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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are presented.
Claim 1 is presented in independent form and is amended.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 9 are amended.
Claims 6-8 and 10-11 remain withdrawn.
The present Office action treats claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 12-14 on the merits.
The present Office action is a non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s REMARKS of 03/02/2026 are fully considered.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (p. 6 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments are fully considered. Upon review of the amended claims, Applicant’s remarks (p. 6 of the reply of 03/02/2026), and upon further review of the disclosure as filed, the 35 USC 112 rejection as applied in the previous Office action is overcome.
Regarding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (p. 6-9 of the reply): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tightening part applying tightening force to the second band to tighten the upper” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 21: “at the intersection part” should be --at the first intersection part--
Claim 4 line 6: “plurality of intersection positions” should be --plurality of intersection parts--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the second band intersects the first band at a plurality of intersection parts including the first intersection part, the plurality of intersection parts further including at least a second intersection part at which the second band passes through between the first band and the upper such that the second band is disposed between the first band and the upper at the at least second intersection part”, which is new matter insofar as there is no disclosure of a singular second band as claimed in claim 3 that has the plural intersection parts as claimed in claim 3.
It is noted the present disclosure states “Multiple second bands 40 may be provided. To distinguish each of the multiple second bands 40, a hyphen and a numeral, such as “−1”, is added at the end of a reference sign” (para 0027 of the specification of 03/25/2022) and “Multiple first bands 30 may be provided...first bands 30-1 and 30-2” (para 0048 of the specification of 03/25/2022). However, there is no disclosure of a combination of a singular first band as claimed in claim 3 in combination with a singular second band as claimed in claim 3 having plural intersection parts with “first band is disposed between the upper and the second band at the first intersection part” and “the second band is disposed between the first band and the upper at the at least second intersection part”.
Claim 4 is rejected if only because it depends from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by [Meschter, US 2007/0271821, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Meschter discloses (Figs. 1-9D):
A shoe 10 comprising:
a sole 22;
an upper 41 disposed above the sole and including a wearing opening 31;
a first band (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) including a first base end (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) fixed (para 24; Figs. 1-9D) to a boundary part 21 between the upper and the sole (it is noted upper 41 is provided on the side of boundary part 21 above boundary part 21 and sole 22 is provided on the side of boundary part 21 below boundary part 21 such that boundary part 21 is between upper 41 and sole 22; it is noted that “If something is between two things, it has one of the things on one side of it and the other thing on the other side of it”; between. (n.d.) Collins COBUILD English Usage. (1992, 2004, 2011, 2012). Retrieved July 15 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/between) at a first position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) between a toe end of the shoe and a front rim portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) of the wearing opening, the front rim portion being closest to the toe end of the shoe than any other portion of a rim of the wearing opening (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the first band extending diagonally upward along a direction from the first base end to a second position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) in a rear rim portion of the wearing opening, the rear rim portion being closest to a heel end of the shoe than any other portion of the rim of the wearing opening (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the first position being positioned in a portion of the shoe that is located forward of the front rim portion in plan view (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below);
a second band (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) including a second base end (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) fixed (para 24; Figs. 1-9D) to the boundary part 21 at a third position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) between the toe end of the shoe and the front rim portion of the wearing opening, the third position being different from the first position (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the second band extending frontward along a direction from the second base end to a fourth position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) between the toe end of the shoe and the front rim portion of the wearing opening, the fourth position being closer to the toe end of the shoe than the third position is to the toe end of the shoe (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the second band intersecting the first band at a first intersection part (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the second band passing through a side of the first band opposite to the upper at the first intersection part such that the first band is disposed between the upper and the second band at the first intersection part (first band is formed prior to second band (paras 54-64; Figs. 8A-8M); first and second bands are embroidered via “(a) piercing a first location of base layer 41 with a needle to pass a first loop of thread 42 through base layer 41, (b) securing the first loop of thread 42 with another thread that passes through the first loop, (c) moving the needle to a second location such that thread 42 extends from the first location to