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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 2/24/2026 has been received; Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 21-27, 29-38 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) in view of Hallenbeck (USPN 5,341,583).
Regarding Claim 1, Chaigne discloses a ski boot (Figure 1) comprising: a rigid exterior shell comprising (Para. 29): a lower shell (2) that is configured to couple with a ski binding (Para. 28), the lower shell being configured to accommodate a foot (Para. 28); an upper cuff (4) that is pivotally coupled with the lower shell (Para. 31), the upper cuff being configured to accommodate a lower leg (Figure 1); a tightening system (M2) coupled with the lower shell, the tightening system including: a tension member (10) operably coupled with the closure device so that an operation (E2) of the closure device effects tightening of the tension member (Para. 34 & 35); a first guide (Figures 2-5) that is positioned on a first side of an opening of the lower shell, the first guide having a proximal end (F1, Figure 5) that is attached to the lower shell near a sole of the lower shell and a distal end (T2, Figure 5) that is positioned near the opening and that engages the tension member; a second guide (2nd, see annotated Figure 1A below) that is positioned on a second side of the opening of the lower shell; and a terminal member (T, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is coupled with the lower shell adjacent to a toe box; wherein the first guide and the second guide route or direct the tension member along a path about the lower shell across the opening and to the terminal member (Figure 1); and wherein a distal end of the tension member is fixedly coupled with the terminal member (Figure 1); wherein the first guide includes a reinforcement component (16) and an exterior shell or body (14) that encloses the reinforcement component, the exterior shell or body including a guide segment (O, Figure 5) through which the tension member is positioned (Figure 2-5). Chaigne does not specifically discloses a single closure device that is coupled with the lower shell adjacent to the upper cuff wherein the closure device is a reel based closure device. However, Hallenbeck discloses a reel based closure device for a tightening system (6, Col. 2, line 36-Col. 3, line 38) wherein a housing of the reel based closure device only includes one lace port or aperture for then tension member (Figures 1 & 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a reel based closure on the lower shell, as taught by Hallenbeck, instead of a secured tension, in order to provide a different conventional lace securing device. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Chaigne by using a reel based closure to assist in performing the intended functions. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the tightening system as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Chaigne does not specifically disclose the first guide having a longitudinal length of between 40 and 80 mm. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of longitudinal length for the first guide, in order to achieve an optimal configuration of guide length, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the guide" involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck disclose the second guide having a short guide have a longitudinal length that is substantially shorter than the longitudinal length of the long guide (Chaigne, Figure 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) in view of Hallenbeck (USPN 5,341,583) in further view of Collavo (USPN 6,112,435).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck disclose the tightening system further comprises a third guide (3rd, see annotated Figure 1A below) that is positioned on the first side of an opening of the lower shell. The combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck do not specifically disclose the third guide being a long guide have a configuration similar to the first guide. However, Collavo disclose two long guides on a lower shell (4 & 5, Figure 1) of a ski boot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a third long guide, as taught by Collavo, to the ski boot of Chaigne and Hallenbeck, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. As modified, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Collavo disclose wherein the first guide, second guide, and third guide are arranged about the lower shell so that the second guide is positioned between the first guide and the third guide along the path (between, see annotated Figure 1 below).
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) in view of Hallenbeck (USPN 5,341,583) in further view of Chen (US 2010/0251524) .
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck do not specifically disclose the reel based closure device includes a housing that is detachably coupleable, via a spring member, with a base member that is fixed to the ski boot since the references are silent to any structure of the reel based closure device. However, Chen discloses a reel based closure device (Figures 10-15, Para. 2-7) includes a housing that is detachably coupleable, via a spring member (Figures 10-15), with a base member that is fixed to the ski boot (Figures 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the structure of a reel based closure, as taught by Chen, in order to provide a securing device which operates smoothly. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the reel based closure device as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck do not specifically disclose the reel based closure device includes a gear mechanism that amplifies an input torque or force, and wherein the reel based closure device is configured to incrementally loosen the tension member based on a first operation and to fully loosen the tension member based on a second operation. However Chen discloses a reel based closure device (Figures 10-15) includes a gear mechanism that amplifies an input torque or force (Figures 10-15), and wherein the reel based closure device is configured to incrementally loosen the tension member based on a first operation and to fully loosen the tension member based on a second operation (Figures 10-15, Para. 2-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the structure of a reel based closure, as taught by Chen, in order to provide a securing device which operates smoothly. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the reel based closure device as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) in view of Hallenbeck (USPN 5,341,583), Preston (USPN 737,769).
Regarding Claim 30, Chaigne discloses a ski boot (Figure 1) comprising: a rigid exterior shell comprising (Para. 29): a lower shell (2) and; an upper cuff (4) coupled with the lower shell (Para. 31); a tightening system (M2) coupled with the lower shell, the tightening system including: a single closure device (14);a tension member (10) operably coupled with the closure device; a guide (1st or 2nd, see annotated Figure 1 below) coupled with the lower shell; and a terminal member (T, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is coupled with the lower shell adjacent to a toe box; wherein the at least one guide routes or directs the tension member along a path about the lower shell to the terminal member (Figure 1); and wherein a distal end of the tension member is fixedly coupled with the terminal member (Figure 1). Chaigne does not specifically discloses a reel based closure device. However, Hallenbeck discloses a reel based closure device for a tightening system (6, Col. 2, line 36-Col. 3, line 38) wherein a housing of the reel based closure device only includes one lace port or aperture for then tension member (Figures 1 & 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a reel based closure, as taught by Hallenbeck, instead of a ratchet, in order to provide a different conventional lace securing device. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Chaigne by using a reel based closure to assist in performing the intended functions. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the tightening system as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. The combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck do not specifically disclose the structure of the reel closures. However, Preston discloses a reel based closure device comprising a gear mechanism that amplifies and input torque or force, the gear mechanism including a ring gear (Figures 2 & 3) and a plurality of planetary gears (Figure 2) that engage the ring gear (Figures 2 & 3); wherein each planetary gear is rotatably positioned on a boss (17) that extends axially from an upper surface of the spool (Figures 2 & 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a reel based closure structure, as taught by Preston, in order to provide ease of use and functionality.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Preston disclose the at least one guide is a long guide (1st, see annotated Figure 1 below) having a longitudinal length that is substantially greater than a lateral width (Figure 1), and wherein the long guide has a proximal end (P, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is attached to the lower shell near a sole of the lower shell and a distal end (D, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is positioned near the opening and that engages the tension member.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Preston do not specifically disclose the guide is a short guide have a longitudinal length that is substantially shorter than the longitudinal length of the long guide. It, however, would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the guide size longer or shorter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Preston disclose the tightening system further comprises a second long guide (2nd, see annotated Figure 1 below) wherein the short guide is positioned between the at least one guide and the second long guide along the path (3rd, see annotated Figure 1 below.
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Preston disclose a housing of the reel based closure device includes a single entry port or aperture for the tension member (Hallenbeck, Figures 1 & 7).
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Preston disclose the reel based closure device includes a housing that is detachably coupleable, via a spring member, with a base member that is fixed to the lower shell (Chaigne, Figure 1, Hallenbeck, Figure 1 & Person, Figures 2 & 3).
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Preston disclose the reel based closure device is configured to incrementally loosen the tension member based on a first operation and to fully loosen the tension member based on a second operation (Preston, Page 2).
Claims 8, 9, 21-25 & 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) in view of Hallenbeck (USPN 5,341,583) in further view of Okot (US 2008/0098573).
Regarding Claims 8, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck do not specifically disclose the terminal member comprises a lock component that is configured to engage the tension member and disengage the tension member, wherein when engaged with the tension member, the lock component fixedly couples the tension member to the terminal member, and wherein when disengaged from the tension member, the lock component allows the tension member to be removed from the terminal member. However, Okot discloses a lock component (24) that is configured to engage the tension member and disengage the tension member (Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a lock component with the terminal member, as taught by Okot, in order to provide additional securing and tightening means. Therefore, as modified, the combination discloses wherein when engaged with the tension member, the lock component fixedly couples the tension member to the terminal member (Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30), and wherein when disengaged from the tension member, the lock component allows the tension member to be removed from the terminal member (Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Okot disclose the terminal member is configured so that when the tension member is coupled with the lock component, the tension member is positioned within a channel that wraps around a thru hole of a coupling bolt Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30).
Regarding Claim 21, Chaigne discloses a ski boot (Figure 1) comprising: a rigid exterior shell comprising (Para. 29): a lower shell (2) that is configured to couple with a ski binding (Para. 28), the lower shell being configured to accommodate a foot (Para. 28); an upper cuff (4) that is pivotally coupled with the lower shell (Para. 31), the upper cuff being configured to accommodate a lower leg (Figure 1); a tightening system (M2) coupled with the lower shell, the tightening system including: a single closure device (14) that is coupled with the lower shell adjacent to the upper cuff (Figure 1);a tension member (10) operably coupled with the closure device so that an operation (E2) of the closure device effects tightening of the tension member (Para. 34 & 35); a first guide (1st, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is positioned on a first side of an opening of the lower shell; a second guide (2nd, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is positioned on a second side of the opening of the lower shell; and a terminal member (T, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is coupled with the lower shell adjacent to a toe box; wherein the first guide and the second guide route or direct the tension member along a path about the lower shell across the opening and to the terminal member (Figure 1); and wherein a distal end of the tension member is fixedly coupled with the terminal member (Figure 1). Chaigne does not specifically discloses a reel based closure device. However, Hallenbeck discloses a reel based closure device for a tightening system (6, Col. 2, line 36-Col. 3, line 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a reel based closure, as taught by Hallenbeck, instead of a ratchet, in order to provide a different conventional lace securing device. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Chaigne by using a reel based closure to assist in performing the intended functions. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the tightening system as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. The combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck do not specifically disclose the terminal member comprises a lock component that is configured to engage a distal end the tension member and disengage the distal end of the tension member, wherein when engaged with the tension member, the lock component fixedly secures the distal end of the tension member within the terminal member, and wherein when disengaged from the distal end of the tension member, the lock component allows the distal end of the tension member to be fully removed from within the terminal member. However, Okot discloses a lock component (24) that is configured to engage the tension member and disengage the tension member (Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a lock component with the terminal member, as taught by Okot, in order to provide additional securing and tightening means. Therefore, as modified, the combination discloses wherein when engaged with the tension member, the lock component fixedly couples the tension member to the terminal member (Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30), and wherein when disengaged from the tension member, the lock component allows the tension member to be removed from the terminal member (Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck disclose the first guide is a long guide (1st, see annotated Figure 1 below) having a longitudinal length that is substantially greater than a lateral width (Figure 1), and wherein the long guide has a proximal end (P, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is attached to the lower shell near a sole of the lower shell and a distal end (D, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is positioned near the opening and that engages the tension member.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck do not specifically disclose the second guide is a short guide have a longitudinal length that is substantially shorter than the longitudinal length of the long guide. It, however, would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vary the guide size longer or shorter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck disclose the tightening system further comprises a third guide (3rd, see annotated Figure 1 below) that is positioned on the first side of an opening of the lower shell, the third guide being a long guide have a configuration similar to the first guide (the configuration is similar since the length is greater than the width), wherein the first guide, second guide, and third guide are arranged about the lower shell so that the second guide is positioned between the first guide and the third guide along the path (between, see annotated Figure 1 below).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Chaigne and Hallenbeck disclose a housing of the reel based closure device includes a single entry port or aperture for the tension member (Hallenback, Figures 1, comprising claims are “inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements” MPEP. 2111.03).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Okot disclose the terminal member is configured so that when the tension member is coupled with the lock component, the tension member is positioned within a channel that wraps around a thru hole of a coupling bolt Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30).
Claims 26 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) in view of Hallenbeck (USPN 5,341,583) and Okot (US 2008/0098573) in further view of Chen (US 2010/0251524).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Okot do not specifically disclose the reel based closure device includes a housing that is detachably coupleable, via a spring member, with a base member that is fixed to the ski boot since the references are silent to any structure of the reel based closure device. However, Chen discloses a reel based closure device (Figures 10-15, Para. 2-7) includes a housing that is detachably coupleable, via a spring member (Figures 10-15), with a base member that is fixed to the ski boot (Figures 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the structure of a reel based closure, as taught by Chen, in order to provide a securing device which operates smoothly. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the reel based closure device as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Okot do not specifically disclose the reel based closure device includes a gear mechanism that amplifies an input torque or force, and wherein the reel based closure device is configured to incrementally loosen the tension member based on a first operation and to fully loosen the tension member based on a second operation. However Chen discloses a reel based closure device (Figures 10-15) includes a gear mechanism that amplifies an input torque or force (Figures 10-15), and wherein the reel based closure device is configured to incrementally loosen the tension member based on a first operation and to fully loosen the tension member based on a second operation (Figures 10-15, Para. 2-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the structure of a reel based closure, as taught by Chen, in order to provide a securing device which operates smoothly. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a preferred optimum configuration for the reel based closure device as a matter of “obvious to try” as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 37 & 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaigne (US 2015/0327622) in view of Hallenbeck (USPN 5,341,583), Preston (USPN 737,769) in further view of Okot (US 2008/0098573).
Regarding Claims 37, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck and Preston do not specifically disclose the terminal member comprises a lock component that is configured to engage the tension member and disengage the tension member, wherein when engaged with the tension member, the lock component fixedly couples the tension member to the terminal member, and wherein when disengaged from the tension member, the lock component allows the tension member to be removed from the terminal member. However, Okot discloses a lock component (24) that is configured to engage the tension member and disengage the tension member (Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a lock component with the terminal member, as taught by Okot, in order to provide additional securing and tightening means. Therefore, as modified, the combination discloses wherein when engaged with the tension member, the lock component fixedly couples the tension member to the terminal member (Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30), and wherein when disengaged from the tension member, the lock component allows the tension member to be removed from the terminal member (Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30).
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Chaigne, Hallenbeck, Preston and Okot disclose the terminal member is configured so that when the tension member is coupled with the lock component, the tension member is positioned within a channel that wraps around a thru hole of a coupling bolt Chaigne, Figure 1 & Okot, Figures 2 & 3, Para. 29-30).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of Applicant's amendment, newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but, as they are drawn to the newly amended limitations not previously examined, are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant Remarks: Applicant asserts the combination of Chaigne, view of Hallenbeck and Okot do not specifically disclose “the lock component allows the distal end of the tension member to be fully removed from within the terminal member”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not defined the structure associated with a fully removable structure. Technically, when separate pieces are present; they can be separated from one another. A user is capable of fully removing tensioning member from lock 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights