DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
Since this application is a continuation of US Applications 17/737380, 16/792536, 15/293829, and 13/681766, the Examiner has considered the information provided in the parent application (per MPEP 609.02). Should Applicant desire the information to be printed in any patent issuing from this application, a new listing of the information must be separately submitted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,498,023 in view of Dua (US 2010/0154256) and Greene et al. (US 2011/0078921), herein Greene.
Regarding claims 1-11, 14-15, and 21-25, the claimed structure of the present invention may be derived from the claimed subject matter of the patent, except for the knitted component having an underfoot portion, a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, and a mesh knit structure. Dua teaches an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) that integrally extends from a heel portion, along a medial side (15), along a lateral side (14), along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion of the upper (Fig. 1), the knitted component comprising a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D), and yarn comprising a thermoplastic material (such as a thermoplastic yarn; paragraph 0043); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Dua further teaches a cover component (35 or 42, 43: see 35 USC rejection of claims 4-6 and 8 below), and a mesh knit structure (apertures 41) (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0026, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the knitted component with an underfoot portion, a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, and a mesh knit structure, as taught by Dua, in order to provide improved fit and comfort with the underfoot portion, improved stability and abrasion resistance with the fused material and polymer layer, and improved ventilation and flexibility of the upper with the mesh knit structure.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 16-20, and 26, Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. The upper includes a tongue portion (40) stitched to the knitted component (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to stitch the tongue portion to the knitted component, as taught by Greene, in order to use a well known attachment which provides solid attachment between the two elements. Greene further teaches that the upper includes a tongue portion (40) which may include a yarn with increased stretch (paragraph 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide yarns with differing stretch in the knitted component and tongue portion in order to provide specific properties where needed on the upper; for example decreased stretch along a heel portion to provide stability, and increased stretch at the tongue portion to improve comfort and fitting.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 10,561,200 in view of Dua (US 2010/0154256) and Greene et al. (US 2011/0078921), herein Greene.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-26, the claimed structure of the present invention may be derived from the claimed subject matter of the patent, except for the knitted component having an underfoot portion, a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, and a mesh knit structure. Dua teaches an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) that integrally extends from a heel portion, along a medial side (15), along a lateral side (14), along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion of the upper (Fig. 1), the knitted component comprising a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D), and yarn comprising a thermoplastic material (such as a thermoplastic yarn; paragraph 0043); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Dua further teaches a cover component (35 or 42, 43: see 35 USC rejection of claims 4-6 and 8 below), and a mesh knit structure (apertures 41) (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0026, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the knitted component with an underfoot portion, a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, and a mesh knit structure, as taught by Dua, in order to provide improved fit and comfort with the underfoot portion, improved stability and abrasion resistance with the fused material and polymer layer, and improved ventilation and flexibility of the upper with the mesh knit structure.
Regarding claim 13, Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. Greene further teaches that the upper includes a tongue portion (40) which may include a yarn with increased stretch (paragraph 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide yarns with differing stretch in the knitted component and tongue portion in order to provide specific properties where needed on the upper; for example decreased stretch along a heel portion to provide stability, and increased stretch at the tongue portion to improve comfort and fitting.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,129,443 in view of Dua (US 2010/0154256) and Greene et al. (US 2011/0078921), herein Greene.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-26, the claimed structure of the present invention may be derived from the claimed subject matter of the patent, except for the knitted component having an underfoot portion, a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, a mesh knit structure, and a sole structure. Dua teaches an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) that integrally extends from a heel portion, along a medial side (15), along a lateral side (14), along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion of the upper (Fig. 1), the knitted component comprising a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D), and yarn comprising a thermoplastic material (such as a thermoplastic yarn; paragraph 0043); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Dua further teaches a cover component (35 or 42, 43: see 35 USC rejection of claims 4-6 and 8 below), and a mesh knit structure (apertures 41) (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0026, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the knitted component with an underfoot portion, a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, a sole structure, and a mesh knit structure, as taught by Dua, in order to provide improved fit and comfort with the underfoot portion, improved stability and abrasion resistance with the fused material and polymer layer, improved ventilation and flexibility of the upper with the mesh knit structure, and a complete article of footwear with a sole structure.
Regarding claim 13, Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. Greene further teaches that the upper includes a tongue portion (40) which may include a yarn with increased stretch (paragraph 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide yarns with differing stretch in the knitted component and tongue portion in order to provide specific properties where needed on the upper; for example decreased stretch along a heel portion to provide stability, and increased stretch at the tongue portion to improve comfort and fitting.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,363,854 in view of Dua (US 2010/0154256) and Greene et al. (US 2011/0078921), herein Greene.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-26, the claimed structure of the present invention may be derived from the claimed subject matter of the patent, except for a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, a mesh knit structure, and a sole structure. Dua teaches an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) that integrally extends from a heel portion, along a medial side (15), along a lateral side (14), along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion of the upper (Fig. 1), the knitted component comprising a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D), and yarn comprising a thermoplastic material (such as a thermoplastic yarn; paragraph 0043); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Dua further teaches a cover component (35 or 42, 43: see 35 USC rejection of claims 4-6 and 8 below), and a mesh knit structure (apertures 41) (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0026, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the knitted component with a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, a sole structure, and a mesh knit structure, as taught by Dua, in order to provide improved stability and abrasion resistance with the fused material and polymer layer, improved ventilation and flexibility of the upper with the mesh knit structure, and a complete article of footwear with a sole structure.
Regarding claim 13, Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. Greene further teaches that the upper includes a tongue portion (40) which may include a yarn with increased stretch (paragraph 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide yarns with differing stretch in the knitted component and tongue portion in order to provide specific properties where needed on the upper; for example decreased stretch along a heel portion to provide stability, and increased stretch at the tongue portion to improve comfort and fitting.
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,433,371 in view of Dua (US 2010/0154256) and Greene et al. (US 2011/0078921), herein Greene.
Regarding claims 1-11, 14-15, and 21-25, the claimed structure of the present invention may be derived from the claimed subject matter of the patent, except for a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, and a mesh knit structure. Dua teaches an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) that integrally extends from a heel portion, along a medial side (15), along a lateral side (14), along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion of the upper (Fig. 1), the knitted component comprising a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D), and yarn comprising a thermoplastic material (such as a thermoplastic yarn; paragraph 0043); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Dua further teaches a cover component (35 or 42, 43: see 35 USC rejection of claims 4-6 and 8 below), and a mesh knit structure (apertures 41) (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0026, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the knitted component with a thermoplastic material that is fused, a cover component/polymer sheet bonded to the knitted component, and a mesh knit structure, as taught by Dua, in order to provide improved stability and abrasion resistance with the fused material and polymer layer, and improved ventilation and flexibility of the upper with the mesh knit structure.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 16-20, and 26, Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. The upper includes a tongue portion (40) stitched to the knitted component (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to stitch the tongue portion to the knitted component, as taught by Greene, in order to use a well known attachment which provides solid attachment between the two elements. Greene further teaches that the upper includes a tongue portion (40) which may include a yarn with increased stretch (paragraph 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide yarns with differing stretch in the knitted component and tongue portion in order to provide specific properties where needed on the upper; for example decreased stretch along a heel portion to provide stability, and increased stretch at the tongue portion to improve comfort and fitting.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 19/229471 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed structure of the present invention may be wholly derived from the claimed subject matter of the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 5, 13-15, and 21-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 19/229471 in view of Dua (US 2010/0154256) and Greene et al. (US 2011/0078921), herein Greene.
The claimed structure of the present invention may be derived from the claimed subject matter of the co-pending application except for the cover component comprising a textile, the tongue portion having a yarn with a differing stretch, the collar having a stretch knit structure, and a mesh knit structure. Dua teaches an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) comprising a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D), and yarn comprising a thermoplastic material (such as a thermoplastic yarn; paragraph 0043); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper. Dua further teaches a cover component comprising a textile (42, 43), a collar having a stretch knit structure (paragraphs 0029, Fig. 8A, 8B), and a mesh knit structure (apertures 41) (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0026, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the knitted component with a cover component comprising a textile, a collar having a stretch knit structure, and a mesh knit structure, as taught by Dua, in order to provide a cover component which is flexible, a collar which stretches to allow entry and exit of the foot, and improved ventilation and flexibility of the upper with the mesh knit structure.
Regarding claim 13, Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. Greene further teaches that the upper includes a tongue portion (40) which may include a yarn with increased stretch (paragraph 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide yarns with differing stretch in the knitted component and tongue portion in order to provide specific properties where needed on the upper; for example decreased stretch along a heel portion to provide stability, and increased stretch at the tongue portion to improve comfort and fitting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 14-15, and 21-25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Dua (US 2010/0154256).
Regarding claim 1, Dua discloses an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) that integrally extends from a heel portion, along a medial side (15), along a lateral side (14), along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion of the upper (Fig. 1), the knitted component comprising a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D), and a thermoplastic material (such as a thermoplastic yarn; paragraph 0043); and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0024, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0049; Fig. 1-7C).
Regarding claim 2, Dua discloses that the knitted component includes a yarn comprising the thermoplastic material (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Dua discloses that the knitted component integrally extends across the underfoot portion between the medial side and the lateral side (paragraph 0049; Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 4, Dua discloses that a cover component (35) is joined to the knitted component (paragraph 0045; Fig. 7E).
Regarding claim 5, Dua discloses that a cover component (outer layer of tube 42 and strand 43, which cover the inner knit layer) is joined to the knitted component (paragraphs 0024-0026; Fig. 5B, 5C). The cover component comprises a textile (knit layer).
