NOTE
On July 30, 2026, Examiner Marin presented Applicant with amendments to place this case in condition for allowance. The following proposed amendments were:
An article of footwear, comprising: an upper, comprising:
a knitted component, comprising:
a first knitted layer; a second knitted layer, wherein a cavity is formed between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer;
a spacer strand traversing within the cavity between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer, wherein the spacer strand has a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier, and wherein the first knitted layer is formed with at least one monofilament;
wherein the spacer strand is a high-tenacity yarn comprising multiple filaments per strand and imparts loft to the knitted component within the cavity; and
a sole structure secured to the upper.
14. An article of footwear, comprising:
an upper, comprising:
a knitted component, comprising:
a first knitted layer;
a second knitted layer, wherein a cavity is formed between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer;
a spacer strand traversing within the cavity between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer,
wherein the spacer strand has a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier
wherein the spacer strand is a high-tenacity yarn comprising multiple filaments per strand and imparts loft to the knitted component within the cavity, and wherein the first knitted layer is formed from multiple monofilaments that differ in at least one property; and
a sole structure secured to the upper.
20. An article of footwear, comprising:
an upper, comprising:
a knitted component, comprising:
a first knitted layer formed with at least one yarn comprising a core and a sheath, wherein the sheath comprises a fusible material;
a second knitted layer,
wherein a cavity is formed between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer;
a spacer strand traversing within the cavity between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer, wherein the spacer strand is at least has a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier;
wherein the spacer strand is a high-tenacity yarn comprising multiple filaments per strand and imparts loft to the knitted component within the cavity; and
a sole structure secured to the upper.
No response could be given within the limited time Examiner and Applicant had. Examiner would like to thank Applicant for their time and consideration.
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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after June 17, 2026, of which claims 1-22 were presented, of which claims 1, 8, 11-12, 14, 18, and 20 are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Podhajny in view of Conley et al. “Conley” (US PG Pub. 2009/0123713) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to independent claims 1 and 20, filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants Argument: It is respectfully submitted that Conley does not disclose, teach, or suggest spacer strands in a knitted component. Conley is not in the art of knitted components and is completely silent on knitting. Conley describes woven and non-woven fabrics, "different weaving structures and different weaving densities may be used to provide several alternative woven composite fabrics as a component of the invention; and nonwoven fabrics can alternatively be used as the outer fabric layer and optional inner fabric layer."15 Further, the Office provides no motivation as to why a skilled artisan would look to the fibers of "vestments designed for use as rugged outerwear [that] have been constructed of relatively loosely-woven fabrics made from natural and/or synthetic fibers having a relatively low strength or tenacity."16 A motivation-to-combine "rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it's generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal."17 Rather, "generic" or "conclusory" analysis is insufficient when it bears "'no relation to any specific combination of prior art elements ...from specific references' and [does]n't explain why a skilled artisan would have combined them 'in the way the claimed invention It is unreasonable that a skilled artisan would have looked to the tenacity of fibers for a woven outer layer of a fabric having a nano-web 13 PersonalWeb v. Apple, 848 F.3d 987, 993-94 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 4lntelligent Bio-Systems, Inc v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (2016). 1s Conley at [0040] and [0041].
16 Conley at [0039]. 17 Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 18 Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021), (emphasis in original) (quoting ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
membrane, for the tenacity of a spacer strand in a knitted component. Therefore, the Office has failed to show that Conley is in the same field of art or attempting to solve the same problem as the present disclosure. Thus, Conley is non-analogous art and is not suitable for curing the deficiencies stated by the Office.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2141.01(a) provides that a reference is analogous art where it is either (1) from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, even if it addresses a different problem, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Here, Conley is directed to multilayer textile structures for garments, which includes “shoes”; see Conley Par. 0010. The applicant’s invention is directed to footwear. Thus, Conley is within the same general field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Furthermore, Conley teaches selecting fibers of different tenacities to provide desired properties in the textile structure; further elaborated on in the last sentence of Par. 0039. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the material(s) used in knitting is also shared in other textiles, such as woven. Accordingly, Conley is analogous art and is used to teach fibers having a specific tenacity, as explained in the rejection below.
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 1-7, 10, 12-13, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny (US Patent 8,959,959) in view of Conley et al. “Conley” (US PG Pub. 2009/0123713).
Regarding claim 1, Podhajny discloses an article of footwear (invention as shown in Fig. 1-6 and 12), comprising:
an upper (120, Fig. 1-6), comprising:
a knitted component, (130, Fig. 6, 7, 12, and 14B) comprising:
a first knitted layer (Fig. 12, Col. 17, lines:33-37, examiner notes the “first layer” comprises filaments 1201 and 1203);
a second knitted layer (Fig. 12, Col. 17, lines: 37-41, examiner notes the “second layer” comprises filaments 1202 and 1204), wherein a cavity is formed between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer (examiner notes the “cavity” is shown between the first and second layers, and occupying spacer strand, combination of 1205 and 1206); and
spacer strand (combination of 1205 and 1206) traversing the cavity between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer (examiner notes as shown in Fig. 12), and wherein the first knitted layer is formed with at least one monofilament (1201 and 1203); and
a sole structure (110) secured to the upper (120, Fig. 1-6).
Podhajny does not disclose the spacer strand has a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier.
However, Conley teaches a multi-layered spacer fabric (Par. 0045) in the same filed of endeavor of breathable garments (Abstract), wherein Conley teaches fibers comprising a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier (Par. 0039, lines 10-16)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacer strand as disclosed by Podhajny, by having a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier as taught by Conley, to enhance structural integrity and strength of the knitted component while in-use.
Regarding claim 2, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose wherein the at least one monofilament comprises a first monofilament (1201 of Podhajny) and a second monofilament (1203) that differ in at least one property (Col. 17, lines: 1-4, lines: 20-25, lines: 42-46, 1201 is “D1” and 1203 is “D2”, examiner notes both monofilaments have different thicknesses, which correlate to having different deniers).
Regarding claim 3, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose wherein the at least one property comprises denier (Col. 8, lines: 15-25, Col. 17, lines: 1-4, lines: 20-25, lines: 42-46 of Podhajny, examiner notes it is well known in the art each monofilament have a “denier”).
Regarding claim 4, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the second knitted layer comprises a multi-filament yarn (combination of 1202 and 1204 of Podhajny).
Regarding claim 5, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the first knitted layer comprises a fusible yarn (Col. 19, lines: 16-28 of Podhajny, examiner notes Fig. 13 shows a zoomed in view of what a portion of the filament is made up of, combination of 1301 and 1302, Col. 18, lines: 60-65, Col. 19, lines: 29-35) that has been at least partially melted, flowed, and re-hardened (Col. 19, lines: 30-35, examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize strand 1302 is “melted, flowed, and re-hardened” due to being a thermoplastic material that is extruded).
Regarding claim 6, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the fusible yarn comprises a thermoplastic material (Col. 19, lines: 30-35 of Podhajny).
Regarding claim 7, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the fusible yarn comprises a thermoset material (Col. 19, lines: 33-35 of Podhajny).
Regarding claim 10, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose wherein the knitted component comprises at least one inlaid strand (132 of Podhajny, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the at least one inlaid strand is reflective (Col. 10, lines: 45-48 of Podhajny, examiner notes inlaid strand 132 is made of “glass”, which is well known in the art as being “reflective”, to a degree).
Regarding claim 13, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose cushioning is incorporated into the cavity (Col. 1-4 and 10-11 of Podhajny, examiner notes the material of the yarns 1205 and 1206, which are incorporated into the cavity, is nylon, which is well known in the art to provide cushioning, to a degree).
Regarding claim 20, Podhajny discloses an article of footwear (invention as shown in Fig. 1-6 and 12), comprising:
an upper (120, Fig. 1-6), comprising:
a knitted component, (130, Fig. 6, 7, 12, and 14B) comprising:
a first knitted layer (Fig. 12, Col. 17, lines:33-37, examiner notes the “first layer” comprises filaments 1201 and 1203) formed with at least one yarn comprising a core (1301, Col. 19, lines: 16-28, examiner notes Fig. 13 shows a zoomed in view of what a portion of the filament is made up of) and
a sheath (1302), wherein the sheath comprises a fusible material (Col. 19, lines: 19-23);
a second knitted layer (Fig. 12, Col. 17, lines: 37-41, examiner notes the “second layer” comprises filaments 1202 and 1204),
wherein a cavity is formed between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer (examiner notes the “cavity” is shown between the first and second layers, and occupying spacer strand, combination of 1205 and 1206);
a spacer strand (combination of 1205 and 1206) traversing the cavity between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer (examiner notes as shown in Fig. 12); and
a sole structure (110) secured to the upper (120, Fig. 1-6).
Podhajny does not disclose the spacer strand has a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier.
However, Conley teaches a multi-layered spacer fabric (Par. 0045) in the same field of endeavor of breathable garments (Abstract), wherein Conley teaches fibers comprising a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier (Par. 0039, lines 10-16)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacer strand as disclosed by Podhajny, by having a tenacity greater than 5 grams per denier as taught by Conley, enhance structural integrity and strength of the knitted component while in-use.
Regarding claim 21, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the fusible material comprises a thermoplastic material (Col. 19, lines: 30-35 of Podhajny).
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny in view of Conley, further in view of McFarland, II et al. “McFarland” (US Patent 11,346,025).
Regarding claim 8, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose the at least one monofilament comprises a monofilament that is translucent or transparent such that the first knitted layer has at least partial transparency.
However, McFarland teaches yet another knitted component, wherein McFarland teaches a first yarn (168) is translucent which imparts the knitted component with at least partial transparency (Col. 7, lines: 35-40, examiner notes “translucent” is defined as “permitting light to pass through but diffusing it so that objects are not clearly visible” as defined by TheFreeDictionary. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “translucent” imparts an object with partial transparency, to a degree, since light passes through the object but diffuses the light in a way that makes the object not clearly visible).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastic polyurethane that is semi transparent as taught by McFarland as the material for the monofilament of Podhajny in view of Conley. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because thermoplastic polyurethane that is semi transparent was a well-known material for knitted components as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the knitted component.
Regarding claim 9, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose the first knitted layer comprises one or more yarns that are semi-transparent.
However, McFarland teaches yet another knitted component, wherein McFarland teaches a first yarn (168) is translucent which imparts the knitted component with at least partial transparency (Col. 7, lines: 35-40, examiner notes “translucent” is defined as “permitting light to pass through but diffusing it so that objects are not clearly visible” as defined by TheFreeDictionary. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “translucent” imparts an object with partial transparency, to a degree, since light passes through the object but diffuses the light in a way that makes the object not clearly visible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first layer as disclosed by Podhajny in view of Conley, by incorporating one or more yarns that are semi-transparent as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the knitted component.
Regarding claim 11, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose the at least one inlaid strand is transparent.
However, McFarland teaches yet another knitted component, wherein McFarland teaches a first yarn (168) is transparent (Col. 7, lines: 35-40).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastic polyurethane that is transparent as taught by McFarland as the material for the inlaid strand of Podhajny in view of Conley. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because thermoplastic polyurethane that is transparent was a well-known material for knitted components as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the knitted component.
Regarding claim 22, Podhajny in view of Conley disclose the invention substantially as claimed above.
They do not explicitly disclose the fusible material is at least partially transparent.
However, McFarland teaches yet another knitted component, wherein McFarland teaches a first yarn (168) is translucent which imparts the knitted component with at least partial transparency (Col. 7, lines: 35-40, examiner notes “translucent” is defined as “permitting light to pass through but diffusing it so that objects are not clearly visible” as defined by TheFreeDictionary. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “translucent” imparts an object with partial transparency, to a degree, since light passes through the object but diffuses the light in a way that makes the object not clearly visible).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastic polyurethane that is at least partially transparent as taught by McFarland as the material for the fusible material of Podhajny in view of Conley. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because thermoplastic polyurethane that at least partially transparent was a well-known material for knitted components as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the knitted component.
Claims 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny (US Patent 8,959,959) in view of Rock et al. “Rock” (US Patent 6,156,406).
Regarding claim 14, Podhajny discloses an article of footwear (invention as shown in Fig. 1-6 and 12), comprising:
an upper (120, Fig. 1-6), comprising:
a knitted component, (130, Fig. 6, 7, 12, and 14B) comprising:
a first knitted layer (Fig. 12, Col. 17, lines:33-37, examiner notes the “first layer” comprises filaments 1201 and 1203);
a second knitted layer (Fig. 12, Col. 17, lines: 37-41, examiner notes the “second layer” comprises filaments 1202 and 1204), wherein a cavity is formed between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer (examiner notes the “cavity” is shown between the first and second layers, and occupying spacer strand, combination of 1205 and 1206); and
spacer strand (combination of 1205 and 1206) traversing the cavity between the first knitted layer and the second knitted layer (examiner notes as shown in Fig. 12), wherein the spacer strand is a high-tenacity yarn that imparts loft within to the knitted component the cavity (Col. 1-4 and 10-11, examiner notes the material of the yarns 1205 and 1206, is nylon, which is well known in the art to be a “high-tenacity yarn” and provide cushioning/loft, to a degree), and wherein the first knitted layer is formed from multiple monofilaments (1201 and 1203) that differ in at least one property (Col. 17, lines: 1-4, lines: 20-25, lines: 42-46, 1201 is “D1” and 1203 is “D2”, examiner notes both monofilaments have different thicknesses, which correlate to having different deniers); and
a sole structure (110) secured to the upper (120, Fig. 1-6).
Podhajny does not explicitly disclose the spacer strand is a high-tenacity yarn comprising multiple filaments per strand and imparts loft to the knitted component within the cavity.
However, Rock teaches yet another knitted component for footwear (Background of the Invention), wherein Rock teaches a spacer strand (21, Fig. 1) is a high-tenacity yarn comprising multiple filaments per strand (Col. 2, lines: 26-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high tenacity yarn of the spacer strand as disclosed by Podhajny, by incorporating multiple filaments per strand as taught by Rock, in order to enhance the structural integrity of the knitted component, by making it more resilient.
Regarding claim 15, Podhajny in view of Rock disclose wherein the at least one property comprises denier (Col. 8, lines: 15-25, Col. 17, lines: 1-4, lines: 20-25, lines: 42-46 of Podhajny, examiner notes it is well known in the art each monofilament have a “denier”).
Regarding claim 16, Podhajny in view of Rock disclose wherein the second knitted layer comprises a multi-filament yarn (combination of 1202 and 1204 of Podhajny).
Regarding claim 17, Podhajny in view of Rock disclose the first knitted layer comprises a fusible yarn (combination of 1301 and 1302 of Podhajny , Col. 19, lines: 29-35) that has been at least partially melted, flowed, and re-hardened (Col. 19, lines: 30-35, examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize strand 1302 is “melted, flowed, and re-hardened” due to being a thermoplastic material that is extruded).
Regarding claim 19, Podhajny in view of Rock disclose wherein the knitted component comprises at least one inlaid strand (132, Fig. 6 of Podhajny).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny in view of McFarland.
Regarding claim 18, Podhajny discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Podhajny does not explicitly disclose the multiple monofilaments comprise a monofilament that is translucent or transparent such that the first knitted layer has at least partially transparency.
However, McFarland teaches yet another knitted component, wherein McFarland teaches a first yarn (168) is translucent which imparts the knitted component with at least partial transparency (Col. 7, lines: 35-40, examiner notes “translucent” is defined as “permitting light to pass through but diffusing it so that objects are not clearly visible” as defined by TheFreeDictionary. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize “translucent” imparts an object with partial transparency, to a degree, since light passes through the object but diffuses the light in a way that makes the object not clearly visible).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastic polyurethane that is semi transparent as taught by McFarland as the material for the multiple monofilaments of Podhajny. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because thermoplastic polyurethane that is semi transparent was a well-known material for knitted components as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the knitted component.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See
PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached on (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights