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 .
Opening Remarks
Claims 1 which includes the language “at least one strap” and “at least two anchor buckles” indicates that the claims are directed to the embodiment which includes the sandal having “at least one strap” (2) and “at least two anchor buckles”. Anchor buckles is shown as reference number 3 in the figures. This embodiment doesn’t include the clamping buckle (4). Paragraph #2 is Repeated from the previous office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s): “by means of…” in claim 1 do not satisfy the three prong analysis as outlined in MPEP 2181 section 2181, subsection I. The generic placeholder “means” is not modified by functional language and the generic place holder “means” is modified by sufficient structure material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Paragraph #3-5 are repeated from the previous office action as a reminder of how the claim language is being interpreted.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrase “the (at least two) anchor buckles (3) function by friction-locking” are unclear, inaccurate and indefinite. The disclosure doesn’t teach that the “anchor buckles” function by friction-locking. The anchor buckle is described in the specification as the “simple anchor buckle 3” and little detail is provided and shown in the figures. It is the clamping buckle (4) which includes the clamping lever (8) as having the function by friction-locking. This rejection is being repeated from the previous office action.
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 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, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0237950 (Caldwell).
Regarding claims 1-2, Caldwell discloses a sandal having detachable strap fastening, comprising a sole (base member, e.g. 102,202,302,402), at least one strap (e.g. strap 110,180,210,310,410), and at least two anchor buckles [e.g. buckle fastener 182 (see figures 9-10 and at least figure 19 which shows an embodiment with the two buckle fasteners; Caldwell also teaches the fastener can be different types of buckle fasteners; at least see ¶0097)], in which the sandal is modularly constructed and can be easily assembled and disassembled (Caldwell throughout teaches the components of the sandal (e.g. straps, fasteners can be removable from one another; at least see ¶0077 and more specifically “The strap 110 can be removable, such as to unattached the strap from itself” in lines 9-10 of ¶0077; and see 8-10 show the strap and buckle fasteners unattached with each other)), in which the sole and the at least one strap are connected to each other by guiding the at least one strap through apertures (e.g. see apertures at each of the anchor points in the sole to which the straps extend through and back on itself; at least see figures 1-3,14-50) in the sole, and that one end of the at least one strap is secured to the strap by means of one anchor buckle (e.g. fasteners e.g. 116,182,190,216,316 can be different types of buckles; at least see ¶0097, such fasteners are anchored to the sole at anchor points, e.g. 112,212,312), characterized in that the (at least two) anchor buckles function by friction-locking and can be opened manually after closing and are detachable from the at least one strap (see figures 8-10 showing the strap and buckle separated; the strap frictionally slide through the opening in the buckle and after looped through are frictionally secured/locked in place).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant didn’t present any arguments and/or amend the claims with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection applied above and therefore this rejection has been repeated.
With regard to argument #1,2 and 5; Applicant argues the strap is secured by looping and there is no cam-buckle or friction-lock mechanism.
In response, no cam-buckle is being claimed and therefore this argument is moot. Moreover, as noted in paragraph #2 above “This embodiment doesn’t include the clamping buckle (4)”. With regard to the “friction-lock mechanism” as noted in the 35 USC 112 rejection above: “In claim 1, the phrase “the (at least two) anchor buckles (3) function by friction-locking” are unclear, inaccurate and indefinite. The disclosure doesn’t teach that the “anchor buckles” function by friction-locking. The anchor buckle is described in the specification as the “simple anchor buckle 3” and little detail is provided and shown in the figures. It is the clamping buckle (4) which includes the clamping lever (8) as having the function by friction-locking.” Nonetheless Caldwell does teach the (at least two) anchor buckles function by friction-locking and can be opened manually after closing and are detachable from the at least one strap (see figures 8-10 showing the strap and buckle separated; the strap frictionally slide through the opening in the buckle and after looped through are frictionally secured/locked in place).
In response to argument #3, Applicant argues Caldwell doesn’t teach any manual lever or cam to clamp and release the strap.
In response, the manual lever and the cam are both not claimed and therefore these arguments are moot. Moreover, the claims are directed to an embodiment that doesn’t have a manual lever or a cam.
Applicant also argues “the claimed invention provides three distinct, separable components – sole, strap and buckle – which can be detached without tools.
In response, as noted in the rejection above, Caldwell throughout teaches the components of the sandal (e.g. straps, fasteners can be removable from one another; at least see ¶0077 and more specifically “The strap 110 can be removable, such as to unattached the strap from itself” in lines 9-10 of ¶0077; and see 8-10 show the strap and buckle fasteners unattached with each other). Moreover, see figure 37 showing the sole, the strap and the fasteners (button fastener is shown in this embodiment but teaches other fasteners such as buckles can be used too) distinct and separable. Figure 37 shows the fasteners (316) to be more like buttons but as noted in the rejection above these fasteners can be buckles too as claimed. Also see figures 8-10 showing the strap and buckle separated; the strap frictionally slide through the opening in the buckle and after looping the end of the strap through the apertures in the sole are secured back on to itself by a fastener (e.g. buckle) and therefore are frictionally secured/locked in place.
With regard to argument #4, applicant argues the invention uses ordinary straps and Caldwell relies on straps with apertures to allow buttons to pass through.
In response, Caldwell teaches fasteners e.g. 116,182,190,216,316 can be different types of buckles; at least see ¶0097, such fasteners are anchored to the sole at anchor points, e.g. 112,212,312). Also see figures 8-10 showing the strap and buckle separated; the strap frictionally slide through the opening in the buckle and after looped through the apertures in the sole (i.e. the base) are frictionally secured/locked in place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including:
-“The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.”
--“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
-Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06” MPEP 714.02. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED KAVANAUGH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a telephone interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner. Normally telephone interviews can quickly be scheduled. For other types of interviews, 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 Huynh can be reached on 57-1272-4888. 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.
/Ted Kavanaugh/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3732
Tel: (571) 272-4556