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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 30, 3026 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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2018/0249787) in view of Krengel (US 2016/0270482).
Regarding Claim 1, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear (100) comprising: a sole structure (102); and an upper (106) fixedly attached to the sole structure (para.34), the upper configured to transition between at least one tightening configuration and at least one loosening configuration (para.77), and the upper comprising: a vamp (108 between toe end and 124b/124f & 110b,c,e,f in forefoot & midfoot) disposed at a forefoot region and a mid-foot region of the article of footwear (as seen in Fig.1); an ankle opening (136) operative to allow a wearer to extend a foot into an interior volume of the upper (para.49); a throat (108 between 136 and 124b/124f & 110a,d) extending from the ankle opening toward the vamp (as seen in Fig.1); and a closure mechanism (120,210,216) configured to adjust a maximum size of the ankle opening and tightness of the upper (para.77), the closure mechanism comprising: an adjustable lace (210) having a first end (210 at 136) disposed adjacent the ankle opening and a second end (210 at 218) disposed adjacent the vamp and opposite the first end (as seen in Fig.1), wherein the adjustable lace operatively connects a lateral portion of the article of footwear and a medial portion of the article of footwear along the throat (as seen in Fig.1); a first toggle (120) coupled to the adjustable lace at the first end (para.76); a tightening portion (216 & portions of 210 at 216) coupled to the first end of the adjustable lace, the tightening portion forming a loop (as seen in Fig.1), the tightening portion configured to transition the upper to a tightening position via pulling the tightening portion in a second pulling direction (i.e. vertical pulling). Fuerst does not disclose a second toggle coupled to the adjustable lace at the second end and a loosening portion coupled to the second end of the adjustable lace, the loosening portion configured to transition the upper to a loosening position via pulling the loosening portion in a first pulling direction to loosen the adjustable lace at the first end of the adjustable lace adjacent to the ankle opening, wherein the loosening position is configured for insertion and removal of a foot. However, Krengel teaches an upper having a first fastener (120a,120b) at a first end of an adjustable lace (100); and a second toggle (324; para.191) coupled to the adjustable lace at a second end and a loosening portion (ends of 102,104) coupled to the second end of the adjustable lace, the loosening portion configured to transition the upper to a loosening position via pulling the loosening portion in a first pulling direction (i.e. horizontal pulling) to loosen the adjustable lace at the first end of the adjustable lace adjacent to the ankle opening (i.e. pulling 102,104 when 120a & 120b are released would “loosen” the lace, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant), wherein the loosening position is configured for insertion and removal of a foot (i.e. horizontal pulling) (para.191; as seen in Fig.3C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustable lace of Fuerst to have a second toggle and loosening portion, as taught by Krengel, in order to provide a footwear with dual adjustability to customize the fit for a wide, medium, or narrow foot, as needed by an individual user. When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach the loosening portion forming a loop (as seen in Fig.1 of Fuerst, para.105, the loosening portion forms a loop; i.e. the toggle of Krengel would replace 218 and contain the loop of 210).
Regarding Claim 2, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the closure mechanism further includes: a plurality of lace guides (202, 204, 206, 302, 304, 306), wherein the plurality of lace guides are disposed on each of the medial portion of the article of footwear and the lateral portion of the article of footwear, wherein the adjustable lace is routed through the plurality of lace guides (as seen in Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 3, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first toggle (120) is disposed adjacent the ankle opening (136) and fixedly attached to the upper (i.e. as 120 is permanently attached to the footwear, it is fixedly attached to the upper, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 4, When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the second toggle (of Krengel) is disposed adjacent the vamp (of Fuerst; Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 5, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the loosening portion (216) is a pull tab (para.106).
Regarding Claim 6, When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the tightening portion (Krengel: ends of 102,104) is a pull tab (i.e. the end portions of 102,104 are a pull tab, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant in that they are capable of being pulled).
Regarding Claim 7, When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the tightening portion (of Fuerst) is configured to transition the upper to the tightening position via pulling the tightening portion (of Fuerst l) in the second pulling direction (i.e. vertical pulling). It is noted that “the tightening portion is configured to transition the upper to the tightening position” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. Fuerst and Krengel disclose the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function.
Regarding Claim 8, When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach an article of footwear of claim 7, wherein the loosening portion (of Krengel) is configured to transition the upper to the loosening position via pulling the tightening portion in the first pulling direction (i.e. horizontal pulling). It is noted that “the loosening portion is configured to transition the upper to the loosening position” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. Fuerst and Krengel disclose the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function.