Regarding claim 6, Dua discloses that the cover component comprises a polymer sheet (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 8, Dua discloses that the cover component is joined to the knitted component by adhesive bonding (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 10, Dua discloses a tongue portion (33) that extends in a throat area of the upper (paragraph 0019; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Dua discloses that the upper comprises a mesh knit structure (at apertures 41: paragraph 0022; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Dua discloses that the mesh knit structure comprises a plurality of holes (41) formed in the knitted component.
Regarding claim 21, Dua discloses an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a knitted component (40) that extends from a heel portion, along a medial side (15), along a lateral side (14), along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion (Fig. 1), wherein the knitted component is formed with at least one yarn comprising a thermoplastic material (paragraph 0043), wherein the knitted component comprises a mesh knit structure with a plurality of apertures (41); and a polymer sheet (35) adhesively bonded to a surface of the knitted component (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0024, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7E).
Regarding claim 22, Dua discloses that the plurality of apertures are located on the medial side and on the lateral side (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Dua discloses that the thermoplastic material is at least partially fused (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 24, Dua discloses that a collar (45) of the upper comprises a knit structure that can stretch (paragraphs 0029, Fig. 8A, 8B).
Regarding claim 25, Dua discloses that the knitted component comprises a multi-layer knit structure (wherein there are multiple layers at least at tubes 42 and collar 45; Fig. 5B, 5D).
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 11-13, 16-20, and 26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dua, as applied to claims 1, 10, and 21, in view of Greene et al. (US 2011/0078921), herein Greene.
Regarding claim 11, Dua does not disclose that the tongue portion has a first knit layer and a second knit layer. Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. The upper includes a tongue portion (40) having a first knit layer (43) and a second knit layer (44) that are coextensive and lay against each other. The tongue portion has a compressible structure which enhances overall comfort (paragraphs 0046-0048, paragraph 0057; Fig. 11F). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a tongue portion with first and second knit layers, as taught by Greene, in order provide a tongue which is integrally knit to minimize manufacturing steps and enhances the overall comfort of the footwear.
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Dua discloses a tongue portion (33), but does not disclose the attachment of the tongue portion to the knitted component. Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. The upper includes a tongue portion (40) stitched to the knitted component (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to stitch the tongue portion of Dua to the knitted component, as taught by Greene, in order to use a well known attachment which provides solid attachment between the two elements.
Regarding claim 13, Dua discloses that the upper may utilize yarns having different levels of stretch (paragraph 0023), but does not specifically disclose that a yarn of the knitted component and a yarn of the tongue portion differ in stretch. Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. The upper includes a tongue portion (40) which may include a yarn with increased stretch (paragraph 0055-0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide yarns with differing stretch in the knitted component and tongue portion in order to provide specific properties where needed on the upper; for example decreased stretch along a heel portion to provide stability, and increased stretch at the tongue portion to improve comfort and fitting.
Regarding claim 16, Dua discloses an article of footwear (10), comprising: an upper (30), comprising: a thermoplastic material that is fused (paragraph 0043), a knitted component (40) that extends from a heel portion, along a medial side, along a lateral side, along an underfoot portion (wherein the edges extends at least partially underfoot as in Fig. 5A, or fully underfoot as in Fig. 8B), and to a toe portion (Fig. 1) of the upper, wherein a tongue portion (33) is attached to the knitted component, and wherein a polymer sheet (35) is bonded to a surface of the knitted component; and a sole structure (20) secured to the upper (paragraphs 0017, 0020-0024, 0029, 0035, 0043, 0045, 0049; Fig. 1-7E).
Dua does not disclose the attachment of the tongue portion to the knitted component. Greene teaches an article of footwear (10) including an upper comprising (30) a knitted component. The upper includes a tongue portion (40) stitched to the knitted component (Fig. 5A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to stitch the tongue portion of Dua to the knitted component, as taught by Greene, in order to use a well known attachment which provides solid attachment between the two elements.
Regarding claim 17, Dua discloses that the knitted component includes a yarn comprising the thermoplastic material (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 18, Greene teaches that a toe end of the tongue portion is stitched to the knitted component (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 19, Dua discloses that the knitted component integrally extends across the underfoot portion between the medial side and the lateral side (paragraph 0049; Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 20, Dua discloses that the polymer sheet is adhesively bonded to the knitted component (paragraph 0045).
Claims 7 and 9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dua, as applied to claims 1 and 4, in view of Jessiman et al. (US 2013/0291293), herein Jessiman.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Dua does not disclose that the cover component is joined by stitching or thermal bonding. Jessiman teaches a multi-layer upper, wherein the layers may be attached by stitching, thermal bonding (flamebonding, heat sealing), or adhesive (paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to join the cover component of Dua by stitching or thermal bonding, as taught by Jessiman, as this would be a simple substitution of one joining method for another, with the predictable result of providing a strong permanent attachment between the two elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, 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 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732