid structure, a direction of a braided structure, and an area of increased air permeability.
However, Andon does teach adding structural characteristics to a textile structural unit (Col. 5 Lines 46-56 "structural evaluation module 105 may extract information associated with a base footwear design and compare that information with data from structural rules component 120 to determine whether a design change conforms to the predetermined structural rules and/or physical limitations associated with the base footwear design and/or knitting machine used to manufacture the footwear upper. In some aspects of the present disclosure, the evaluation module 105 may operatively communicate with a database (or other suitable form of storage) storing a plurality of predetermined structural integrity characteristics").
Colaianni already teaches adding at least one area of increased air permeability, and therefore designation of lockdown area in a textile structural unit (Col. 2 Lines 41-43 "Embodiments of the present invention enable a user to intuitively generate a pattern that is customized to the shape of the user's body"; Col. 6 Lines 19-22 "The sample data can serve as a starting point for the manufacture of the piece of apparel, and the data may subsequently be modified and adjusted...The sample data may provide a 'design blank'"; Col. 6 Lines 25-31 "The design blank may...comprise information, such as the external look and shape of the piece of apparel. The design blank may also comprise a provision for some technical area, such as, for example, breathable constructions in determined areas, non-customizable areas, and/or portions with more or less stretch built-in that the rest of the piece of apparel", wherein breathable teaches increased air permeability; Col. 15 Lines 35-37 "Non-limiting examples of the piece of apparel may include...a shoe, in particular a shoe upper"; for textile--Col. 8 Lines 5-7 “step of modifying the pattern data can comprise modifying the at least one textile pattern of the piece of apparel by the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon to add parameters (such as of increased air permeability) as taught by Colaianni as it is known to modify a customized shoe design for its air permeability (Col. 2 Lines 41-43, Col. 6 Lines 25-31) based on intended use.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Andon further teaches wherein the receiving of the evaluation includes receiving a plurality of modifications (Col. 3 Lines 1-10; Col. 10 Lines 14-20; Col. 18 Lines 52-56 "the system may determine whether a design change (e.g., a change in size of the footwear) for the footwear design conforms with grading rules (and/or characteristics) assigned to the footwear design") relating to:
a size of a first textile structural unit (Col. 10 Lines 14-20 "the interface may advise the user of the costs associated with adding another design element or feature to the shoe (e.g., changing the knit structure of the upper, adding additional knit material types or colors to the upper, etc.) or changing an existing design element or feature (e.g., changing sizes of various design elements)", wherein size is a changeable design element);
a position of the first textile structural unit of the plurality of textile structural units (Col. 9 Lines 52-58 "Another feature that may be included in the computer interface is a “last action” capability, which allows users to view the last several steps in the design session (and possibly to see a list of all steps in the design session), more details regarding the individually displayed step (e.g., more specifics about the color, position, size, material or orientation selections, etc.)"; Col. 10 Lines 18-19 "changing an existing design element or feature"; position is part of design session, and therefore can be changed as a design element; Col. 12 Lines 25-26 "user may change the position of the knit structure")
a size of a second textile structural unit of the plurality of textile structural units (Col. 10 Lines 14-20 "the interface may advise the user of the costs associated with adding another design element or feature to the shoe (e.g., changing the knit structure of the upper, adding additional knit material types or colors to the upper, etc.) or changing an existing design element or feature (e.g., changing sizes of various design elements)"; size is a changeable design element; plurality of design elements indicate first/second textile structures);
a position of the second textile structural unit (Col. 10 Lines 18-19 "changing an existing design element or feature"; position is part of design session; as such, position can change as a design element; as such, there is a second position to change in that there are a plurality of design elements);
a relative positioning of the first textile structural unit with respect to the second textile structural unit (inasmuch as there are first/second positions and at least one can change, a relative positioning can change);
a relative positioning of the first textile structural unit with respect to another textile structural unit of the plurality of textile structural units (inasmuch as there are first/second positions and at least one can change, a relative positioning can change);
a relative positioning of the second textile structural unit with respect to the other textile structural unit (inasmuch as there are first/second positions and at least one can change, a relative positioning can change);
eliminating at least one of the first textile structural unit or the second textile structural unit (Col. 8 Lines 36-37 "an 'undo' control (to eliminate the last action or design change)");
adding one or more additional textile structural units (Col. 10 Lines 14-20 "the interface may advise the user of the costs associated with adding another design element or feature to the shoe (e.g., changing the knit structure of the upper, adding additional knit material types"; Col. 12 Lines 21-22 "user may have the option of adding or modifying knit structures for a footwear design”);
changing a material in one or more portions (Col. 9 Lines 52-58 "Another feature that may be included in the computer interface is a “last action” capability, which allows users to view the last several steps in the design session (and possibly to see a list of all steps in the design session), more details regarding the individually displayed step (e.g., more specifics about the color, position, size, material or orientation selections, etc.)"; Col. 10 Lines 18-19 "changing an existing design element or feature"; material is part of design session; as such, material can change);
changing a distance between the first textile structural unit and the other textile structural unit (inasmuch as there are first/second positions and at least one can change, a relative positioning can change and therefore a distance);
and changing an orientation of a textile structural unit (Col. 9 Lines 52-58 "Another feature that may be included in the computer interface is a “last action” capability, which allows users to view the last several steps in the design session (and possibly to see a list of all steps in the design session), more details regarding the individually displayed step (e.g., more specifics about the color, position, size, material or orientation selections, etc.)"; Col. 10 Lines 18-19 "changing an existing design element or feature"; orientation is part of design session; as such, orientation can change; also: Col. 7 Lines 15-22 "The first element (or at least some element of the interface) may include features like ...one or more orientation elements that allow users to change an orientation of the article of footwear as rendered in the first display portion").
Regarding Claim 13, Andon teaches a method of manufacturing a footwear article (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; see Claim 1: "A method…to manufacture a knit footwear upper"), comprising:
obtaining three-dimensional data (Claim 13 "receive input data indicating selection of a knit footwear upper design; generate, in a first interface, a graphical representation of the knit footwear upper design"; Claim 19 "appearance of the knit footwear upper comprises a three-dimensional image"),
automatically generating, using a translation module, a custom footwear upper design based on three-dimensional data and one or more inputs related to a custom footwear upper (for inputs-- Claim 13 "receive design input for the knit footwear upper design; visually update, based on the received design input, an appearance of the graphical representation of the knit footwear upper design", wherein the claimed “structure” is taught by “appearance”; Col. 5 Lines 27-31 "design computer 102 may contain various modules, including a design module 103 for processing various design change made to a footwear design via user interface 115. Design module 103 may also render images of the footwear design in accordance with the processed design changes"; Col. 5 Lines 43-44 "structural evaluation module 105"; for translation module 104-- Col. 5 Lines 32-35 "design computer 102 may include a grading module 104 for processing and determining changes that may be applied to a footwear design based on a grading change (e.g., increase or decrease in footwear size)");
generating custom footwear upper input data for the custom footwear upper design (Claim 13 "provide, to one or more other computing devices, manufacturing data created based at least on the one or more recommended design modifications"),
wherein the custom footwear upper input data includes instructions for generating the custom footwear upper on a computer-controlled textile production machine to physically produce the custom footwear upper including the custom footwear upper design (Claim 13 "wherein the one or more other computing devices control one or more knitting machines, based on the manufacturing data, to manufacture a knit footwear upper"; wherein “computer controlled textile generating machine” teaches “computing devices controlling knit machine”; wherein the manufacturing data is based on modifications and therefore produces custom footwear),
wherein the custom footwear upper design includes a plurality of textile structural units (Claim 20 "receive design input for a plurality of knit structures"),
wherein each of the textile structural units is located at a different respective location on the custom footwear upper design (Claim 20 "for each knit structure...determine a zone of the selected knit footwear upper design associated with the knit structure", wherein different zones indicates different locations),
based on receiving an evaluation from a designer module, creating a modified custom footwear upper input data that includes modifications to at least one of the textile structural units of the custom footwear upper design (wherein the receiving here is from 105; Col. 5 Lines 43-44 "structural evaluation module 105"; Claim 1 "recommending, by the computing device, based on determining that the received design input does not satisfy a first structural integrity characteristic associated with the selected knit footwear upper design, one or more design modifications to have the selected knit footwear upper design conform with the first structural integrity characteristic"); and
wherein the receiving of the evaluation includes adding at least one lockdown area to at least one of the textile structural units (Col. 5 Lines 46-56 "structural evaluation module 105 may extract information associated with a base footwear design and compare that information with data from structural rules component 120 to determine whether a design change conforms to the predetermined structural rules and/or physical limitations associated with the base footwear design and/or knitting machine used to manufacture the footwear upper. In some aspects of the present disclosure, the evaluation module 105 may operatively communicate with a database (or other suitable form of storage) storing a plurality of predetermined structural integrity characteristics"), wherein structural characteristics teach lockdown); and
controlling a textile production machine to use the modified custom footwear upper input data to create the custom footwear upper corresponding to the modified custom footwear upper input data (Claim 1 “providing, by the computing device, to one or more other computing devices, manufacturing data created based at least on the one or more recommended design modifications, wherein the one or more other computing devices control one or more knitting machines, based on the manufacturing data, to manufacture a knit footwear upper", wherein textile production teaches textile generating machine).
Andon does not explicitly teach the three-dimensional data being a three-dimensional scan of a wearer’s foot.
Lee teaches obtaining three-dimensional data via a three-dimensional scan of a wearer’s foot.
Lee teaches generating, based on a scan of a wearer's foot, three-dimensional base data for a footwear upper design (see Fig. 1 for measuring customer foot; [0041] "shape measuring unit 10 scans an object and captures its image using CCD (charge coupled device) cameras...and then extracts 3-dimensional shape information"; see Fig. 4; [0055] "extracting the shape information of the customer foot S10" wherein Fig. 4 S10 says "extract 3D shape information of customer foot"; [0057] "the step S10 includes the steps of scanning the object…storing captured image data"; see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon’s three-dimensional base data to be from a scan of a wearer’s foot as a known method of making customized footwear (abstract), which Andon does as well.
Andon does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one lockdown area includes a first directional information in which lockdown or stretch resistance is applied,
and a second directional information in which increased stretch or flexibility is applied.
Colaianni teaches wherein receiving the evaluation includes adding at least one lockdown area to a textile structural unit, wherein the at least one lockdown area includes directional information in which lockdown or stretch resistance is applied (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--for directional information on stretch resistance-- Col. 2 Lines 41-43 "Embodiments of the present invention enable a user to intuitively generate a pattern that is customized to the shape of the user's body"; Col. 6 Lines 19-22 "The sample data can serve as a starting point for the manufacture of the piece of apparel, and the data may subsequently be modified and adjusted...The sample data may provide a 'design blank'"; Col. 6 Lines 25-31 "The design blank may...comprise information, such as the external look and shape of the piece of apparel. The design blank may also comprise a provision for some technical area, such as, for example, breathable constructions in determined areas, non-customizable areas, and/or portions with more or less stretch built-in that the rest of the piece of apparel"; Col. 15 Lines 35-37 "Non-limiting examples of the piece of apparel may include...a shoe, in particular a shoe upper"; wherein portions with more or less stretch built-in than the rest of the apparel indicates that there is a rest of apparel that has a non-zero “baseline” stretch, wherein a baseline stretch indicates directional information in terms of what direction the stretch is in, and therefore information about lockdown or stretch resistance; wherein the baseline stretch is non-zero in order to have “less stretch”; for textile--Col. 8 Lines 5-7 “step of modifying the pattern data can comprise modifying the at least one textile pattern of the piece of apparel by the user”);
and a second directional information in which increased stretch or flexibility is applied (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--Col. 6 Lines 25-31; wherein portions with more stretch built-in than the rest of the apparel/baseline stretch indicates increased stretch, wherein an increased stretch indicates directional information in terms of what direction the stretch is in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon to add these parameters (such as stretch directional information) as taught by Colaianni as it is known to modify a customized shoe design for its stretch capabilities (Col. 2 Lines 41-43, Col. 6 Lines 25-31) based on intended use.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 14 is the same as the body of Claim 2. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 2 for the rejection of the body of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 15 is the same as the body of Claim 3. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 3 for the rejection of the body of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 17 is the same as the body of Claim 7. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 7 for the rejection of the body of Claim 17.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon et al (USPN 10021939), herein Andon, in view of Lee et al (US Publication 2001/0020222), herein Lee, and Colaianni et al (USPN 10228682), herein Colaianni, further in view of Bruce et al (US Publication 2016/0166011), herein Bruce.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Andon further teaches wherein the modifying of the custom footwear upper input data includes modifying an orientation of at least one of the textile structural units (Col. 9 Lines 52-58 "Another feature that may be included in the computer interface is a “last action” capability, which allows users to view the last several steps in the design session (and possibly to see a list of all steps in the design session), more details regarding the individually displayed step (e.g., more specifics about the color, position, size, material or orientation selections, etc.)").
Andon does not explicitly teach that the orientation is of a braid.
However, Andon does teach a customization of a textile component of the footwear (Col. 7 Lines 15-19 "The first element...may include features like a color palette or color menu that allows users to change a color of ...a component of the article of footwear (e.g., knit material)").
Bruce teaches a customization of a braid textile component of the footwear (abstract "manufacturing system includes…a braiding device. The system also includes systems for capturing customized foot information from a foot…to form a footwear last…placed through the braiding device to form a braided component for an article of footwear").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon’s knit structural component to be the braided component as taught by Bruce, it is known in the art that various textile machines can be utilized to make customized footwear (extrinsic evidence Colaianni et al 10228682 Col. 6 Lines 44-49).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Andon already taught wherein the three-dimensional base data for the footwear upper design includes a base design (see rejection of Claim 1).
Andon does not explicitly teach that the base design is of a braid.
However, Andon does teach a customization of a textile component of the footwear (Col. 7 Lines 15-19 "The first element...may include features like a color palette or color menu that allows users to change a color of ...a component of the article of footwear (e.g., knit material)").
Bruce teaches a customization of a braid textile component of the footwear (abstract "manufacturing system includes…a braiding device. The system also includes systems for capturing customized foot information from a foot…to form a footwear last…placed through the braiding device to form a braided component for an article of footwear").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon’s knit structural component to be the braided component as taught by Bruce, it is known in the art that various textile machines can be utilized to make customized footwear (extrinsic evidence Colaianni et al 10228682 Col. 6 Lines 44-49).
Andon also does not explicitly teach and wherein the receiving of the evaluation includes modifying a stretch ability or a breathability of the base braid design in one or more of the textile structural units.
However, Andon does teach adding structural characteristics to a textile structural unit (Col. 5 Lines 46-56 "structural evaluation module 105 may extract information associated with a base footwear design and compare that information with data from structural rules component 120 to determine whether a design change conforms to the predetermined structural rules and/or physical limitations associated with the base footwear design and/or knitting machine used to manufacture the footwear upper. In some aspects of the present disclosure, the evaluation module 105 may operatively communicate with a database (or other suitable form of storage) storing a plurality of predetermined structural integrity characteristics").
Colaianni already teaches adding at least one breathability area of a textile structural unit (Col. 2 Lines 41-43 "Embodiments of the present invention enable a user to intuitively generate a pattern that is customized to the shape of the user's body"; Col. 6 Lines 19-22 "The sample data can serve as a starting point for the manufacture of the piece of apparel, and the data may subsequently be modified and adjusted...The sample data may provide a 'design blank'"; Col. 6 Lines 25-31 "The design blank may...comprise information, such as the external look and shape of the piece of apparel. The design blank may also comprise a provision for some technical area, such as, for example, breathable constructions in determined areas, non-customizable areas, and/or portions with more or less stretch built-in that the rest of the piece of apparel", wherein breathable teaches breathability; Col. 15 Lines 35-37 "Non-limiting examples of the piece of apparel may include...a shoe, in particular a shoe upper"; for textile--Col. 8 Lines 5-7 “step of modifying the pattern data can comprise modifying the at least one textile pattern of the piece of apparel by the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon to add parameters (such as of breathability) as taught by Colaianni as it is known to modify a customized shoe design for its breathability (Col. 2 Lines 41-43, Col. 6 Lines 25-31) based on intended use.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 16 is the same as the body of Claim 5. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 5 for the rejection of the body of Claim 16.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andon et al (USPN 10021939), herein Andon, in view of Lee et al (US Publication 2001/0020222), herein Lee, and Colaianni et al (USPN 10228682), herein Colaianni, further in view of Wang (USPN 11663641).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Andon further teaches providing, to a user interface of the designer module, a display of the custom footwear upper design (Col. 7 Lines 15-16 "The first element (or at least some element of the interface) may include") that includes
a color scale designation of the plurality of textile structural units in the custom footwear upper design (Col. 7 Lines 15-19 "The first element (or at least some element of the interface) may include features like a color palette or color menu that allows users to change a color of a selected portion of the article of footwear and/or a component of the article of footwear (e.g., knit material)", wherein a color palette is a color scale designation).
Andon at least suggests a color reference corresponding to the plurality of textile structural units (color reference being a color of a selected portion in Col. 7 Lines 15-19).