Regarding Claim 9, Modified Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first pulling direction (i.e. horizontal pulling) is substantially parallel to an axis (i.e. longitudinal axis from the toe to the heel) extending from a posterior end of the article of footwear to an anterior end of the article of footwear (as seen in Fig.2).
Regarding Claim 10, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 9, wherein the second pulling direction (i.e. vertical pulling) is substantially perpendicular to the axis (i.e. longitudinal axis extending from the heel to the toe; as evidenced by Fig.2).
Regarding Claim 11, When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach an article of footwear of claim 1, wherein the first toggle (Fuerst: 120) includes one or more apertures (Fuerst: as seen in Fig.1 & 4), wherein the second toggle includes one or more apertures (as seen in Fig.3C of Krengel, there are two apertures, one on either side of 324 to receive 104 & 102), and wherein the adjustable lace (Fuerst: 210) is routed through the one or more apertures of the first toggle and the one or more apertures of the second toggle (Fuerst: Fig.1 & Krengel: Fig.3C).
Regarding Claim 12, When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach an article of footwear of claim 11, wherein the one of more apertures of the first toggle (Fuerst: 120) includes at least two apertures ( Fuerst:as seen in Fig.1 & 4), the first end of the adjustable lace (Fuerst: 210) routed through the at least two apertures of the first toggle forming a loop (Fuerst: as seen in Fig.1), and wherein the one or more apertures of the second toggle includes at least two apertures (as seen in Fig.3C of Krengel, there are two apertures, one on either side of 324 to receive 104 & 102), the second end of the adjustable lace routed through the at least two apertures of the second toggle forming a second loop (Fuerst: Fig.1 & Krengel: Fig.3C).
Regarding Claim 19, Fuerst discloses a closure mechanism comprising: an adjustable lace (210) extending from a first end (i.e. at 136) and a second end (i.e. at 218) opposite the first end, the adjustable lace forming a closed loop between the first end and the second (as seen in Fig.1); a first toggle (120) coupled to the adjustable lace at the first end, the first toggle including a locking mechanism (para.77); and a tightening portion (216) coupled to the first end of the adjustable lace, a tightening portion (216 & portions of 210 at 216) coupled to the first end of the adjustable lace, the tightening portion configured to pull the adjustable lace in a first pulling direction (i.e. vertical pulling) when a first pulling force is applied to tighten the entirety of the adjustable lace, wherein the locking mechanism secures the adjustable lace up to a predetermined locking force in a tightened configuration after the adjustable lace is pulled in the first pulling direction with the first pulling force (para.77). Fuerst does not disclose a second toggle coupled to the adjustable lace at the second end; and a loosening portion coupled to the second end of the adjustable lace, the loosening portion configured to pull the adjustable lace in a second pulling direction when a second pulling force is applied to loosen an entirety of the adjustable lace, wherein the locking mechanism releases the adjustable lace to a loosened configuration after the adjustable lace is pulled in the second pulling direction with the second pulling force overcoming the predetermined locking force of the locking mechanism. However, Krengel teaches closure mechanism having a first fastener (120a,120b) at a first end of an adjustable lace (100); and a second toggle (324; para.191) coupled to the adjustable lace at a second end and a loosening portion (ends of 102,104) coupled to the second end of the adjustable lace, the loosening portion configured to pull the adjustable lace in a second pulling direction (i.e. horizontal pulling) when a second pulling force is applied to loosen an entirety of the adjustable lace (para.191; as seen in Fig.3C; i.e. pulling 102,104 when 120a & 120b are released would “loosen” the lace, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustable lace of Fuerst to have a second toggle and tightening portion, as taught by Krengel, in order to provide a closure mechanism with dual adjustability to customize the fit for a wide, medium, or narrow foot, as needed by an individual user. It is noted that “wherein the locking mechanism releases the adjustable lace to a loosened configuration after the adjustable lace is pulled in the second pulling direction with the second pulling force overcoming the predetermined locking force of the locking mechanism” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. Fuerst and Krengel disclose the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function.
Regarding Claim 20, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear including the closure mechanism of claim 19 (Abstract; as seen in Fig.1-2).
2. Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuerst (US 2018/0249787) and Krengel (US 2016/0270482), in view of Yun (US 2022/0015509).
Regarding Claim 13, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear (100) comprising: an upper (106) configured to transition between at least one tightened configuration and at least one loosened configuration (para.77), and the upper comprising: a vamp (108 between toe end and 124b/124f & 110b,c,e,f in forefoot & midfoot) disposed at a forefoot region and a mid-foot region of the article of footwear (as seen in Fig.1); an ankle opening (136) operative to allow a wearer to extend a foot into an interior volume of the upper (para.49); a tongue (108 between 136 and 124b/124f & 110a,d & 154 is a tongue portion, inasmuch as has been claimed and disclosed by Applicant, which shows an integral tongue portion) extending from the vamp to the ankle opening (as seen in Fig.1); and a closure mechanism (120,210,216) configured to transition the upper between a tightening position and a loosening position (para.77), the closure mechanism comprising: an adjustable lace (210) having a first end (210 at 136) disposed adjacent the ankle opening and a second end (210 at 218) disposed adjacent the vamp and opposite the first end (as seen in Fig.1), wherein the adjustable lace operatively connects a lateral portion of the article of footwear and a medial portion of the article of footwear (as seen in Fig.1); a plurality of lace guides (202, 204, 206, 302, 304, 306) including an anchor end (i.e. end at 102) and a loop end (i.e. loop containing 210), the adjustable lace routed through the loop end of the plurality of lace guides (as seen in Fig.1); a first toggle (120) coupled to the adjustable lace at the first end, the first toggle being fixedly attached to the upper adjacent the ankle opening (as seen in Fig.1), wherein the first toggle includes a locking mechanism (para.76; i.e. button on 120, as seen in Fig.3 & 4); a tightening portion (216) disposed at the first end of the adjustable lace (as seen in Fig.1). Fuerst does not disclose a second toggle coupled to the adjustable lace at the second end, the second toggle being fixedly attached to the upper adjacent the vamp; and a loosening portion disposed at the second end of the adjustable lace. However, Krengel teaches an upper having a first fastener (120a,120b) at a first end of an adjustable lace (100); and a second toggle (324; para.191) coupled to the adjustable lace at a second end, the second toggle being fixedly attached to the upper adjacent the vamp (as seen in Fig.3C); and a loosening portion (ends of 102,104) disposed at the second end of the adjustable lace (para.191; as seen in Fig.3C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustable lace of Fuerst to have a second toggle and tightening portion, as taught by Krengel, in order to provide a footwear with dual adjustability to customize the fit for a wide, medium, or narrow foot, as needed by an individual user. When in combination, Fuerst and Krengel teach the second toggle (of Krengel) being fixedly attached to the upper adjacent the vamp (of Fuerst; as evidenced by Fig.1).
Fuerst and Krengel disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Fuerst and Krengel do not disclose wherein the second toggle omits a locking mechanism. However, Yun teaches a shoe upper with an adjustable lace having a toggle (44) omitting a locking mechanism (para.41; as seen in Fig.4 & 6B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the toggle of modified Krengel for the toggle omitting a locking mechanism of Yun, as a simple substitution of one well known type of toggle for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a securing mechanism for the lace. Further, it is noted that Applicant has no criticality for the use of a toggle with or without a locking mechanism, as stated in para.39-41 of the instant Specification.
Regarding Claim 14, Krengel further teaches an article of footwear of claim 13, wherein the tightening portion (ends of 102,104) is configured to transition the upper to the tightening position via pulling the tightening portion in a first pulling direction (i.e. horizontal pulling), the first pulling direction being any direction away from the upper (para.191; as seen in Fig.3C). It is noted that “the tightening portion is configured to transition the upper to the tightening position” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. Fuerst and Krengel disclose the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function.
Regarding Claim 15, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 13, wherein the loosening portion (216) is a loop formed by the second end of the adjustable lace (as seen in Fig.1, 216 forms a loop of 210).
Regarding Claim 16, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the tightening portion (216) is configured to transition the upper to the tightening position via pulling the tightening portion in a second pulling direction (i.e. vertical pulling), the second pulling direction being any direction away from the upper (as seen in Fig.1-3). It is noted that “the loosening portion is configured to transition the upper to the loosening position” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. Fuerst and Krengel disclose the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function.
Regarding Claim 17, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 13, wherein the plurality of lace guides (202, 204, 206, 302, 304, 306) are disposed on each of a lateral side of the article of footwear and a medial side of the article of footwear (as seen in Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 18, Fuerst discloses an article of footwear of claim 17, wherein the plurality of lace guides on the lateral side of the article of footwear includes three lace guides (202,204,206) extending along the tongue, and wherein the plurality of lace guides on the medial side of the article of footwear includes three lace guides (302,304,306) extending along the tongue (as seen in Fig.1).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but, as they are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
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 MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm 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, Alissa J. 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.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights