Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huffa et al. (US 2012/0233882).
Huffa teaches the knitted component (figures 9 and 10) as claimed including a first knit layer (156) and a second knit layer (157), wherein the first knit layer (156) includes a plurality of openings through which portions of the second knit layer are exposed ([0074]), and wherein a first side of each opening extends along a plurality of wales and is adjacent a pocket (figure 12D) formed between the first knit layer and the second knit layer, wherein the pocket extends continuously into the opening. Regarding claim 2, the knitted component, at a second side of each opening opposite the first side, comprises at least one course of a single knit layer with yarns of the first knit layer and the second knit layer knit together. Regarding claim 4, the plurality of openings are arranged in a staggered pattern. Regarding claim 5, the first knit layer comprises a first yarn having elastane and the second knit layer comprises a second yarn having elastane. Regarding claim 7, the plurality of openings have different sizes as seen in figure 9.
Regarding claim 8, an article of footwear comprising an upper comprising the knitted component of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, at least some of the plurality of openings extend over a throat region of the upper as seen in figure 9. Regarding claim 10, the first side of each opening extends in a toe- heel direction. Regarding claim 11, a first portion of the plurality of openings are within a throat region of the upper and a second portion of the plurality of openings are between the throat region and a biteline, wherein the openings within the first portion have a larger size than the openings within the second portion as seen in figure 9.
Claims 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US 6,630,414).
Matsumoto teaches the knitted component (A) as claimed including a first knit layer (1) and a second knit layer (2), wherein the first knit layer includes a plurality of openings (12) that expose portions of the second knit layer, and wherein exposed portions of the second knit layer include one or more apertures (12) each extending at least one wale and having a height of at least one course. Regarding claim 13, at least some of the exposed portions of the second knit layer exposed each include two apertures (12) as seen at least in the embodiment of figures 7 and 11. Regarding claim 14, the number of apertures in each exposed portion of the second knit layer varies at least along the course and wale directions. Regarding claim 15, the first knit layer includes a second plurality of openings that expose portions of the second knit layer that do not include apertures. Regarding claim 16, the intended use as an upper for an article of footwear does not provide any specific structure. The fabric of Matsumoto is capable of being used as an upper for shoe to the extent claimed. Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto teaches the knitted component (A) including a first knit layer (1) and a second knit layer (2) integrally knit with the first knit layer, the first knit layer comprising a first yarn (formed by L1-L3) having a first property and the second knit layer (2) comprising a second yarn (formed L5-L6) having a second property that is different than the first property (column 21, paragraph 2) wherein the first knit layer includes a plurality of openings through which portions of the second knit layer are exposed, and wherein the knitted component is capable to stretch from an un-stretched condition to a stretched condition, wherein when the knitted component is stretched from the un-stretched condition to the stretched condition, additional portions of the second knit layer that were covered by the first knit layer in the un-stretched condition inherently are exposed through the plurality of openings. Regarding claim 19, the first property is a first color and the second property is a second color.(column 21, line 5). Regarding claim 20, the first yarn is absent from the second knit layer and the second yarn is absent from the second knit layer
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffa et al. (US 2012/0233882).
Huffa teaches the invention substantially as claimed as indicated above in the rejection to claim 1. Huffa does not indicate that the second yarn has a greater diameter than the first yarn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a greater diameter for a second yarn for the purpose of increasing strength and cushion of the second knit layer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 6,630,414) in view of Huffa et al.
Matsumoto teaches the invention as claimed except for openings being in a throat region of an upper. Huffa discloses a multi-layer knit upper having openings in a throat region as seen in at least figure 9. It would have been obvious to provide openings being in a throat region of an upper as shown by Huffa in order to provide air permeability around the throat area of the upper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant is reminded that all business with the Patent and Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. 37 C.F.R. 1.2
Further it is noted that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. 1.111, including:
-The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.
-A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
-Moreover, The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06, MPEP 714.02. The "disclosure" includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY WORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4997. The examiner can normally be reached on M, W-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANNY WORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
ldw