Nevertheless, Wang teaches providing, to a user interface a display of the custom footwear upper design that includes a color scale designation of the plurality of textile structural units in the custom footwear upper design (see Fig. 9; color on shoe; see Fig. 10; texture on shoe; "interface unit 4' showing a first category menu 4E"; "the P first patterns include various kinds of patterns, which are categorized into the first category pattern menu 4E"; "first category pattern menu 4E is a color menu...second category pattern 4F is a texture menu...4G is a graphic menu") and
a color reference corresponding to the plurality of textile structural units (see Figs. 9, 10 for the reference of color and/or texture/textile structural unit being on the actual image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andon with the color reference corresponding to textile structural unit as taught by Wang as it is known to provide a menu and update selection on the reference visual for customizing footwear (see Figs. 9, 10; Col. 1 Lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Andon teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
The body of Claim 18 is the same as the body of Claim 9. As such, see the aforementioned rejection of the body of Claim 9 for the rejection of the body of Claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding Claim 20, none of the prior art of record discloses a method of manufacturing a custom footwear upper by generating custom footwear upper input data including a first bitmap, wherein a first dimension of the first bitmap corresponds to a number of cylinders in a braiding machine as the computer-controlled textile production machine for generating the custom footwear upper, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as set forth in the claim. The use of utilizing a braiding machine to generate a customized footwear upper, along with generating a first bitmap as part of the method, the first bitmap having a second dimension corresponding to a cross-sectional location of the custom footwear upper to be formed, is known in the art of textile data processing, but the specific first dimension of the first bitmap corresponding to a number of cylinders in the braiding machine, in conjunction with the rest of the structural limitations, as claimed by the applicant is novel. Specifically, prior art Bruce et al (US Publication 2016/0166011), herein Bruce, discloses using a braiding machine to generate customized footwear upper as recited in the application. Prior art Driscoll et al (US Publication 2002/0067603), herein Driscoll, also discloses a the data includes a first bitmap having a (second) dimension corresponding to a cross-sectional location of the custom footwear upper to be formed. However, none of the prior art discloses, teaches, or suggests that the first bitmap also has a (first) dimension corresponding to a number of cylinders in the braiding machine. To modify Bruce’s braiding spools/cylinders to be a dimension of a bitmap as recited in the current application would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the applicant’s invention without any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case.
Claim 21 is indicated with allowable subject matter at least for depending on Claim 20 which has been indicated with allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 22, 23, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 13-18 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 14 in that Colaianni Col. 6 Lines 27-31 including “portions with more or less stretch built-in that the rest of the piece of apparel” does not teach the amendments because “Colaianni provides no further details as to how ‘portions with more or less stretch’ are accomplished, or any direction information associated with such portions”—examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claims, and quite possibly also the written description of the applicant specification, also do not provide any further details on how the more/less stretch are accomplished or any specific directional information; as currently claimed, the existence of any stretch (or lack of) indicates directional information (a direction in which a stretch does or does not occur). Based on current broadest reasonable interpretation, Colaianni Col. 6 Lines 27-31 do meet the recitations. Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111.
Examiner notes that even if somehow reading the specification into the claims was possible, the claims would therefore be at least indefinite under U.S.C. 112(b) and also possibly warrant U.S.C. 112(a) written description requirements— based on, for example, [00167] the directional information seem to be [00167] “properties or features” originating from actual structures. However, though [00167] indicates some structure(s), such as [00167] “a large open hole 1202 surrounded by six smaller holes 1204” and [00167] “hexagonal shaped structure that forms the central hole 1202 and portions of each of the surrounding holes 1204” and [00167] “braided”, the written description has not made clear which of these structures, alone or in combination, provide the actual directional information’s property/feature. Even if one of these were specified, it is still not clear whether any central hole that is larger than six smaller holes around it, and/or hexagonal holes, and/or braided holes is enough to meet the recitation, or if specific dimensions (undisclosed) to the holes are required. In other words, the written description has not provided clear metes and bounds for the terms, should applicant further argue that Colaianni not teach the amended recitations. As such, any disagreement with the current interpretation may warrant additional rejections that will not constitute new rejections.
Furthermore, especially in light of the lack of specification antecedent basis and current 112(b) rejections, it is not clear which Figures and therefore portions of the specification is being referred to with the first directional information, second directional information, and third directional information, which would also warrant at least 112(b) indefiniteness rejections, if not also 112(a) written description rejections, should applicant further argue that Colaianni not teach the amended recitations. For example: Is the first directional information referring to Fig. 12A with [00167] “ ‘lockdown’ (e.g., resistance to stretch)”? Or is the first/second directional information referring to Fig. 12B with [00168] “strong ‘lockdown’ (e.g., resistance to stretch)” and [00168] “’mobility’ (or increased stretch/flexibility)”? Is the third directional information (not including first/second directional information) that is “weaker” directed to Fig. 12C with [00169] “lesser (but still useful/advantageous) ‘lockdown’”? Are embodiments of Figs. 12D and/or Fig. 12E also included, and if so, how? As such, any disagreement with the current interpretation may warrant additional rejections that will not constitute new rejections.
As for the rejections pertaining to one or more lockdown areas in one or more textile structural units—especially as the claims are comprising claims, it may be recommended to instead use language directed to first/second/third lockdown areas for first/second/third structural units, respectively, and applying the antecedent bases appropriately throughout the claims. For example, Claim 1 is directed to first and second structural units, Claim 2 is directed to third structural unit, Claim 3 is directed to first structural unit, etc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm 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 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 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732