Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 3-6, 12, 13, 16, 17, 25-27 and 30-32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Dua 2010/0154256.
Dua teaches the upper(30) as claimed including a knit element (40), comprising: a plurality of loops, and an inlaid strand (43) that extends through at least a portion of the plurality of loops, wherein the inlaid strand (43) extends from a perimeter edge of the upper, around a lace aperture (41), and back to the perimeter edge of the upper (Figure 6); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Regarding claim 3, the inlaid strand (43) comprises a filament ([0028], line 3). Regarding claim 4, a plurality of segments of the inlaid strand are arranged substantially parallel to each other as seen at least in the embodiments of figures 6 and 7. Regarding claim 5, a plurality of segments of the inlaid strand are arranged non-parallel to each other as also seen in figures 6 and 7. Regarding claim 6, wherein at least part of the knit element (40) is fused together by a thermoplastic polymer material, namely yarns incorporated with thermoplastic materials ([0043]). Concerning independent claim 12, Dua teaches the article of footwear (10) including an upper (30), a knit element (40), comprising: one or more yarns forming a plurality of intermeshed loops as is inherent in a knitted fabric, and a thermoplastic polymer material ([0043]) fused to at least a portion of the knit element; and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper (30). Regarding claim 13, the one or more yarns include at least one yarn that comprises the thermoplastic polymer material ([0043]). Regarding claim 16, the fused thermoplastic polymer material limits stretch of the knit element as indicated at paragraph [0043]. Regarding claim 17, the fused thermoplastic material is stiffer than the knit element [0043]. Concerning independent claim 25, Dua teaches the article of footwear (10) as claimed including an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40), comprising: a plurality of loops as is inherent in knitted materials, a thermoplastic polymer material ([0043]) that is fused, and a pair of flaps (as seen in figure 6 and 8A) that form a portion of the upper that extends under a sockliner (23); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Regarding claim 26, the pair of flaps are formed of a unitary knit construction with a remainder of the knitted component. Regarding claim 27, the knitted component comprises a yarn comprising the thermoplastic polymer material ([0043]). Concerning independent claim 30, Dua teaches the article of footwear (10) as claimed including an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) comprising a plurality of intermeshed loops as is inherent in a knitted fabric, and a thermoplastic polymer material fused to the knitted component ([0043]), wherein a portion of the knitted component extends underfoot as seen at least in figure 8A; and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Regarding claim 31, a strobel sock (34) is secured underfoot to the knitted component. Regarding claim 32, the knitted component comprises at least one fusible yarn comprising the thermoplastic polymer material ([0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 14-15, 28, 29, 33 and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dua in view of Dojan et al. (US 2010/0043253).
Dua teaches the invention substantially as claimed as previously set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Dua fails to disclose a thermoplastic polymer sheet bonded to the knit element. Dojan discloses a knit element upper which includes an additional polymer cover sheet (42) placed over the knitted element. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the knitted element upper of Dua with a polymer sheet bonded to the knit element as shown by Dojan for the purpose of providing an additional stability, durability and abrasion resistance to the knit element.
Claims 7-11 and 18-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dua in view of Levin (US 1,976,885)
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Dua teaches the invention substantially as claimed as previously indicated. However While Dua to show the inlaid strand set in multiple directions it is not explicitly set forth as extending a course-wise direction. Levin teaches a similar inlaid knit fabric in which the inlaid strand (12) extends in a course wise direction. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art provide the inlaid strands of Dua extending in a course wise direction for the purpose of limiting the extension of the knitted fabric in the course wise direction as indicated by Levin at page 1, lines 10-13. Regarding claim 8, the inlaid strand (42) extends around at least one lace aperture. Regarding claim 9, a plurality of segments of the inlaid strand extend through the knit element parallel to each other as seen at least in figures 6 and 7F. 10. Regarding claim 7, a plurality of segments of the inlaid strand extend through the knit element non-parallel to each other at least in figures 6 and 7F. Regarding claim 11, a thermoplastic polymer material is fused to the knit element ([0043]). Concerning independent claim 18, Dua teaches the article of footwear (10) as claimed including an upper (30), comprising: a knit element (40), comprising: a plurality of loops as is inherent in knitted materials, and a filament ((43), ([0028], line 3) inlaid such that at least a portion of the filament extends linearly in approximately a medial-lateral direction; and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Regarding claim 19. The article of footwear of claim 18, wherein the filament may be monofilament. Regarding claim 20, the filament may be multifilament. Regarding claim 21, the filament comprises: glass, aramid, ultra-high molecular weight polyethelene, or liquid crustal polymer ([0028]). Regarding claim 22, the fused filament exhibits greater stretch- resistance than a remainder of the knit element. Regarding claim 23, the filament changes direction in the knit element as seen at least in figure 6. Regarding claim 24, part of the filament is exposed on an outer surface of the upper as seen at least in figure 6.
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