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 arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dua et al. (US 2017/0000216) in view of Meir et al. (US 2017/0238644).
Dua teaches the three-dimensionally knitted upper (figure 9) for an article of footwear as claimed including a first region (region without the inlaid yarn e.g. Figure 12A) comprising a first knitted layer, wherein the first knitted layer has a first property and is configured to attach to a sole of the article of footwear; and a second region (region with inlaid yarn e.g. Figure 12D) comprising a second knitted layer, the second knitted layer comprising inlaid yarns (152) and having a second property that is different from the first property; wherein the first region is a bottom portion of the knitted upper, the second region is a top portion of the knitted upper, and the knitted upper is a single piece. However, Dua does not show the inlaid yarns extending from a medial side of the upper to a lateral side of the upper. In the embodiment of figure 15, Meir shows a knitted region (132) with inlaid yarns (724) which extend from a medial side of an upper to a lateral side of the upper as seen for example in figure 6. 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 inlaid knit regions of Dua as extending over the top of the upper for the purpose having one piece form fitting upper without the need for an open throat area and laces for tightening the upper. Regarding claim 2, the second region covers a metatarsal area of a foot of a wearer. Regarding claim 3, the inlaid yarns (152) comprise elastic yarns ([0060], line 14). Regarding claim 4, the second knitted layer comprises a plurality of layers as seen in figure 12D. Regarding claim 5, the second knitted layer comprises a first portion comprising the inlaid yarns and a second portion that is free from the inlaid yarns as seen in figure 9. Regarding claim 6, the inlaid yarns (152) extend in a medial to lateral direction to limit stretching of the second knitted layer as seen in figure 9. Regarding claim 7, wherein the inlaid yarns (152) cover a metatarsal area of a foot of a wearer. Regarding claim 8, further comprising: a third knitted region comprising fuse yarns (embodiment with plaited yarns which may be fused yarns e.g. Figure 8B); and a fourth knitted region comprising fuse yarns; wherein the third knitted region is a toe region and the fourth knitted region is a heel region. Regarding claim 9, the fuse yarns in the toe region are configured to permanently fix a shape of the toe region, and wherein the fuse yarns in the heel region are configured to permanently fix a shape of the heel region. Regarding claim 10, the second region is a forefoot region of the knitted upper. Regarding claim 11, the first property is a first stiffness and the second property is a second stiffness. Regarding claim 12, Dua teaches the three-dimensionally knitted upper (e.g. Figure 9) for an article of footwear as claimed including a first region (region without the inlaid yarn e.g. Figure 12A) comprising a first knitted layer, wherein the first knitted layer has a first property and is configured to attach to a sole of the article of footwear; and a second region (region with inlaid yarn e.g. Figure 12D) comprising a second knitted layer, the second knitted layer comprising floating yarns (152) and having a second property that is different from the first property; wherein the first region is a bottom portion of the knitted upper, the second region is a top portion of the knitted upper, and the knitted upper is a single piece. However, Dua does not show the inlaid yarns extending from a medial side of the upper to a lateral side of the upper. In the embodiment of figure 15, Meir shows a knitted region (132) with inlaid yarns (724) which extend from a medial side of an upper to a lateral side of the upper as seen for example in figure 6. 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 inlaid knit regions of Dua as extending over the top of the upper for the purpose having one piece form fitting upper without the need for an open throat area and laces for tightening the upper. Regarding claim 13, the second region covers a metatarsal area of a foot of a wearer as seen in figure 9. Regarding claim 14, the second knitted layer comprises a plurality of layers as seen in figure 12D. Regarding claim 15, the second knitted layer comprises a first portion comprising the floating yarns (152) and a second portion that is free from the floating yarns. Regarding claim 16, wherein the floating yarns (152) comprise free portions of yarn that connect to the second knitted layer via loops or tuck stitches. Regarding claim 17, a third knitted region comprising fuse yarns; and a fourth knitted region comprising fuse yarns; wherein the third knitted region is a toe region and the fourth knitted region is a heel region. Regarding claim 18, the floating yarns in the toe region are configured to permanently fix a shape of the toe region, and wherein the floating yarns in the heel region are configured to permanently fix a shape of the heel region. Regarding claim 19, the second region is a forefoot region of the knitted upper as seen in figure 9. Regarding claim 20, the first property is a first stiffness and the second property is a second stiffness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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-Th.
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 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
Prosecution Insights