Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/040,689

ADAPTIVE LACING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 06, 2023
Examiner
TRIEU, TIMOTHY K
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BETTERGUARDS TECHNOLOGY GMBH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
484 granted / 781 resolved
-8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +55% interview lift
Without
With
+55.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
809
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
42.3%
+2.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
32.0%
-8.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 781 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I, fig.1A, 1B, claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10 in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auyang (2019/0343232). Regarding claim 1, Auyang discloses a lacing device (fig.14) for securing a shoe to a foot, comprising a shoe main body (fig.14) for receiving the foot, at least one lacing element (122, 124) for holding the foot in the shoe main body, and at least one adaptor (500, par [0085]) for adjusting the degree of lacing of the lacing element, wherein the adaptor being coupled to the lacing element, the adaptor being configured to release or lock the lacing element with respect to the shoe main body depending on the speed of a relative movement of the lacing element (par [0085]). Regarding claims 2, 4, Auyang discloses wherein the lacing element and/or the adaptor comprise at least one section arranged proximal, anterior to the shoe main body to interact with the back of the foot (fig.14); wherein the at least one adaptor is coupled to the lacing element such that the adaptor forms an intermediate section of the lacing element, wherein two ends of the adaptor are coupled to a lacing element section, or the adaptor forms an extension of the lacing element, wherein one end of the adaptor is attached to the shoe main body (fig.14). Regarding claims 5-6, 10, Auyang discloses the lacing device of claim 1, wherein the at least one adaptor is arranged in the line of force of the lacing element (par [0085]); wherein the adaptor comprises a restoring element (interior section of element 500, par [0085]), and the restoring element is configured to bring the lacing element into and retain it in a laced up position; wherein the adaptor runs substantially in the longitudinal direction or transverse to the longitudinal direction of the shoe main body . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auyang (2019/0343232). Regarding claim 9, Auyang does not disclose the adaptor being configured such that when the speed of relative movement of the lacing element with respect to the shoe main body is below a threshold value, the adaptor allows the relative movement of the lacing element, and configured such that when the speed of relative movement of the lacing element with respect to the shoe main body exceeds the threshold value, the adaptor stops the relative movement of the lacing element in order to lace up a wearer's foot located in the shoe main body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize that the footwear article of Auyang is configured to perform as the claimed invention, since the functional implications and statements of intended use does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function for that they are not deemed to impose any structural limitations distinguishable over the cited prior art. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4. 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 at 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. /Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 06, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569019
GLOVE CONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557879
UPPER FOR ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550968
SHOE WITH ENHANCED WIRELESS SIGNAL TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12527376
HELMET
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12501960
FOOTWEAR WITH BOOTIES AND BOOTIE SECUREMENT SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+55.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 781 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