DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6 and 9-17 are currently pending in the application. Claims 12-17 have been previously withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1, 6 and 9-11 are being treated on the merits.
Any rejection(s) and/or objection(s) made in the previous Office action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments in the response filed on 07/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 14, "include" appears to read "includes";
In claim 1, line 17, "include" appears to read "includes".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second regions are arranged between first regions arranged in the lattice pattern", which renders the claim indefinite. First, the claim has previously set forth "first regions". It is unclear whether "first regions" in the limitation is referring to the previously defined "first regions" or different. Second, as to "arranged in the lattice pattern", it is unclear whether the "first regions" are arranged in a lattice pattern, or the first and second regions are arranged in the lattice pattern. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be "the second regions are arranged between the first regions in the lattice pattern".
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
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 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 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitoshi (JP 2009062641 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hitoshi discloses a cloth structure (knitted fabric 3; fig. 3; see English translation; para. 0018) formed of yarn (fig. 3; para. 0018) and having first regions (plain knitted areas; see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018) and second regions (float knitted areas 3b; see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018),
wherein an occupancy ratio of the yarn included in the second regions is smaller than an occupancy ratio of the yarn included in the first regions (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018),
the first regions and the second regions are arranged in a lattice pattern (in a regular, repeating geometric arrangement; see annotated fig. 3),
the second regions are arranged between (the) first regions arranged in the lattice pattern (see annotated fig. 3),
the yarn included in the second regions connects the first regions (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018),
the first regions include a weft knitted structure (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018) formed by a first plurality of bodies of the yarn (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018),
a first subset of the second regions (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018) arranged between the first regions in a knitting direction include the first plurality of bodies of the yarn (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018) extending along the knitting direction from the first regions (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018), and
a second subset of the second regions (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018) arranged between the first regions in a direction intersecting with the knitting direction (see annotated fig. 3; para. 0018) include a second plurality of bodies of the yarn (in the ovals in annotated fig. 3; para. 0018) different from the first plurality of bodies of the yarn (in the rectangles in the annotated fig. 3; para. 0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 from JP 2009062641 A
Regarding claim 6, Hitoshi discloses the cloth structure according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the second plurality of bodies of the yarn are arranged on a front surface or a rear surface of the knitted structure in the first regions, or between the front surface and the rear surface (see annotated fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi (JP 2009062641 A) in view of Huffa (US 2019/0343216 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hitoshi discloses the cloth structure according to claim 1. Hitoshi does not disclose wherein carbon fibers are arranged along the yarn in at least one of the first regions and the second regions. However, Huffa, in an analogous art, teaches a cloth structure (a knitted shoe upper; fig. 3A; claim 1) comprising carbon fibers arranged along a yarn of the cloth structure (paras. 0014-0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cloth structure as disclosed by Hitoshi, with wherein carbon fibers are arranged along the yarn in at least one of the first regions and the second regions as taught by Huffa, in order to provide a knitted fabric comprising reinforcing carbon fibers to improve stability and responsiveness (Huffa; para. 014).
Regarding claim 10, Hitoshi and Huffa, in combination, disclose the cloth structure according to claim 9. Hitoshi does not disclose wherein the carbon fibers form a core covered with a material different from the carbon fiber. However, Huffa teaches wherein wherein the carbon fibers form a core covered with a material different from the carbon fiber (carbon fibers impregnated with resins or wrapped with binder yarns; para. 0164). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cloth structure, with wherein the carbon fibers form a core covered with a material different from the carbon fiber as taught by Huffa, in order to reduce friction on machine parts and help keep the fibers together thereby minimizing breakage during the knitting process (Huffa; para. 0164).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitoshi (JP 2009062641 A) in view of Morgan (US 2019/0344529 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hitoshi discloses the cloth structure according to claim 1. Hitoshi does not explicitly disclose a shoe comprising the cloth structure. However, Morgan, in an analogous art, teaches a knitted fabric (figs. 1A, 3A; paras. 0026, 0032) with zonal placement of held stitches may be applied to various garments, including innerwear and shoes (figs. 1A, 3A; paras. 0026, 0032, 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the cloth structure as disclosed by Hitoshi, in a shoe as taught by Morgan, in order to either provide massage effect to a wearer's foot when used as an inner layer or provide appealing effect when used as an outer layer of a shoe upper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
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 AIYING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3326. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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.
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.
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.
/AIYING ZHAO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights