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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Invention I, encompassing claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/31/2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims 1 and 7 have the same or corresponding special technical features and have unity of invention; thus, the searches for Invention I and Invention II would substantially overlap. This is not found persuasive because: 1) the instant application is not a national stage of a PCT application; therefore, the unity of invention does not apply to the instant application; 2) even if Invention I and Invention II would likely overlap in terms of searching some subject matter, the inventions are patentably distinct from one another and including distinct claimed subject matter (i.e., product and process) that separate the inventions into different classes/subclasses (see the identified different classifications in the Restriction Requirement mailed 02/04/2026), and searches for Invention I and Invention II would not substantially overlap. It is noted that the product of claim 1 can be made by another and materially different process as discussed in the Restriction Requirement mailed 02/04/2026 other than the process recited in the method claims, and reciting the product in the preamble of process claim 7 does not necessarily carry all the weight of the product claim 1. Therefore, searching and examining the distinct subject matter of the product and process will impose serious burden to the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6 are being treated on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(I). Figs. 1-3 do not have sufficient quality for examination and satisfactory reproduction. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 limitations "a face layer" and "a jacquard layer superimposed on the face layer", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim is a product claim. As the elastic shoe material is a knitted material with a jacquard layer superimposed on the "face" layer", the "face" layer cannot be considered as a face layer in the product. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, "face layer" has been construed to be a base layer.
Claim 1 recites two instances of "a multifilament yarn". It is unclear whether they are referring to the same multifilament yarn or different multifilament yarns. For clarity, when multiple terms have the same name but are intended to be distinct elements, clearly distinct labels, such as "first element" and "second element" should be used to make the distinct nature clear. Conversely, if the terms are to the same element, a consistent name should be used with "said" or "the" when referring back. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted that the multifilament yarns in the elastic region and non-elastic region are either the same yarn or different yarns.
Claims 1 and 6 each recite the limitation "compact knit structure". The term "compact" is a relative term that is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. It is unclear what is included or excluded by "compact". Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be any knit structure.
Claims 1-2 recite "pattern-bar zonal-elastic layer". It is unclear what is being referred to. What is "pattern-bar"? What is "zonal elastic"? The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the features. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be an elastic layer.
Claims 3-6 each recite the limitation "the multifilament yarn". The claims each depend from claim 1, and claim 1 recites "the elastic region is knitted with a multifilament yarn" and "the non-elastic region is knitted with a multifilament yarn". It is unclear which multifilament yarn is being referred to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be either the multifilament yarn in the elastic region or the multifilament yarn in the non-elastic region.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "formed of nylon fiber, polyester fiber, vinylon fiber, acrylic fiber, artificial fiber, polyethylene fiber, aramid fiber, or polymer fiber, or any combination of these fibers". First, it is unclear what is being referred to by "artificial fiber". Synthetic fiber in contrast with a natural fiber? If so, all the other recited fibers are "artificial" fibers. Second, as to "polymer fiber", all the recited nylon fiber, polyester fiber, vinylon fiber, acrylic fiber, polyethylene fiber, and aramid fiber are polymer fibers. As such, the recited fibers appear to be overlapping in scopes. The metes and bounds of the recited fibers are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 5 recites the first limitation "by a loop-forming ground bar GB 1 cooperating with one or more other loop-forming ground bars" and the second limitation "the one or more other loop-forming ground bars are provided on the loop-forming ground bar and are moved with a lapping notation of 1-0/0-1// or 0-0/1-1//", which render the claim indefinite. First, the claim has been set forth as a product claim; however, the limitation appears to be positively claiming a process of manufacturing the product. Second, the claim does not provide how GB1 is configured to cooperate with the one or more other loop-forming ground bars to define a complete knitting scheme for the face layer. It is unclear what the knit structure of the face layer is by only knowing "lapping notation of 1-0/0-1// or 0-0/1-1//" of the one or more other loop-forming ground bars. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second pair of jacquard guide bars are configured to, when cooperating with the first pair of jacquard guide bars, perform knitting by movement with a lapping notation in combination of four needle spaces of 0, 1, 2, and 3, any of which serves as a basic shogging unit", which renders the claim indefinite. The claim has been set forth as a product claim; however, the limitation appears to be positively claiming a process of manufacturing the product. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained.
The remaining claims each depend from a rejected base claim and are likewise rejected.
Applicant is reminded that the examiner's interpretations of unclear limitations in the 112(b) section have been made per broadest reasoning interpretation, and is for the purpose of applying prior art, and does not necessarily constitute a suggestion. Applicant should make proper claim amendments in commensurate with the scope of the original disclosure.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 112301532 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses a zonal elastic shoe material (figs. 3, 8; see English translation; paras. 0021, 0043, 0057), comprising:
a face layer (layer 6; fig. 3; para. 0043) knitted with a multifilament yarn (formed by 140D/75D/36F polyester-spandex yarn threaded through JB2 and JB3; paras. 0043, 0049-0050, 0072);
a jacquard layer (layer 5; fig. 3; para. 0043) superimposed on the face layer (fig. 3) and comprising an elastic region and a non-elastic region (layer 5 is a mixed knit layer 9 including an elastic knit area 2 and a non-elastic area 3; fig. 3; para. 0043), wherein the elastic region is knitted with a multifilament yarn (formed by 70D/150D/48F polyester-spandex yarn and 140D/75D/36F polyester-spandex yarn threaded through GB1, JB2 and JB3; paras. 0049-0050) into a mesh structure (the elastic region comprising ventilation holes 7 and formed by half-threading the yarn; figs. 3, 5, 7b-7c; paras. 0044, 0052-53, 0071); the non-elastic region is knitted with a multifilament yarn (formed by 200D/48F nylon yarn threaded through JB4 and JB5; paras. 0049-0050) into a compact knit structure (the non-elastic region formed by half-threading the yarn; figs. 3, 5, 7d-7e; paras. 0044, 0054-0055, 0071); and
a pattern-bar zonal-elastic layer (layer 4 comprising an elastic knit layer 8 or mixed knit layer 9; fig. 3; para. 0043) provided on the elastic region (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Cai discloses the zonal elastic shoe material according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the pattern-bar zonal-elastic layer is formed by a spandex inlay on a layer of the mesh structure in combination with knitting (layer 4 comprising an elastic knit layer 8 formed by inlaid 140D/75D/36F polyester-spandex yarn through the mesh structure; figs. 3, 5b-5c; paras. 0043, 0050, 0072).
Regarding claim 3, Cai discloses the zonal elastic shoe material according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the multifilament yarn has a fineness of 70 D to 300 D (200D/48F nylon yarn or 140D/75D/36F polyester-spandex yarn; paras. 0049-0050, 0072), and a spandex yarn in the spandex inlay has a fineness of 70 D to 1400 D (140D/75D/36F polyester-spandex yarn; paras. 0043, 0050, 0072).
Regarding claim 4, Cai discloses the zonal elastic shoe material according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the multifilament yarn is formed of nylon fiber, polyester fiber, vinylon fiber, acrylic fiber, artificial fiber, polyethylene fiber, aramid fiber, or polymer fiber, or any combination of these fibers (nylon and/or polyester; para. 0050).
Regarding claim 6, Cai discloses the zonal elastic shoe material according to claim 1. Regarding the limitations "wherein the elastic region is knitted with the multifilament yarn into the mesh structure by a second pair of jacquard guide bars cooperating with a first pair of jacquard guide bars; the non-elastic region is knitted with the multifilament yarn into the compact knit structure by the second pair of jacquard guide bars cooperating with the first pair of jacquard guide bars; and the second pair of jacquard guide bars are configured to, when cooperating with the first pair of jacquard guide bars, perform knitting by movement with a lapping notation in combination of four needle spaces of 0, 1, 2, and 3, any of which serves as a basic shogging unit", the limitations are deemed product-by-process limitations in the claim, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, I. In this case, the zonal elastic shoe material meets the claimed structural requirement.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 112301532 A).
Regarding claim 5, Cai discloses the zonal elastic shoe material according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the face layer is knitted with the multifilament yarn into the chain knitting structure or an inlay structure (fig. 5; paras. 0043, 0049) by a loop-forming ground bar GB 1 cooperating with one or more other loop-forming ground bars (product-by-process limitation, which does not provide more structural feature).
Regarding the limitations "by a loop-forming ground bar GB 1 cooperating with one or more other loop-forming ground bars" and "the one or more other loop-forming ground bars are provided on the loop-forming ground bar and are moved with a lapping notation of 1-0/0-1// or 0-0/1-1//", the limitations are deemed product-by-process limitations in the claim, and determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113, I. In this case, the limitations do not provide how GB1 is configured to cooperate with the one or more other loop-forming ground bars to define a complete knitting structure of the face layer. In addition, Cai does disclose wherein the face layer is knitted by yarns guided by Jacquard bars forming chain stitches in the face layer (paras. 0043, 0071-0072). 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 configured the chain stitches to include the lap notation as claimed, in order to use a common warp knitted chain structure in the face layer. Such a configuration is within the level of one of ordinary skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional relevant references cited on attached PTO-892 form(s) can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary. Su (CN 116356480 A) and Xu (CN 115012113 A) each disclose a warp-knitted fabric for a shoe upper comprising elastic regions and non-elastic regions.
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.
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 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 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