DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. Claims 1-16 and 21-22, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 April 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 11, 12, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meir et al. (US 2020/0397090).
Regarding claim 11, Meir et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
an adjusting device (163) configured to uptake a lace; and
a plurality of surface guide devices (162), each surface guide device comprising:
a base (180) configured to couple to an artificial appliance;
a body (178) coupled to the base and comprising:
a first end portion;
a second end portion;
a groove (176) configured to receive the lace; and
a tab (190) to aid in retaining the lace within the groove.
Regarding claim 12, Meir et al. further discloses the lace configured to couple the adjustive device to the plurality of surface guide devices (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 16, Meir et al. further discloses wherein the artificial appliance is one or more of a prothesis, an orthosis, or a shoe.
Regarding claim 21, Meir et al. further discloses wherein the artificial appliance is a shoe (Paragraph 20, line 4).
Regarding claim 2, Meir et al. further discloses wherein the base of each surface guide device comprises a flexible material (Figs. 7A-7C show the cable guide formed from a singular material. Paragraph 39, lines 5-8 and 11-15 describe wherein the material is deformable and resilient).
Regarding claim 3, Meier et al, further disclose wherein the flexible material comprises one or more of a rubber, a neoprene, and a thermoplastic elastomer (Paragraph 49, lines 8-11 describe the material as thermoplastic wherein the descriptions in Paragraph 39 cited above establishes the elastomeric properties).
Regarding claim 4, Meier et al. further disclose:
wherein the body of each surface guide device further comprises a first slot (188) disposed at a first end of the body adjacent the groove;
wherein the first slot is configured to configured to receive the tab when the surface guide device is in a first state (Figs. 7A-7C as shown); and
wherein the tab retains the lace within the groove when disposed in the first slot (Fig. 7B as shown).
Regarding claim 5, Meier further discloses:
wherein the body of each surface guide device comprises a second slot (188, Examiner notes claims 4 and 5 are not on the same claim branch and as such 188 can read on both the first and second slot) disposed adjacent a second end of the body; and
wherein the second slot is configured to receive the tab when the surface guide device is in a second state (Figs. 7A-7C display a state, as just noted, Examiner notes claims 4 and 5 are not on the same claim branch and as such Figs. 7A-7C can read on both the first and second states).
Regarding claim 6, Meier et al. further discloses wherein the base of each surface guide device is configured to conform to a non-flat surface of the artificial appliance (Paragraph 49, lines 8-11 describe the material as thermoplastic wherein the descriptions in Paragraph 39 cited above establishes the elastomeric properties such that the base is considered to be configured to conform to a non-flat surface).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Fischer et al. (US 2016/0309831).
Regarding claim 7, Meier et al. discloses the invention except for a releasing tab releasably couplable to at least one of the surface guide devices.
Fischer teaches a releasing tab (820, 822, 823) coupleable to a surface guide (824).
From this teaching of Fischer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include the tab assembly of Fischer to the cord of Meier et al. to aid the engagement and disengagement of the cord with the surface guide allowing better grip.
Regarding claim 8, the combination device of Meier et al. and Fischer further teach wherein the releasing tab comprises a handle portion (820 of Fischer) graspable by fingers of a user; and an engagement portion (822, 823 of Fischer) releasably couplable to the first end portion of the at least one surface guide device.
Regarding claim 9, the combination device of Meier et al. and Fischer further teach wherein the engagement portion comprises a concave shape (Fig. 8 of Fischer as shown) configured to receive the first end portion of the at least one surface guide device.
Regarding claim 10, the combination device of Meier et al. and Fischer further teach wherein the engagement portion comprises an enclosed track configured to receive a lace (Fig. 8 of Fischer shows the lace entering and exiting the releasing tab).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mupende et al. (US 2021/0189645).
Regarding claim 13, Meier et al. disclose the invention except for wherein the lace comprises indicators configured to indicate wear of the lace.
Mupende et al. teach a lace with wear indicators (Fig. 1 shows levels of wear of a rope).
From this teaching of Mupende et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to construct a lace with the indications of wear of Mupende for the lace of Meier et al. Signs of wear would allow a user to predict failure of the lace and prepare a replacement prior to lace destruction.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lovett et al. (US 9,700,101).
Regarding claims 14-15, Meier et al. discloses the invention except for a surface collar couplable to the adjusting device and a surface shim disposable between the surface collar and the artificial appliance.
Lovett et al. teaches a reel mechanism (204) with a surface collar (220) and a shim (222).
From this teaching of Lovett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a reel mechanism with the claimed surface housing and flange in place of the actuator of Meier et al. A reel mechanism allows for greater storage of excess lace such that a shoe or prosthetic can have a greater range of adjustability.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lovett et al.
Regarding claim 22, Meir et al. discloses the invention except for wherein the artificial appliance is a prothesis or orthosis.
Lovett et al. teach the usage of a closure system for a prosthetic (Column 6, lines 52-55).
From this teaching of Lovett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the adjustability system of Meier et al. on a prosthesis for adjustability and sufficient fitment on a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mupende et al. (US 2018/0238815 for detecting wear on a rope. See Form 892 for other references including lace tighteners with surface guide devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights