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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a duplicate of claim 10.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dua (US 8,800,172) in view of Dua et al (US 2012/0279260).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 19, Dua (US 6,910,288) teaches the knitted component (upper) for an article of footwear, the knitted component comprising: a first layer (130) forming a first side; wherein the first layer (130) comprises a plurality of knit elements (131) linked together by a thermoplastic polymer material that is fused (131-136), and wherein each of the plurality of knit elements comprises a perimeter that is at least partially surrounded by the thermoplastic polymer material. However, Dua does not explicitly set forth a second layer forming a second side opposite to the first side. The disclosure of Dua et al (US 2012/0279260) sets forth a fused knit component for an upper (Figures 4B) which includes a second layer forming a second side (112) opposite the first layer forming a first side (111). 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 knit component of Dua with a second layer forming a second side opposite a first layer as shown by the disclosure of Dua et al (US 2012/0279260) for the purpose of increasing the thickness of the knit component thereby increasing cushioning and comfort of the knit component. Regarding claims 2, 12 and 20, the first layer comprises a yarn comprising the thermoplastic polymer material. Regarding claims 3, 13 and 21, the yarn comprises a core (144) and a sheath (145). Regarding claims 4, 14 and 22, the sheath comprises the thermoplastic polymer material. Regarding claim 5, the thermoplastic polymer material is derived from a knit structure. Regarding claims 6, 16 and 24, the knit structure comprises a polyester yarn (column 7, line 53). Regarding claims 7, 15 and 23, the thermoplastic polymer material comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (column 7, line 55). Regarding claim 8, a melting temperature of the thermoplastic polymer material is less than a melting temperature or a decomposition temperature of at least a portion of another yarn present in the knitted component (column 7, paragraph 3). Regarding claims 9, 10, 17, 18, 25 and 26 an article of footwear and an upper (Figure 1) comprising the knitted component of claim 1.
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