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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01-12-2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over https://web.archive.org/web/20190131221253/https:/www.wikihow.com/Tie-Your-Shoes (herein after Wikihow).
Regarding claim 1, Wikihow teaches a method for tying laces (method 1) comprising ends on outerwear to minimize the possibility of their becoming loose, the method comprising the steps of: crossing a first lace and a second lace, placing the first lace under the second lace, pulling an end of the first lace away from an end of the second lace to form a knot, folding the first lace over itself to form a first loop and folding the second lace over itself to form a second loop, tying the first loop and the second loop to form a large-loop knot, pulling the first loop and the second loop away from the centerline of the large-loop knot in opposite directions until the first loop is taut and the second loop is taut; and while the first loop and the second loop are pulled taut; pulling the first lace and the second lace to tighten them in the large-loop knot (steps 1 to 6).
Wikihow does not clearly teach adjusting a length of the first loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the first loop until the length of the first loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the first lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline, and adjusting a length of the second loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the second loop until the length of the second loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the second lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline.
However, Wikihow method 3 and step 6 teaches a step of a length of the first loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the first loop until the length of the first loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the first lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline, and adjusting a length of the second loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the second loop until the length of the second loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the second lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the method 1 of Wikihow by having the loop length is at least 1.3 times of the free ends with aglets in method 3 of Wikihow in order to make the lacing look nicer and tighter.
In addition, applicant does not provide any criticality or unexpected results why the branches must be that specific relationship, and therefore the court held that the particular placement of a structure was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant's specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Regarding claim 2, Wikihow discloses a length of the first loop from a centerline of the large loop knot is longer than a length of the first lace ending with aglets from the centerline of the large loop knot, and a length of the second loop from the centerline of the large loop knot is longer than a length of the second lace ending with aglets from the centerline of the large loop knot (method 3, step 6).
Regarding claim 3, Wikihow teaches a ratio of the length of the first loop from the centerline of the large-loop knot and the length of the first lace ending with aglets is greater than 1 and a ratio of the length of the second loop from the centerline of the large- loop knot and the length of the second lace ending with aglets is greater than 1 (method 3, step 6).
Regarding claim 4, Wikihow does not clearly teaches the limitations of the claim. However Wikihow seem to teach in Method 3, step 6 having the step of a ratio of the length of the first loop from the centerline of the large-loop knot and the length of the first lace ending with aglets is at least 1.3 to 1 and a ratio of the length of the second loop from the centerline of the large-loop knot and the length of the second lace ending with aglets is at least 1.3 to 1.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to understand that the lacing method can be done with the length from the centerline of the loop is at least 1.3 times of the free ends with aglets in order to make the lacing look nicer and tighter.
In addition, applicant does not provide any criticality or unexpected results why the branches must be that specific relationship, and therefore the court held that the particular placement of a structure was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant's specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Regarding claim 5, Wikihow discloses the length of the first loop from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut is greater than the length of the first lace ending with aglets from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut, and the length of the second loop from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut is greater than the length of the second lace ending with aglets from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut (Method 3, step 1).
Regarding claim 6, Wikihow discloses the outerwear is footwear (method 1).
Regarding claim 7, Wikihow teaches an outerwear tied with a large loop knot, the large loop knot being configured to minimize the possibility of a first lace coming loose from a second lace in the large loop knot (method 1),
wherein the large-loop knot is formed by: crossing the first lace and the second lace, placing the first lace under the second lace, pulling an end of the first lace away from an end of the second lace to form a knot, folding the first lace over itself to form a first loop and folding the second lace over itself to form a second loop, tying the first loop and the second loop to form a large-loop knot, pulling the first loop and the second loop away from the centerline of the large-loop knot in opposite directions; pulling the first loop and the second loop taut, and while the first loop and the second loop are pulled taut; pulling the first lace and the second lace to tighten them in the large-loop knot (steps 1-6).
Wikihow does not teach adjusting a length of the first loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the first loop until the length of the first loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the first lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline, and adjusting a length of the second loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the second loop until the length of the second loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the second lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline.
However, Wikihow method 3 step 6 teaches a step of adjusting a length of the first loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the first loop until the length of the first loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the first lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline, and adjusting a length of the second loop measured from the centerline of the large-loop knot to an outermost end of the second loop until the length of the second loop is at least 1.3 times greater than a length of a free end portion of the second lace ending with aglets measured from the centerline.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to modify the method 1 of Wikihow by having the loop length is at least 1.3 times of the free ends with aglets in method 3 of Wikihow in order to make the lacing look nicer and tighter.
In addition, applicant does not provide any criticality or unexpected results why the branches must be that specific relationship, and therefore the court held that the particular placement of a structure was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant's specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Regarding claim 8, Wikihow discloses forming the first loop and the second loop to ensure that a length of the first loop of the first lace from a centerline of the large- loop knot is longer than a length of an end lace part of the first lace and a length of the second loop of the second lace from the centerline of the large-loop knot is longer than the length of an end lace part of the second lace from the centerline of the large-loop knot (method 3, step 6).
Regarding claim 9, Wikihow discloses a ratio of the length of the first loop from the centerline of the large-loop knot and the length of the first lace ending with aglets is greater than 1 and a ratio of the length of the second loop from the centerline of the large- loop knot and the length of the second lace ending with aglets is greater than 1 (method 3, step 6).
Regarding claim 10, Wikihow does not clearly teaches the limitations of the claim. However Wikihow seems to teach in method 3, step 6 having the step of a ratio of the length of the first loop from the centerline of the large-loop knot and the length of the first lace ending with aglets is at least 1.3 to 1 and a ratio of the length of the second loop from the centerline of the large-loop knot and the length of the second lace ending with aglets is at least 1.3 to 1.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to understand that the lacing method can be done with the length from the centerline of the loop is at least 1.3 times of the free ends with aglets in order to make the lacing look nicer. In addition, applicant does not provide any criticality or unexpected results why the branches must be that specific relationship, and therefore the court held that the particular placement of a structure was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant's specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984).
Regarding claim 11, Wikihow discloses the length of the first loop from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut is greater than the length of the first lace ending with aglets from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut, and the length of the second loop from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut is greater than the length of the second lace ending with aglets from the centerline of the large loop knot when pulled taut (Method 3, step 1).
Regarding claim 12, Wikihow discloses the outerwear is footwear (method 1).
Examiner Noted
the examiner respectfully reminds that the lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based anticipation and obviousness aspects of the rejections. MPEP 2113. In this instant case, Wikihow lacing system is able to function as claimed in claims 7-12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, date 01-12-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: applicant argues that “prior art instructions typically encourage shorter loops to avoid snagging or loosening, thereby teaching away from the claimed requirement of relatively longer loops”; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees since there is nothing in the prior art teaching about a short loop, and method 3 step 6 even teaches the loop is way longer than the aglet.
Argument 2: applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “discloses or suggests to adjust loop lengths in a taut state to satisfy a specific minimum ratio relative to the free ends, nor provides any motivation to do so”; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees since the prior art teaches in method 1, step 6 that the knot is taut (user hands are off and the knot still stays together (i.e. taut)).
Argument 3: applicant argues the minimum ratio will minimize the possibility of their becoming loose and yes, the prior art is teaching the ratio, as analyzed above, and help the knot stay in place.
Argument 4: applicant argues about the method 2 (i.e. Bunny Ears); however, the examiner did not use this method in the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm.
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 D. 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.
BAO-THIEU L. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/BAO-THIEU L NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732