the second location and is visible on a surface of base layer 41, (d) piercing the second location of base layer 41 with the needle to pass a second loop of thread 42 through base layer 41, and (e) securing the second loop of thread 42 with the other thread that passes through the second loop. Accordingly, the embroidery machine operates to secure thread 42 to two defined locations and also extend thread 42 between the two locations. By repeatedly performing these steps, embroidery is formed by thread 42 on base layer 41” (para 55) such that first band is disposed between upper and second band at the first intersection part), the second band thereby bringing the first band into contact with the upper (first band is in contact with upper as explained in paras 54-64) at the intersection part, the third position and the fourth position being positioned in the portion of the shoe that is located forward of the front rim portion in plan view (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below); and
a tightening part 32 applying tightening force to the second band to tighten the upper (para 61), wherein the second band has a leading end (para 61 and at the fourth position identified in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), opposite the second base end, configured to directly engage with the tightening part (tightening part 32 is a “lace...threaded through...apertures...in a conventional manner” (para 68) such that leading end is capable of directly engaging with tightening part 32 for example by bringing tightening part 32 into direct contact therewith).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
1213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5:
Meschter discloses The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Meschter further discloses wherein the third position is positioned within a range extending in a longitudinal direction from a position corresponding to 35% of the entire length of the shoe from the toe end of the shoe to the front rim portion of the wearing opening (see annotated Fig. 1 – b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
715
1213
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9:
Meschter discloses The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Meschter further discloses further comprising a reinforcement structure 44d at a heel part of the upper (para 33) to strengthen more the heel part of the upper than other parts of the upper (para 33), wherein the first band overlaps with the reinforcement structure (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a presented in above addressing of claim 1), and wherein the reinforcement structure comprises a material having greater rigidity (“form a heel counter that limits movement of the heel” (para 33) by virtue of its “resist stretching in various directions or reinforce locations where forces are concentrated” such that a material of 44d has a greater rigidity than that of the upper), thickness, or hardness than a surrounding region of the upper, the reinforcement structure being formed of a multilayer configuration or a reinforcing (para 33) component 44d attached to the upper.
Regarding claim 13:
Meschter discloses The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Meschter further discloses wherein at least one of the first band and the second band is formed of a material having lower stretchability than a material of the upper (by virtue of its “resist stretching in various directions or reinforce locations where forces are concentrated” such that first and second band are formed of a material having lower stretchability than a material of the upper).
Regarding claim 14:
Meschter discloses The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Meschter further discloses wherein the second band has an intermediate portion (i.e. the portion between the second base end and the leading end) between the second base end and the leading end, the intermediate portion being in tension-based contact with the upper in response to receiving the tightening force from the tightening part (via intertwining of 44b and 44c so as to “distribute...force along the sides of upper 30” “When lace 32...is tensioned” and such that “forces upon lace apertures...are...transmitted to...44c”; para 61).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Meschter, US 2007/0271821] in view of [Meir, US 2016/0206045, previously cited].
Regarding claim 12:
Meschter discloses The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Meschter further discloses wherein one of the first band and the second band includes a portion constituted by a planar member (i.e. a “one-dimensional material[]...have a...rectangular cross-section” (para 34) having a predetermined width (“width”; para 34), and the other of the first band and the second band includes a portion constituted by a string-shaped or thread-shaped member (i.e. “one-dimensional material[]...round...cross-section”; para 34).
(It is noted Meschter discloses bands “may be formed from any generally one-dimensional material” (para 34) such that Meschter discloses either or both of first band and second band as having a rectangular cross section and either or both of first band and second band as having a round cross-section including a disclosure wherein first band has a rectangular cross section and second band has a round cross section and a disclosure wherein first band has a round cross section and second band has a rectangular cross section.)
Meschter does not expressly disclose the second band includes a portion constituted by a string-shaped or thread-shaped member that is thinner than the predetermined width.
However, Meir teaches a shoe (title) wherein bands 1002 vary in size or diameter: “the size or diameter of” bands “1002 may vary”; para 103.
It 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 to have modified the modified Meschter such that the second band includes a portion constituted by a string-shaped or thread-shaped member that is thinner than the predetermined width in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose first band and second band afford a degree of support, stability, and/or structure via the bands wherein said degree of support, stability, and/or structure is desirable by at least some user(s) thereof.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hurwit, US 2,161,472, newly cited].
Regarding claim 1:
Hurwit discloses (Figs. 1-5):
A shoe (the “shoe” of Figs. 1-2 (p. 1 line 21); no specific numeral provided therefor; elements thereof identified hereinbelow) comprising:
a sole 18;
an upper 1 disposed above the sole and including a wearing opening (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below);
a first band (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) including a first base end (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) fixed (via at least traversal through one of 7 as described in col. 3 line 64 – col. 4 line 40) to a boundary part 5 between the upper and the sole at a first position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) between a toe end of the shoe and a front rim portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) of the wearing opening, the front rim portion being closest to the toe end of the shoe than any other portion of a rim of the wearing opening (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the first band extending diagonally upward (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below) along a direction from the first base end to a second position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) in a rear rim portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) of the wearing opening, the rear rim portion being closest to a heel end of the shoe than any other portion of the rim of the wearing opening (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the first position being positioned in a portion of the shoe that is located forward of the front rim portion in plan view (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below);
a second band (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) including a second base end (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) fixed (via at least traversal through one of 7 as described in col. 3 line 64 – col. 4 line 40) to the boundary part at a third position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) between the toe end of the shoe and the front rim portion of the wearing opening, the third position being different from the first position (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the second band extending frontward (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below) along a direction from the second base end to a fourth position (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below) between the toe end of the shoe and the front rim portion of the wearing opening, the fourth position being closer to the toe end of the shoe than the third position is to the toe end of the shoe (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the second band intersecting the first band at a first intersection part (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the second band passing through a side of the first band opposite to the upper at the first intersection part (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below) such that the first band is disposed between the upper and the second band at the first intersection part (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the second band thereby bringing the first band into contact with the upper at the intersection part (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below), the third position and the fourth position being positioned in the portion of the shoe that is located forward of the front rim portion in plan view (as in annotated Fig. 1 – a below); and
wherein the second band has a leading end (see annotated Fig. 1 – a below), opposite the second base end, configured to directly engage with a tightening part (it is noted the leading end is capable of directly engaging a tightening part, for example by bringing a tightening part into contact with the leading end).
PNG
media_image3.png
582
1216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hurwit Figs. 1-5 does not expressly disclose
a tightening part applying tightening force to the second band to tighten the upper, wherein the second band has a leading end, opposite the second base end, configured to directly engage with the tightening part.
However and in further view of Hurwit:
Hurwit teaches the “eyelets 21 carried by the upper” are “for receiving the regular lacing, or tie, of the...shoe” (col. 5 lines 46-47) such that Hurwit teaches combining the shoe with a tightening part through eyelets 21.
It 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 to have modified the shoe of Hurwit Figs. 1-2 such that it is provided with a tightening part traversing through its eyelets 21 and applying tightening force to the second band (it is noted that when a tightening force is applied to eyelets 21, said tightening force will be applied to the second band insofar as the second band is held within slits 4 of the upper such that said tightening force will be applied to the second band) to tighten the upper in order to yield the predictable result of a shoe whose tightening part is configured to lace and/or tie the shoe, as suggested by Hurwit (col. 5 lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 3:
Hurwit teaches The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hurwit further discloses wherein the second band intersects the first band at a plurality of intersection parts including the first intersection part, the plurality of intersection parts further including at least a second intersection part (see annotated Fig. 1 – b below) at which the second band passes through between the first band and the upper such that the second band is disposed between the first band and the upper at the at least second intersection part (as in annotated Fig. 1 – b below).
PNG
media_image4.png
549
1216
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Hurwit teaches The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hurwit does not expressly disclose wherein the first intersection part is a foremost intersection part among the plurality of intersection parts, and wherein the foremost intersection part is closest to the toe end of the shoe than any other intersection parts of the plurality of intersection positions.
Rather, the it is the second intersection part (see annotated Fig. 1 – b presented in above addressing of claim 3) that is a foremost intersection part among the plurality of intersection parts, and wherein the foremost intersection part is closest to the toe end of the shoe than any other intersection parts of the plurality of intersection positions.
However and in further view of Hurwit:
In Hurwit, the first and second bands are “interwoven” in the manner generally described in col. 4 lines 60-64 and as shown in Figs. 1 and 5. One of ordinary skill would expect the shoe achieve the “object[s] of the invention” described in col. 1 lines 13-27 whether the interweaving occurs in such a way that the second intersection part is a foremost intersection part (as in annotated Fig. 1 – b presented in above addressing of claim 3) or whether the interweaving occurs in such a way that the first intersection part is a foremost intersection part as claimed.
