DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed February 4, 2026 in which claims 1-16 and 20 are presented for examination and claims 17-19 are canceled.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: Objection to the drawings should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the drawings.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Second Argument: Objection to the specification for the title being non-descriptive of the invention should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the specification.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Third Argument: Rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 over US Pub No. 2013/0255103 Dua et al. should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to claim 1 because Dua does not teach, suggest, or disclose an article of apparel wherein loops of a textile material are arranged along a plurality of adjacent lines, wherein each loop of a first line of loops is arranged below each loop of an adjacent second line of loops, such that the second line of loops overlaps the first line of loops, as recited by currently amended claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dua discloses a loop-like textile material (400), which comprises a plurality of substantially regularly configured loops and which is made from one or more filaments (401), wherein the loops are arranged along a plurality of adjacent lines, wherein each loop of a first line of loops is arranged below each loop of an adjacent second line of loops, such that the second line of loops overlaps the first line of loops (as depicted in annotated Figure 20 and Figure 21, see below, and inasmuch as currently claimed, one or more filaments 401 are arranged in overlapping lines of knitted loops such that portions of the loops in a first line of loops located in the area of overlap between the first and second lines of loops are arranged below portions of each loop of a second line of loops in the area of overlap between the first and second lines of loops, as is typical of a conventional knit structure such as that depicted in annotated Figure 20 and Figure 21; paras. 0086-0088, 0101-0105). The rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
745
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following minor informalities: Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the article comprises a first area with a higher number of intersecting positions at which the filament segments are material bonded to each other as in a second area of the article.” However, for further clarity, it is respectfully suggested that claim 12 be amended to recite, for example, “wherein the article comprises a first area with a higher number of intersecting positions at which the filament segments are material bonded to each other than in a second area of the article.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub No. 2013/0255103 Dua et al.
To claim 1, Dua discloses an article of apparel (see for example Figures 41-54; para. 0001) comprising a loop-like textile material (400) which comprises a plurality of substantially regularly configured loops and which is made from one or more filaments (401), wherein segments of the one or more filaments cross each other at intersecting positions at which the filament segments are material bonded to each other (see especially Figures 20-23; paras. 0086-0088, 0101-0105), wherein the loops are arranged along a plurality of adjacent lines (annotated Figure 20, see below; paras. 0086-0088, 0101-0105), wherein each loop of a first line of loops is arranged below each loop of an adjacent second line of loops, such that the second line of loops overlaps the first line of loops (as depicted in annotated Figure 20 and Figure 21 and inasmuch as currently claimed, one or more filaments 401 are arranged in overlapping lines of knitted loops such that portions of the loops in a first line of loops located in the area of overlap between the first and second lines of loops are arranged below portions of each loop of a second line of loops in the area of overlap between the first and second lines of loops, as is typical of a conventional knit structure such as that depicted in annotated Figure 20 and Figure 21; paras. 0086-0088, 0101-0105).
PNG
media_image1.png
745
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To claim 2, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the loops are substantially circular or elliptical in shape (see especially Figures 20-23; inasmuch as currently claimed, the loops forming loop-like textile material 400 can be considered to be “substantially” circular or elliptical in shape; it is respectfully noted that the term “substantially” is very broad).
To claim 3, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the loop-like textile material does not form a continuous surface and is configured as a mesh (see especially Figures 20-23; para. 0086).
To claim 4, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the plurality of loops is made from a single filament (para. 0088).
To claim 5, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein segments of a common continuous filament are material bonded to each other at the intersecting positions (see Figures 20-23; paras. 0101-0105).
To claim 6, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the one or more filaments form a helical structure (para. 0073).
To claim 7, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the article comprises a first area in which the loops have a smaller radius than in a second area of the article (paras. 0086-0087).
To claim 10, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the article consists of a single filament (para. 0088).
To claim 12, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the article comprises a first area with a higher number of intersecting positions at which the filament segments are material bonded to each other than in a second area of the article (see Figures 20-23; paras. 0101-0114).
To claim 13, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the one or more filaments are made from a thermoplastic polymer (paras. 0074-0075).
To claim 14, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the thermoplastic polymer is selected from polyamide, polyether block amide, polyurethane and polyester (paras. 0074-0075).
To claim 15, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the article is a shoe upper (820) (see Figures 49-54; paras. 0163-0178).
To claim 16, Dua further discloses an article of apparel wherein the shoe upper is connected to a sole (810) (see Figures 49-54; paras. 0163-0178).
To claim 20, Dua further discloses an article of apparel including a helical filament (para. 0073). To the limitations “having been obtained by: providing a shaping carrier; melting a polymer composition at a first temperature; applying the molten polymer composition to the shaping carrier with a nozzle, wherein the nozzle comprises an outlet opening wherein the molten polymer composition exits the nozzle as a filament formed at least in a subregion between the outlet opening and the shaping carrier,” it is respectfully noted that claim 20 is being treated as a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113). As such, it is further respectfully noted that these limitations are merely functional and not patentably significant.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dua (as applied to claim 1, above).
To claim 8, Dua discloses an article of apparel wherein the loops can be provided in a wide variety of different configurations having different properties (paras. 0086-0087).
Dua does not explicitly disclose an article of apparel wherein the loops have a radius of at least 0.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the article of apparel of Dua such that the loops have a radius of at least 0.5 mm as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 9, Dua discloses an article of apparel wherein the loops can be provided in a wide variety of different configurations having different properties (paras. 0086-0087).
Dua does not explicitly disclose an article of apparel wherein the loops have a radius of 0.5 mm to 20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the article of apparel of Dua such that the loops have a radius of 0.5 mm to 20 mm as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 11, Dua discloses an article of apparel wherein the one or more filaments can be provided in a wide variety of different thicknesses (para. 0078).
Dua does not explicitly disclose an article of apparel wherein the one or more filaments have a filament thickness of 0.01 to 0.2 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the article of apparel of Dua such that the one or more filaments have a filament thickness of 0.01 to 0.2 mm as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights