Reply to Office Action of September 20, 2024
`
`-6-
`
`Reebok International Limited
`Application No. 16/692,555
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Uponentry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1—18 and 21—23 are pending in the
`
`application. Claims 1, 9, and 22 are independentclaims. Claims 1, 9, 21, and 22 are amended.
`
`Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from consideration. These changes introduce no new matter, and
`
`their entry is respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendmentand the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Office reconsiderall outstanding rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Statement of the Substance of the Interview
`
`Applicant thanks Examiner Smith for taking the time to speak with Applicant’s
`
`representative Yangbeini Wang (#800,005) on November12, 2024, during a telephonic interview.
`
`Theparties discussed the § 103 rejections of independent claim | and potential amendmentto
`
`overcomethe rejections. Examiner Smith agreed that the proposed amendmentreciting thefirst
`
`extruded component and second extruded component are continuous with each other would
`
`distinguish currently applied references. The amendment submitted above1s consistent with the
`
`discussion during the interview.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 17, 18, and 21—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
`
`over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0237858 to Adamietal. in view of U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2012/0186102 to Leeetal.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`Without agreeing to the propriety of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution,
`
`independent claim 1 is amendedand nowrecites, in part, “wherein the first extruded component and
`
`the second extruded component are continuous with each other.” The applied references fail to
`
`teach or suggest at least this feature of claim 1.
`
`The Office relies on Adami’s skeleton structure reinforcing material 1034 for allegedly
`
`disclosing the recited first extruded component, and acknowledges that Adami doesnot disclose the
`
`recited second extruded component disposed acrossthe first upper panel and the second upperpanel
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2073.3760002
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 20, 2024
`
`-7-
`
`Reebok International Limited
`Application No. 16/692,555
`
`but not along a border between the first upper panel and the second upperpanel. Office Action, 2-3.
`
`The Office then relies on Lee’s plate 22 for allegedly disclosing a second extruded component
`
`acrossa first panel and a second panel. Office Action, 3 and 11. However, Lee’s plate 22 is not
`
`continuous with other structures of the upper, such as base 10 or plate 21. See Lee, FIG.2.
`
`Accordingly, if Adami is modified to include Lee’s plate 22, such plate 22 would not be continuous
`
`with Adami’s skeleton structure reinforcing material 1034. Further, neither Adami nor Lee teaches a
`
`motivation to make Adami’s skeleton structure reinforcing material 1034 continuous with a second
`
`extruded component disposed across two upper panels but not along a border between the two upper
`
`panels.
`
`Accordingly, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims would not have been obvious
`
`over the applied references. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawalof the
`
`§ 103 rejections of claims1, 4, 6-8.
`
`Independent claim 9
`
`Without agreeing to the propriety of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution,
`
`independent claim 9 is amendedand nowrecites, in part, “wherein the first upper extruded
`
`component and the second upper extruded componentare continuous with each other.” As
`
`discussed above with reference to claim 1, the applied referencesfail to teach or suggestat least this
`
`feature of claim 9.
`
`Accordingly, independent claim 9 and its dependent claims would not have been obvious
`
`overthe applied references. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the
`
`§ 103 rejections of claims 9, 10, 17, 18, and 21.
`
`Independent claim 22
`
`Without agreeing to the propriety of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution,
`
`independent claim 22 is amended and nowrecites, in part, “wherein the first extruded component
`
`and the second extruded componentare continuous with each other.” As discussed above with
`
`reference to claim 1, the applied references fail to teach or suggest at least this feature of claim 22.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2073.3760002
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 20, 2024
`
`-8-
`
`Reebok International Limited
`Application No. 16/692,555
`
`Accordingly, independent claim 22 and its dependent claim would not have been obvious
`
`over the applied references. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawalof the
`
`§ 103 rejections of claims 22 and 23.
`
`Claims 1—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2019/0365045 to Kiederle et al. in view of Leeet al. and further in view of U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0020192 to Jonesetal.
`
`Independent claim 1
`
`Without agreeing to the propriety of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution,
`
`independent claim 1 is amendedand nowrecites, in part, “wherein the first extruded component and
`
`the second extruded component are continuous with each other.” The applied references fail to
`
`teach or suggest at least this feature of claim 1.
`
`The Office relies on Kiederle’s thermoplastic material 3 for allegedly disclosing the recite
`
`first extruded componentalong a border between panels 211 and 210, and acknowledgesthat
`
`Kiederle does not disclose the recited second extruded component. Office Action, 12-13. The
`
`Office again relies on Lee’s plate 22 for allegedly disclosing the recited second extruded
`
`component. Office Action, 13. However, as discussed above with reference the § 103 rejection over
`
`Adamiand Lee, Lee’s plate 22 is not continuous with other structures of the upper, and when
`
`combined with Kiederle, it would not be continuous with Kiederle’s thermoplastic material 3.
`
`Further, neither Kiederle nor Lee teaches a motivation to make Kiederle’s thermoplastic material 3
`
`continuous with a second extruded componentdisposed across two upperpanels but not along a
`
`border between the two upperpanels.
`
`Jones does not cure the definiteness of Kiederle and Lee.
`
`Accordingly, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims would not have been obvious
`
`over the applied references. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawalof the
`
`§ 103 rejections of claims 1-7.
`
`Claims 9-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication No. 2012/0090103 to Hernandez in view ofLeeet al.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2073.3760002
`
`
`
`Reply to Office Action of September 20, 2024
`
`-9-
`
`Reebok International Limited
`Application No. 16/692,555
`
`Independent claim 9
`
`Without agreeing to the propriety of the rejection, and solely to expedite prosecution,
`
`independent claim 9 is amendedand nowrecites, in part, “wherein the first upper extruded
`
`component and the second upper extruded componentare continuous with each other.” The applied
`
`references fail to teach or suggest at least this feature of claim 9.
`
`The Office relies on Hernandez’s ribs 14 for allegedly disclosing the recite first extruded
`
`componentalong a border betweendifferent upper pieces, and acknowledges that Hernandez does
`
`not disclose the recited second extruded component. Office Action, 17-18. The Office again relies
`
`on Lee’s plate 22 for allegedly disclosing the recited second extruded component. Office Action,
`
`18. However, as discussed above with reference the § 103 rejection over Adami and Lee, Lee’s
`
`plate 22 is not continuous with other structures of the upper, and when combined with Hernandez,it
`
`would not be continuous with Hernandez’s ribs 14. Further, neither Hernandez nor Lee teaches a
`
`motivation to make Hernandez’s ribs 14 continuous with a second extruded componentdisposed
`
`across two upperpieces but not along a border between the two upperpieces.
`
`Accordingly, independentclaim 9 and its dependent claims would not have been obvious
`
`over the applied references. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawalof the
`
`§ 103 rejections of claims 9-13, 16, and 17.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2073.3760002
`
`
`
`-10-
`Reply to Office Action of September 20, 2024
`
`Reebok International Limited
`Application No. 16/692,555
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of rejection have been properly traversed, accommodated, or
`
`rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Office reconsiderall presently
`
`outstanding rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant believes that a full and complete reply
`
`has been madeto the outstanding Office Action and, as such, the present application is in condition
`
`for allowance. If the Office believes, for any reason, that personal communication will expedite
`
`prosecution of this application, the Office is invited to telephone the undersigned at the number
`
`provided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`/Yangbeini Wang #800,005/
`
`Yangbeini Wang
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 800,005
`
`Date: December 11, 2024
`1101 K Street, NW, 10" Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Main: 202-371-2600
`Direct: 202-772-8833
`
`23322383.1
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 2073.3760002
`
`