It 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 to have modified the modified Hurwit such that the first intersection part is a foremost intersection part among the plurality of intersection parts, and wherein the foremost intersection part is closest to the toe end of the shoe than any other intersection parts of the plurality of intersection positions as an obvious matter of design choice of interweaving pattern so as to achieve the objects of the invention described in col. 1 lines 13-27. One of ordinary skill would expect the shoe achieve the “object[s] of the invention” described in col. 1 lines 13-27 whether the interweaving occurs in such a way that the second intersection part is a foremost intersection part (as in annotated Fig. 1 – b presented in above addressing of claim 3) or whether the interweaving occurs in such a way that the first intersection part is a foremost intersection part as claimed.
It is noted that MPEP 2144 states in relevant part in relation to “Reversal of Parts” and “Rearrangement of Parts”:
A.Reversal of Parts
In reGazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.).
C.Rearrangement of Parts
In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 5:
Hurwit teaches The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hurwit further discloses wherein the third position is positioned within a range extending in a longitudinal direction from a position corresponding to 35% of the entire length of the shoe from the toe end of the shoe to the front rim portion of the wearing opening (see annotated Fig. 1 – c below).
PNG
media_image5.png
549
1216
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14:
Hurwit teaches The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
The modified Hurwit further meets the limitation wherein the second band has an intermediate portion (see annotated Fig. 1 – d below) between the second base end and the leading end, the intermediate portion being in tension-based contact (i.e. contact via at least traversal through 4a; col. 3 line 9; Figs. 1 and 5) with the upper in response to receiving the tightening force from the tightening part (the intermediate portion is configured to be tensioned when the tightening force is applied to eyelets 21 insofar as the second band is held within slits 4 of the upper such that said tightening force will be applied to the second band and to the intermediate portion so as to provide tension to the intermediate portion).
PNG
media_image6.png
582
1216
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hurwit, US 2,161,472] in view of [Fallon, US 2015/0047227, previously cited] and [Anderson, US 2014/0130380, previously cited].
Regarding claim 9:
Hurwit teaches The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hurwit does not expressly disclose further comprising a reinforcement structure at a heel part of the upper to strengthen more the heel part of the upper than other parts of the upper, wherein the first band overlaps with the reinforcement structure, and wherein the reinforcement structure comprises a material having greater rigidity, thickness, or hardness than a surrounding region of the upper, the reinforcement structure being formed of a multilayer configuration or a reinforcing component attached to the upper.
Fallon teaches a reinforcement structure (“heel counter 129”; para 66) is configured to strengthen (“strengthening”; para 66), the reinforcement structure being formed of a reinforcing component (heel counter is and comprises a “strengthening device”; para 66 such that it is formed of a reinforcing component) attached to an upper (para 66).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hurwit such that it further comprising a reinforcement structure at a heel part of the upper to strengthen more the heel part of the upper than other parts of the upper, wherein the first band overlaps with the reinforcement structure, the reinforcement structure being formed of a reinforcing component attached to the upper in order to strengthen and enhance stability the heel part of the upper.
Regarding the limitation wherein the reinforcement structure comprises a material having greater rigidity, thickness, or hardness than a surrounding region of the upper:
Anderson teaches a reinforcement structure comprises a material having greater rigidity than a surrounding region of an upper (“heel counter 12 is formed of a material more rigid than the material forming the portions of the upper 16 adjacent the heel counter 12”; para 30).
Anderson further teaches such a material for a reinforcement structure “holds its shape well”; para 30.
It 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 to have modified the modified Hurwit such that its reinforcement structure comprises a material having greater rigidity than a surrounding region of the upper in order to make the shoe hold its shape well in the heel region thereof as suggested by Anderson (para 30).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Hurwit, US 2,161,472] in view of [Bruce, US 2015/007451, previously cited].
Regarding claim 13:
Hurwit teaches The shoe according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Hurwit does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first band and the second band is formed of a material having lower stretchability than a material of the upper.
Bruce teaches a shoe wherein a band 210, 211, or 212 is formed of a material having lower stretchability (“stretch less than”; para 69) than a material of the upper (i.e. than a material of regions 203, 204 thereof; para 69). Bruce further teaches “In such embodiments, band 210, band 211 and band 212 may therefore undergo less stretching..., which may help band 210, band 211 and/or band 212 to function as integrated straps that keep upper 200 in place on a foot” (para 69).
It 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 to have modified the modified Hurwit such that at least one of the first band and the second band is formed of a material having lower stretchability than a material of the upper in order to help keep the upper in place on the foot, as suggested by Bruce (para 69).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRADY A NUNNERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2995. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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.
/GRADY ALEXANDER NUNNERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights