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 12/11/25 has been entered. Claims 16-31 remain pending in the application. 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 9/16/25.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Line 13 “once” should read “ones”
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 12/11/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is in the amended abstract as follows:
Line 11 “receive a second lace”; figures clearly show one lace, which can be named a first lace; however, merely because there is a first lace does not provide support for additional laces; no support has been found for more than one lace
Lines 11-12 “receive a third lace” is objected to for reasons similarly aforementioned
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 16 Lines 15-18 “the first channel row is spaced apart from the second channel row by a first distance that is perpendicular to the first channel row, and the second channel row is spaced apart from the third channel row the same first distance that is perpendicular with respect to the second channel row” is not in the specification; however, support for the recitation is found with the disclosure of [0041] “distance b” in Fig. 3; as such, the recitation should be added into an appropriate section of the specification, such as the summary
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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) 26-31 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “bottom layer has no contact with the loops” in Claim 26 Line 14 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 26 indicates loops comprise channels in Line 5 “a plurality of loops…each of which comprises a channel”, wherein the Figures show that the bottom layer does have contact with the channels, and therefore with the loops. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “bottom layer has no contact with a perimeter of the loops.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
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) 16-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGinnity et al (USPN 10194714), herein McGinnity, in view of Burch (US Publication 2018/0332920), and Brinkman et al (USPN 10844526), herein Brinkman.
Regarding Claim 16, McGinnity teaches an upper for a shoe having a forefoot region, a heel region, and a midfoot region between the forefoot region and the heel region (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 31-33 “Figs. 1-5 show an article of footwear 100 ….article of footwear 100 may include an upper 120”), the upper comprising:
an upper layer defining an outermost surface of the upper (see Fig. 2);
two or more first apertures defined by the upper layer (see Fig. 2; Col. 7 Lines 26-28 "upper 120 may also include one or more eyelets 190 for securing and tensioning a shoe lace 192"),
the two or more first apertures arranged coaxially and defining a first aperture row (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification),
the two or more first apertures configured to receive a first lace (see Fig. 2; McGinnity teaches the two or more first apertures which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of receiving a first lace);
two or more second apertures defined by the upper layer (see Fig. 2),
the two or more second apertures arranged coaxially and defining a second aperture row (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification),
the two or more second apertures configured to receive a second lace (see Fig. 2; McGinnity teaches the two or more second apertures which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of receiving a second lace); and
two or more third apertures defined by the upper layer (see Fig. 2),
the two or more third channels arranged coaxially and defining a third channel row (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification),
the two or more third apertures configured to receive a third lace (see Fig. 2; McGinnity teaches the two or more third apertures which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of receiving a third lace);
wherein the first aperture row is parallel with respect to the second aperture row and the third aperture row (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification),
and the first aperture row is spaced apart from the second aperture row by a first distance that is perpendicular to the first aperture row (see Fig. 2),
and the second aperture row is spaced apart from the third aperture row the same distance that is perpendicular with respect to the second aperture row (see Fig. 2),
the first aperture row being disposed opposite the third aperture row relative to the second aperture row (see Fig. 2),
wherein adjacent ones of the two or more first apertures and adjacent ones of the two or more third apertures define a first aperture column and a second aperture column (see Fig. 2), and
wherein one of the two or more second apertures is disposed between the first aperture column and the second aperture column (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification).
PNG
media_image1.png
260
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McGinnity does not explicitly teach a bottom layer coupled to the upper layer.
However, McGinnity teaches that the upper, and therefore upper layer, is knitted (Col. 11 Lines 33-34 "base layer 602 may be…a knitted layer").
Burch teaches wherein a knitted upper has a bottom layer coupled to the upper layer (see Figs. 4, 5, 7; [0001] "method of making an article of footwear incorporating a knit upper"; [0046] "second sock portion 30 inside out…moving the second sock portion 30…into the first sock portion void 28").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s knitted upper to have a coupled bottom/upper layer as taught by Burch as a known structure for easier manufacturing ([0005]) and/or for encompassing other structures ([0008]).
McGinnity also does not explicitly teach that the apertures are channels.
However, similarly as aforementioned, McGinnity teaches that the upper, and therefore the apertures, are knitted (Col. 11 Lines 33-34 "base layer 602 may be…a knitted layer").
Brinkman teaches wherein the apertures of a knitted upper are channels (see Fig. 5, which is related to Figs. 1-3; Col. 7 Lines 11-13 “structures extending from the surface of a knitted component may additionally…be used for functions other than for receiving a lace”; Col. 7 Lines 16-18 “first structures 342 may have a structure similar to the first structures 142 as described above (with reference to Fig. 1-Fig. 3)”, Col. 4 Lines 15-20 “knitted component 144 may include one or more structures forming lace apertures (herein depicted as the first structures 142 with first apertures 143) that extend from the surface 148 of the upper and are integrally formed with the surface 148 (e.g., on a knitted machine)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s eyelet apertures to be channel loop apertures as taught by Brinkman as a simple substitution for one knitted lace structure for another in a knit upper, such as for aesthetic purposes (Col. 7 Line 21) and/or as an effective lacing system for adjusting the fit of the upper, facilitating entry and removal of the foot (Col. 1 Lines 36-38).
Regarding Claim 17, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the first channels, the second channels, and the third channels are disposed on a lateral side of the shoe upper (McGinnity Col. 2 Line 22 "Fig. 2 is a lateral side view of an article of footwear").
Regarding Claim 18, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the first channels, the second channels, and the third channels are disposed in the midfoot region (see McGinnity Fig. 2, wherein the midfoot region is not necessarily restricted to area 112 and can encompass the first channels as annotated above, depending on the size of the wearer).
Regarding Claim 19, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified McGinnity at least suggests wherein the first channels, the second channels, and the third channels are disposed in the forefoot region (see McGinnity Fig. 2; Col. 7 Lines 28-29 "eyelets 190 may be integrally formed in first portion 130" which would be in forefoot).
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to location of the channels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s pattern of Fig. 2 to be the same in the forefoot region for aesthetic purposes and/or depending on where the fit is desired (see Brinkman Col. 1 Lines 36-38).
Regarding Claim 20, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Burch further teaches wherein the bottom layer is directly coupled with the upper layer (see Figs. 4, 5, 7 for coupled).
Regarding Claim 21, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified McGinnity at least suggests the first lace that is threaded through the two or more first channels (see McGinnity Fig. 2; modified McGinnity teaches apertures/channels for laces which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of having the lace threaded through).
Especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to location of the channels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity such that a lace is threaded through the two or more first channels for aesthetic design purposes and/or depending on where the fit is desired (see Brinkman Col. 1 Lines 36-38).
Regarding Claim 22, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 21.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the first lace is not configured for tying of the shoe at a foot of a wearer (see McGinnity Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 23, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the first channel row extends from a heel end to a toe end (see McGinnity Fig. 2; Col. 2 Lines 28-29 "eyelets 190 may be integrally formed in first portion 130 and/or second portion 160" which extends not only the direction between heel/toe, but also the length between heel/toe ends).
Regarding Claim 24, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified McGinnity at least suggests wherein a longitudinal direction of the shoe is parallel with respect to a resting surface when the shoe is resting on the resting surface (McGinnity teaches the shoe/upper with a longitudinal direction which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of a configuration of the longitudinal direction parallel to a resting surface when resting as recited), and
wherein the two or more first channels define an axis that defines an angle that is less than 30° offset from the longitudinal direction (see McGinnity Fig. 2; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the angle and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Nevertheless, Brinkman teaches wherein a longitudinal direction of the shoe is parallel with respect to a resting surface when the shoe is resting on the resting surface (Brinkman teaches the upper/shoe with a longitudinal direction which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of a configuration where the longitudinal direction is parallel to a resting surface when resting as recited), and
wherein the two or more first channels define an axis that defines an angle that is less than 30° offset from the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 1-3; Col. 4 Lines 20-25 “the first structures 142 may extend from the surface 148 in any direction, and in a resting state may extend in a direction between about 10° and about 170°…with respect to a direction along a plane parallel to the surface 148” wherein surface 148 is of the upper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s angle to be less than 30° offset as recited as taught by Brinkman in order to provide a specific desired orientation (Col. 4 Line 31) for design choice, and/or as a known orientation to adjust fit of upper and facilitate entry/removal (Col. 1 Lines 36-38).
Regarding Claim 25, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 16.
Modified McGinnity at least suggests wherein a longitudinal direction of the shoe is parallel with respect to a resting surface when the shoe is resting on the resting surface (McGinnity teaches the shoe/upper with a longitudinal direction which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of a configuration of the longitudinal direction parallel to a resting surface when resting as recited), and
wherein the two or more first channels define an axis that defines an angle that is up to 90° offset from the longitudinal direction (see McGinnity Fig. 2; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure the angle and get the recited range. Even if the range measured did not overlap but was merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists. See MPEP 2144.05, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Nevertheless, Brinkman teaches wherein a longitudinal direction of the shoe is parallel with respect to a resting surface when the shoe is resting on the resting surface (Brinkman teaches the upper/shoe with a longitudinal direction which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of a configuration where the longitudinal direction is parallel to a resting surface when resting as recited), and
wherein the two or more first channels define an axis that defines an angle that is up to 90° offset from the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 1-3; Col. 4 Lines 20-25 “the first structures 142 may extend from the surface 148 in any direction, and in a resting state may extend in a direction between about 10° and about 170°…with respect to a direction along a plane parallel to the surface 148” wherein surface 148 is of the upper).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s angle to be up to 90° offset as recited as taught by Brinkman in order to provide a specific desired orientation (Col. 4 Line 31) for design choice, and/or as a known orientation to adjust fit of upper and facilitate entry/removal (Col. 1 Lines 36-38).
Regarding Claim 26, McGinnity teaches an upper for a shoe having a forefoot region, a heel region, and a midfoot region between the forefoot region and the heel region (see Fig. 2; Col. 6 Lines 31-33 “Figs. 1-5 show an article of footwear 100 ….article of footwear 100 may include an upper 120), the upper comprising:
an upper layer defining an outermost surface of the upper (see Fig. 2);
a plurality of apertures in the upper layer (see Fig. 2; Col. 7 Lines 26-28 "upper 120 may also include one or more eyelets 190 for securing and tensioning a shoe lace 192"),
wherein each of the apertures forms a passage for a lace that extends through at least some of the plurality of apertures (see Fig. 2; McGinnity teaches the apertures which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of forming a passage for a lace, especially in light of Fig. 2, Col. 7 Lines 26-28),
wherein some of the plurality of apertures are disposed in at least a first column of apertures, a second column of at least one aperture, and a third column of apertures (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below),
wherein the at least one aperture within the second column is disposed between two consecutive apertures within the first column of apertures and between two consecutive apertures within the third column of apertures (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below), and
PNG
media_image2.png
299
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of apertures are formed as a unitary construction with the upper layer (the apertures and the upper layer are of a same invention and therefore of an unitary construction).
McGinnity does not explicitly teach a bottom layer directly coupled to the upper layer,
and the bottom layer has no contact with the apertures.
However, McGinnity teaches that the upper, and therefore upper layer, is knitted (Col. 11 Lines 33-34 "base layer 602 may be…a knitted layer").
Burch teaches wherein a knitted upper has a bottom layer directly coupled to the upper layer (see Figs. 4, 5, 7; [0001] "method of making an article of footwear incorporating a knit upper"; [0046] "second sock portion 30 inside out…moving the second sock portion 30…into the first sock portion void 28"),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s knitted upper to have a directly coupled bottom/upper layer as taught by Burch as a known structure for easier manufacturing ([0005]) and/or for encompassing other structures ([0008]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified McGinnity teaches and the bottom layer has no contact with the apertures (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Burch’s formation of the bottom/upper layers would be such that the apertures are only in the upper layer and not in the bottom layer).
McGinnity also does not explicitly teach that the apertures are loops, each of which comprises a channel,
wherein each of the channels forms a passage for a lace that extends through at least some of the plurality of loops,
wherein the at least one aperture in the second column are loops within the second column of loops (in other words, McGinnity does not teach a plurality in the second column but only teaches at least one), such that wherein the loops within the second column of loops are disposed between two consecutive loops within the first column of loops and between two consecutive loops within the third column of loops.
However, similarly as aforementioned, McGinnity teaches that the upper, and therefore the apertures, are knitted (Col. 11 Lines 33-34 "base layer 602 may be…a knitted layer"),
and teaches that additional eyelets not illustrated in Fig. 2 may exist (Col. 7 Lines 28-29 "eyelets 190 may be integrally formed in first portion 130 and/or second portion 160").
Brinkman teaches wherein the apertures of a knitted upper are loops, each of which comprise a channel (see Fig. 5, which is related to Figs. 1-3; Col. 7 Lines 11-13 “structures extending from the surface of a knitted component may additionally…be used for functions other than for receiving a lace”; Col. 7 Lines 16-18 “first structures 342 may have a structure similar to the first structures 142 as described above (with reference to Fig. 1-Fig. 3)”, Col. 4 Lines 15-20 “knitted component 144 may include one or more structures forming lace apertures (herein depicted as the first structures 142 with first apertures 143) that extend from the surface 148 of the upper and are integrally formed with the surface 148 (e.g., on a knitted machine)”),
wherein each of the channels forms a passage for a lace that extends through at least some of the plurality of loops (Brinkman teaches the channel loops which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of forming passages for a lace, especially in light of Figs. 1-3, Col. 7 Lines 11-13),
up to 8 rows of channels for a lace on a knitted upper (see Fig. 5),
wherein the plurality of loops are formed as a unitary construction with the upper layer (Col. 4 Lines 15-20, especially “integrally formed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s eyelet apertures to be channel loop apertures as taught by Brinkman as a simple substitution for one knitted lace structure for another in a knit upper, such as for aesthetic purposes (Col. 7 Line 21) and/or as an effective lacing system for adjusting the fit of the upper, facilitating entry and removal of the foot (Col. 1 Lines 36-38).
Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGinnity’s 3 rows of eyelet apertures to be up to 8 rows of channel loop apertures as taught by Brinkman for aesthetics (Col. 7 Lines 18-21) and/or depending on where tightening is desired (Col. 5 Lines 66-67; Col. 6 Line 67-Col. 7 Line 1).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified McGinnity teaches wherein the loops within the second column of loops are disposed between two consecutive loops within the first column of loops and between two consecutive loops within the third column of loops (see annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 below for clarification; examiner notes that the annotations are not necessarily to scale, but are to clarify how additional rows, taught by Brinkman, would meet the recitation).
PNG
media_image3.png
422
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 26.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the respective channels of at least some of the loops within the first column of loops and the third column of loops are coaxial with respect to one another (see McGinnity Fig. 2, and/or the first annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26).
Regarding Claim 28, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 27.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the first column of loops and the third column of loops comprise intersection loops (see McGinnity Fig. 2, wherein the loops of the first/third columns are intersection loops inasmuch as they are part of both rows/columns, inasmuch as the term “intersection” has been defined in the claims).
Regarding Claim 29, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 27.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the first column of loops and the third column of loops define rows of loops (see McGinnity Fig. 2, and/or the first annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26, and/or the second annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26)
and at least some loops within the second column of loops are outside of the rows of loops (see McGinnity Fig. 2, and/or the second annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26; wherein the second column of loops are outside inasmuch as they are not in the rows of loops of the first/third columns).
Regarding Claim 30, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 26.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein each of the channels extend in a direction from the heel region toward the forefoot region (see McGinnity Fig. 2; Col. 2 Lines 28-29 "eyelets 190 may be integrally formed in first portion 130 and/or second portion 160" which extends not only the direction between heel/toe regions, but also the length between heel/toe regions).
Regarding Claim 31, modified McGinnity teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 26.
Modified McGinnity further teaches wherein the first column of loops includes at least three loops (see McGinnity Fig. 2, and/or the first annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26, and/or the second annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26)
the second column of loops includes at least three loops (see McGinnity Fig. 2, and/or the second annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26),
and the third column of loops includes at least three loops (see McGinnity Fig. 2, and/or the first annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26, and/or the second annotated excerpt of Fig. 2 in the rejection of Claim 26).
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to remarks 12/11/25 on page 8 that the objection to the specification antecedent basis in the office action 9/16/25 was corrected—examiner respectfully disagrees. The objection was/is directed to Claim 16 Lines 15-18, but the amended specification 12/11/25 is not directed to the objected limitation. Relatedly, the remarks indicate that the specification amendment was by examiner request, but no such request was made for the current amendments in the specification.
Pertaining to remarks 12/11/25 on pages 10-11 responding to the 112(b) rejection of Claim 26, examiner clarifies—despite annotations indicating that the loops have no contact with the bottom layer, the annotations are not persuasive. See below annotations where the inner perimeter of the loop does contact the lower layer. As such, the current interpretation of the claim that would be supported by the disclosure is that the outer perimeter of the loop does not contact the lower layer.
PNG
media_image4.png
455
738
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/25 directed to the U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 12-14 that McGinnity does not teach the term “adjacent” in Claim 16 limitations because the Oxford Dictionary says that the term “adjacent” means “next to or very near each other”—examiner respectfully disagrees. Per applicant’s own definition in the remarks, the loops as annotated are indeed very near to one another. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “adjacent” has been met, and the specification provides no specific values that would require further narrowing the interpretation of the term. See also extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Adjacent NPL for the definition of the term “adjacent” being “not distant; nearby”, which the annotated loops on page 8 of the office action 9/16/25 meet for the argued limitation.
Examiner notes that amendments have not been made to further narrow the term “adjacent” to be “directly adjacent” or “immediately adjacent.”
Pertaining to remarks on page 15-16 that McGinnity does not teach the term “consecutive”—examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner will address remarks pertaining to applicant’s Oxford dictionary definition are not persuasive, and also clarify examiner’s own interpretation.
First, remarks believe that the term “consecutive” is not taught by McGinnity in Claim 26 limitations because the Oxford dictionary says that the term “consecutive” means “following each its predecessor in uninterrupted succession”. However, this definition in the remarks would indicate that applicant’s own loops are not consecutive. As such, the remarks provided are not persuasive. More specifically: applicant’s first/third column (10) of loops are disclosed as consecutive, with second column of loops disposed between two consecutive loops--however, a loop of the second column is only between if the loop of the second column is interpreted as also occupying the space that is between the loops of the first/third columns (see annotation of Fig. 4 below). As such, applicant’s own disclosure of “consecutive” in view of the term “between” does not meet the current Oxford dictionary definition of being “uninterrupted.” To argue otherwise may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection for the term “between,” as otherwise the loop of the second column is clearly not between loops of the first/third columns. Though applicants can be their own lexicographer, no lexicography for the term “between” was specifically disclosed (for example: the term “between” is defined as…) in the original disclosure. Furthermore, terms cannot be defined with repugnant definitions.
Additionally, clarification is made as to examiner’s interpretation of the term “consecutive” as annotated in the rejection. See extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Consecutive NPL for the definition of the term “consecutive” being “successive” or “following after one another”, which the annotated loops on page 18 of the office action 9/16/25 meet for the argued limitation.
Furthermore, even if applicant’s proposed definition of “consecutive” from Oxford Dictionary is utilized, though currently is contradictory to applicant’s own disclosure, specifically being “without interruption,” the loops of the first/third column on either side of the loop of the second column are consecutive with one another, without interruption of intervening annotated loops. See below annotation for clarification.
PNG
media_image5.png
422
797
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
562
1011
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights