Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/720,497

ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR HAVING SELF-TIGHTENING MECHANICS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 14, 2022
Examiner
KANE, KATHARINE GRACZ
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Puma SE
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
296 granted / 631 resolved
-23.1% vs TC avg
Strong +45% interview lift
Without
With
+45.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
61 currently pending
Career history
692
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.6%
+8.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.9%
-13.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered. 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, 9-11 & 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segel (USPN 5,323,549) in view Twomey (US 2007/0130800). Regarding Claim 1, Segel discloses an article of footwear (Figures 1 & 5) for a user, comprising: a front end (F, see annotated Figure 4 below); a rear end (R, see annotated Figure 4 below); a sole structure (52); an upper (54) attached to the sole structure, the upper defining a forefoot region (forefoot, see annotated Figure 4 below), a midfoot region (midfoot, see annotated Figure 4 below), and a heel region (heel, see annotated Figure 4 below) of the article of footwear, the upper and the sole structure together defining an interior cavity (Figures 4 & 5); and a strap system (10, Figure 1) engaged with the upper (Figure 5), the strap system comprising a strap (3 & 7) extending around the heel region (Figure 4) and configured to tighten portions of the upper in response to the user's foot directly engaging the strap system within the interior cavity in one of the forefoot region or the midfoot region (Figures 1-5, Col. 10, lines 1-20); wherein the strap system includes a stirrup region (2) that is moveable between a first position (Col. 8, lines 18-53) suspended within the interior cavity between the upper and the sole structure, and a second position (Figure 5, Col. 8, lines 18-53) adjacent the sole structure (Col. 8, lines 18-53). Segel does not specifically disclose a strap having a continuous length such that the strap is configured to loop around the heel region. However, Twomey discloses a strap system (10) including a strap (10) having a continuous length such that the strap is configured to loop around the heel region (Para. 6 m& 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a continuous strap, as taught by Twomey, to the footwear of Segel in order to provide further stability of the foot in the shoe by retaining the foot firmly. Therefore, as modified, the combination of Segel and Twomey disclose the strap forms a tightening region (any region of strap; since in operation strap will tighten dependent on movement) and wherein movement of the stirrup region from the first position to the second position tightens the tightening region around the heel region (in operation, strap will tighten in the heel when a force pushes stirrup down or forward, such as during foot insertion or during walking) Regarding Claim 9, Segel discloses the strap comprises: a tightening region (Figures 2-4) positioned outside the interior cavity and coupled to the stirrup region (Figures 1-5), the tightening region engaged with the upper in order to cause the upper to tighten around the user's foot along the midfoot region and the heel region of the upper in response to movement of the stirrup region (Col. 8, line 54-Col. 9, line 68), and wherein the stirrup region comprises a loop that receives the user's foot as it is inserted into the article of footwear (Figure 5, Col. 10, lines 1-20). Regarding Claim 10, Segel discloses the tightening region crosses over itself in the midfoot region and loops around the heel region (Figures 1-5). Regarding Claim 11, Segel discloses the tightening region includes a crossing portion above the stirrup region (Figure 4), a heel portion adjacent the heel region (Figures 3-5), a lateral portion (3) that extends from the crossing portion to the heel portion along a lateral side of the upper (Figure 3), and a medial portion (7) that extends from the crossing portion to the heel portion along a medial side of the upper (Figure 2). Regarding Claim 13, Segel discloses the tightening region is pulled toward the interior cavity when the loop moves from the first position to the second position, causing the upper to tighten around the user's foot (Figures 1-5, Col. 8, line 54-Col. 10, line 20). Regarding Claim 14, Segal discloses the loop is positioned within the midfoot region (Figure 5). Regarding Claim 15, Segal discloses the tightening region is positioned within the midfoot region and the heel region (Figures 2-5). Regarding Claim 16, Segal discloses the strap is configured to tighten the portions of the upper within the midfoot region and the heel region in response to the user's foot engaging the strap system within the interior cavity (Figures 1-5, Col. 8, line 54-Col. 10, line 20). Regarding Claim 17, Segal discloses the upper comprises a first aperture (64, 66 or 68) extending therethrough and a second aperture (another of 64, 66 or 68) extending therethrough, and wherein the strap extends from the interior cavity to outside of the interior cavity through the first aperture and the second aperture (Figures 2-5). PNG media_image1.png 355 557 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 14, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 10, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 15, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 06, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 20, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 26, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 18, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 21, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Jan 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 17, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599185
PROTECTIVE KNEE PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12564247
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR WITH REEL CLOSURE AND SLIDABLE EYELET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12538960
FOOT SUPPORT SYSTEMS INCLUDING FLUID MOVEMENT CONTROLLERS AND ADJUSTABLE FOOT SUPPORT PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12478118
Adapter System For Vest Closure Mechanisms
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12471670
SOLE STRUCTURE HAVING A FLUID-FILLED CHAMBER FOR AN ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+45.4%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 631 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month