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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on January 21, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 7 have been amended; claims 8-14 are canceled; claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration; and claims 15-19 have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 15-19 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 15-19.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “static portion” (claims 1, 15 and 16) and “tongue portion” (claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). If these features are shown in the current drawings, they have not been assigned a reference numeral in the Specification, nor do they include such a reference numeral and associated leading line in the figures. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beers et al. (hereinafter “Beers”) (US 2018/0110292) in view of Hockerson (USPN 5,784,808) and Hopkins et al. (hereinafter “Hopkins”) (US 2020/0205518).
Regarding independent claim 1, Beers discloses a rapid-entry shoe (footwear heel spring device (Title); Examiner notes that the adjective phrase “rapid-entry” does not further structurally define the shoe in any patentably-distinguishing sense) comprising: a sole portion (sole structure #32; Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); an upper (#38) coupled to the sole portion (¶ 0171 describes that the sole is secured to a lower portion #40 of the upper #38; see Figs. 3-4 for example), the upper comprising a heel portion extending around a rear portion of the rapid-entry shoe (there exists an arbitrary heel portion of the upper that extends around an arbitrary rear portion of the shoe), and the upper comprising an opening defined at least in part by an opening topline (ankle opening #39 (see Fig. 5)) for receiving a foot of a user (a hypothetical user’s foot is capable of being received through the ankle opening #39), the heel portion including an upper panel (see the part of upper #38 in Fig. 4, which is a panel of the upper of the shoe, which is present in the heel portion of the shoe and is shown to be flexible when the control bar #14 is pressed down and released); a heel bow (device #10 is a heel bow) extending around the rear portion of the rapid-entry shoe between a medial side of the sole portion and a lateral side of the sole portion (see Figs. 1-3), the heel bow extending upward and rearward from each of the medial side and the lateral side below the opening topline (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6) to converge at a heel bow dynamic portion (control bar #14 of device #10 is a heel bow dynamic portion) located above the opening topline (as shown in Fig. 5); wherein the heel bow comprises a medial flange portion for coupling to the medial side of the sole portion and a lateral flange portion for coupling to the lateral side of the sole portion (medial side has #18 and #28; lateral side has #20 and #30; #28 and #30 are for coupling to the sole portion); wherein the heel bow is resiliently deformable above the opening topline (the device may be a single, unitary, one-piece component (¶ 0103); control bar #14 (i.e. at least part of heel bow that is above the opening top line) has a degree of resiliency that allows it to be elastically bent under stress and to return to an unstressed position when no external load is applied); wherein, in an open configuration, the heel bow dynamic portion is pivoted downward against the opening topline to thereby expand the opening to facilitate entry of the foot into the rapid-entry shoe (see ghost view configuration in Figs. 3 and 4, for example); and wherein, in a closed configuration, the heel bow dynamic portion is returned upward from against the opening topline to thereby narrow the opening to facilitate retention of the foot inside the rapid-entry shoe (see solid line view configuration in Figs. 3-6, for example). Beers teaches that the device (which includes the heel bow) “may be covered by and between layers of a flexible covering of the footwear upper” (see ¶ 0123 of Beers), but does not go into much further clear detail regarding this statement, and it cannot be determined whether the device #10 (i.e. heel bow) extends between at least two layers of the upper, as has been amended into claim 1. Beers is silent to there being a static portion of the heel portion that is more rigid than the heel bow such that when the heel bow pivots, such a static portion resists deformation, although Beers does show that the upper panel deforms with movement of the heel bow (see Figs. 4 of Beers, with upper panel generally identified by #38 for in the heel portion of the upper).
Hockerson teaches a shoe with a sole and an upper, wherein there is a support band #44 that wraps around a rear of the shoe in conjunction with the upper to resist the flexing of the sides of the heel cup relative to the midsole, the support band extending around the sole’s outer periphery at the junction between the upper and the midsole (Col. 4, Lines 3-6 of Hockerson).
Hopkins teaches a shoe with a sole and an upper that includes a collar elevator that can be affixed at least partially between an exterior layer and an inner lining in the heel region, wherein the collar elevator may be at least partially exposed (¶ 0041 of Hopkins).
Beers and Hockerson teach analogous inventions in the field of shoes with an upper attached to a sole. Beers and Hopkins teach analogous inventions in the field of shoes with collar elevators attached to the upper. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added the support band of Hockerson in between the device #10 and the junction of the upper #38 with the sole layer #34 of the sole structure #32 in order to provide a resistance to undesired flexing of the sides of the heel area of the upper relative to the sole (as taught by Hockerson), to assist in the prevention of rolling of the ankle, by non-limiting example. Since the support band is described as providing support against flexing, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the support band to have been more rigid than the resiliently deformable device (i.e. heel bow) of Beers, in order to provide such inflexible support. As a result of the modification, the added support band would constitute the “static portion” of the heel portion that extends around the rear portion of the shoe, wherein the support band would be more rigid than the heel bow and would resist deformation when the heel bow pivots. Further, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the heel bow being between at least two layers of the upper (in ¶ 0027 of Applicant’s Specification, Applicant states: “a heel bow 130 extending (e.g., between at least two layers of the upper 120 or external to the upper 120) around the rear portion of the rapid-entry shoe 100”), it would have also been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have placed the device #10 of Beers at least partially between a lining and an exterior layer of the shoe upper, as taught by Hopkins, in order to conceal a bottom portion of the device from view for purposes of aesthetics, while leaving the top control bar at least partially exposed so that the functionality can be appropriately maintained when donning and doffing the shoe, and further since Beers actually already does indicate that the device could be between layers of a flexible covering of the upper, as noted above (¶ 0123 of Beers).
Regarding claim 2, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that in the open configuration, the heel bow dynamic portion extends rearward beyond the heel portion (see the ghost view in Fig. 4 of control bar in position #14A, which extends rearward beyond where the heel portion (i.e. support band from Hockerson) would reside, which would generally be where current #22 is located in Fig. 4); Examiner notes that the resiliency of the device #10 would actually be capable of bending even further backwards than is illustrated, depending on the magnitude and the direction of the applied force); and wherein, in the closed configuration, the heel bow dynamic portion does not extend rearward beyond the heel portion (the resiliency of the control bar #14 permits it to at least capable of no longer extending rearward beyond the heel portion in the closed configuration, and further since the orientation of the shoe has not been defined).
Regarding claim 3, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that the heel bow moves relative to the upper below the opening topline during transition between the open configuration and the closed configuration (the heel bow (device #10) is a unitary, resilient structure, so it is capable of moving below the ankle opening #39 (i.e. opening topline) during the transition).
Regarding claim 4, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that the heel bow dynamic portion is not positioned below the opening topline during transition between the open configuration and the closed configuration (see Fig. 4 of Beers, which shows that the opening topline is consistently below the control bar #14 (i.e. the heel bow dynamic portion) during deformation between the open and closed configurations).
Regarding claim 6, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that a window is defined between the heel bow dynamic portion and the opening topline (absent further distinguishing language regarding what constitutes the “window”, there is a thinned portion #45 (i.e. an upper panel) that is an arcuate window between the control bar #14 and opening topline since the ankle opening #39 is fixed thereto (¶ 0172 of Beers)).
Regarding claim 15, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that the static portion of the heel portion includes a heel counter, a heel collar, or a back strap (absent further distinguishing structural language in the claim, the added support band from Hockerson into Beers’ shoe is a “back strap”).
Regarding claim 16, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that the upper panel of the heel portion is more flexible than both the heel bow dynamic portion and the static portion of the heel portion (since the upper panel (i.e. element #38 in Fig. 4 of Beers) is formable from 4-way stretch nylon fabric (see ¶ 0173 of Beers) and is shown in Fig. 4 of Beers to be flexible when the control bar is pressed down during shoe donning, it would be more flexible than both the control bar itself (i.e. heel bow dynamic portion) and the added support band (i.e. static portion of heel portion) from Hockerson, since those structures are described as being stiff and resistant to flexing).
Regarding claim 17, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that the heel portion is level with or lower than a tongue portion (no part of the identified heel portion (constituted by support band from Hockerson, which is positioned near the sole, and the element #38 in Fig. 4 of Beers, which is positioned below the opening topline) is positioned above a tongue portion of the shoe, which would have at least a portion that can extend up to a highest point of the shoe, as suggested in Figs. 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17 (if the tongue portion is pulled upwards at least some) and 49; all figures of which show different examples of tongue portions; therefore the heel portion is at least level with or lower than an arbitrary tongue portion).
Regarding claim 18, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that the heel bow dynamic portion is configured to deflect over the heel portion during transition to the open configuration (as shown in Fig. 4 of Beers, control bar #14 deflects positionally above the heel portion during transition to the open configuration (depicted in dashed lines)).
Regarding claim 19, the modified shoe of Beers (i.e. Beers in view of Hockerson and Hopkins, as applied to claim 1 above) renders obvious that the heel bow dynamic portion is configured to deflect rearward of the heel portion during transition to the open configuration (as shown in Fig. 4 of Beers, control bar #14 deflects positionally rearward of the heel portion during transition to the open configuration (depicted in dashed lines)).
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.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new interpretations of the prior have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon in an art rejection above is deemed relevant in the field of shoes with donning/doffing facilitating features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMESON COLLIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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, CLINTON OSTRUP can be reached at (571)272-5559. 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.
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732