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 1-4, 8-10, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Podhajny (US 2013/145652).
Podhajny teaches the article of footwear (100) as claimed including an upper (120), comprising: a knitted component (150), comprising: a first knit layer; a second knit layer (as seen for example in figure 8A or 8B; layers formed by the alternating wales which encase the inlaid yarn) in which the plurality of a plurality of inlaid courses of a high tenacity yarn ((152), noted at paragraph [0053], lines 16-21) inlaid between the first knit layer and the second knit layer; a plurality of openings (12D) formed in the first knit layer, through which exposed portions of the plurality of inlaid courses of the high tenacity yarn are visible (figure 9), wherein the plurality of openings form a pattern (figure 9), wherein at least a portion of the pattern has an orientation different than a course-wise direction or a wale-wise direction, such that adjacent openings of the plurality of openings expose different inlaid courses of the high tenacity yarn (line shown in annotated figure 9) ; and a sole structure secured to the upper.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the pattern extends diagonally relative to a first edge and a second edge of the knitted component. Regarding claim 3, the exposed portions of the plurality of inlaid courses protrude through one or more of the plurality of openings. Regarding claim 4, the high tenacity yarn comprises at least one different visual property (e.g. thickness, [0053], lines 1-9) compared to the first knit layer. Regarding claim 8, wherein the plurality of openings are located in at least a forefoot region of the upper. Regarding claim 9, Podhajny teaches the knitted component (150) as claimed including an exterior knit layer; a interior knit layer (as seen for example in figure 8A or 8B; layers formed by the alternating wales which encase the inlaid yarn); a plurality of inlaid courses of a high tenacity yarn ((152), noted at paragraph [0053], lines 16-21) positioned between the exterior knit layer and the interior knit layer; and a plurality of openings formed in the exterior knit layer, through which exposed portions of the plurality of inlaid courses of the high tenacity yarn (152) are visible, wherein the plurality of openings form a pattern of openings, wherein at least a portion of the pattern of openings has an orientation different than a course-wise direction or a wale-wise direction, such that adjacent openings of the plurality of openings expose different inlaid courses of the high tenacity yarn (line shown in annotated figure 9). Regarding claim 10, the pattern of openings extends diagonally relative to a first edge and a second edge of the knitted component. Regarding claim 13, the knitted component further comprises a plurality of raised knit structures forming a diagonal pattern. Regarding claim 14, the pattern of openings comprises a first diagonal line and a second diagonal line, wherein the second diagonal line is an opposite diagonal line relative to the first diagonal line. Regarding claim 15, Podhajny teaches the article of footwear (100) as claimed including an upper (120), comprising: a knitted component (150), comprising: a first knit layer; a second knit layer (as seen for example in figure 8A or 8B; layers formed by the alternating wales which encase the inlaid yarn); a plurality of inlaid courses of a high tenacity yarn (152) inlaid between the first knit layer and the second knit layer; a plurality of openings formed in the first knit layer, through which exposed portions of the plurality of inlaid courses of the high tenacity yarn are visible, wherein the plurality of openings form a pattern, wherein at least a portion of the pattern has an orientation different than a course-wise direction or a wale-wise direction, wherein the pattern provides a visual impression that the high tenacity yarn extends in a direction of the pattern when the high tenacity yarn extends in the course-wise direction; and a sole structure (110) secured to the upper. Regarding claim 16, the pattern extends diagonally relative to a first edge and a second edge of the knitted component. Regarding claim 17, the high tenacity yarn comprises at least one different visual property than the first knit layer (e.g. thickness, [0053], lines 1-9). Regarding claim 19, the plurality of openings are at least partially located in a forefoot region of the article of footwear. Regarding claim 20, each opening of the plurality of openings has its longest dimension oriented in the course-wise direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny (US 2013/0145652) in view of Aceves Tinajero et al. (2019/0223556).
Podhajny teaches the invention substantially as claimed as previously set forth in the rejections to claims 4 and 17. Podhajny does not specifically teach the different color, reflectivity or texture. Aceves Tinajero teaches a tensile strand which may have a different color, reflectivity or texture as indicated at paragraph [0025], lines 11-15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tensile strand of Podhajny with either a different color, reflectivity or texture as shown by Aceves Tinajero for the purpose of optimizing the visual appeal of the knitted shoe upper.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny (US 2013/0145652).
Podhajny teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a high tenacity yarn (152). However, Podhajny does not explicitly set forth the high tenacity yarn as having a linear density of at least 1,000 denier or a maximum tensile strength of at least 7,000 grams-force. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from different high tenacity yarn sizes and strength including at least 1000 denier and 7000 grams-force for the purpose of optimizing the strength, flexibility and comfort of the shoe upper.
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
Prosecution Insights