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 .
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 present application, filed on April 21, 2025, in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 “tapered eyelet (claims 9 and 15)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “tapered eyelet (claims 9 and 15)”
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, the word “axel” in line 1 should be changed to “axle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-9, 14, and 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites the limitation "a longitudinal axis of the shoe" in lines: 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the independent claim 1, “the shoe” was not disclosed before lines 2-3. Examiner assumes the limitation should be read as “a longitudinal axis of a shoe”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the lock module comprises a first jaw and a second jaw, wherein the first jaw and the second jaw is releasably coupled jointly to form a bipartite clamp in the assembled state, wherein the bipartite clamp comprises a hook configured as the second engagement member” is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant is redefining what the second engagement member was. A bipartite clamp is disclosed as comprising a first and second jaw, which forms a hook, but then that hook is configured as the second engagement member. It is unclear what structure constitutes the second engagement member.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations presented are identical to what is presented in claim 8, which claim 14 depends from. Examiner assumes claim 14 is supposed to depend from independent claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, it recites the limitation "the opening" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the independent claim 16, “an opening” was not previously disclosed. Examiner assumes the limitation should be read as “an opening”.
Regarding claim 19 it recites the limitation "the first direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 19 and in the claims it depends from, “the first direction” was never disclosed. Examiner assumes the limitation should be read as “a first direction”.
Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 17-18 and 20 are rejected for depending directly/indirectly from a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US Patent 7,676,957).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a hands-free shoestring tightening device (210, Fig. 2, 4) comprising:
a base module (222) permanently attached at a heel at a proximal end along a longitudinal axis of the shoe (as shown in Fig. 2 at the heel of the footwear, where the “longitudinal axis” is the length of said shoe, and “permanently attached” to the shoe while in use), wherein the base module (222) comprises an opening at the proximal end of the shoe (opening of 222 as shown in Fig. 4 and 8);
an axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) configured to releasably couple into the opening of the base module (Fig. 2, Col. 6, lines: 47-50, “configured to…module” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes releasably coupled into the opening due to screws, 232 and 233),
wherein the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) comprises:
a rotatable wheel (212); and,
an axle shaft (224) coupled through a center of the rotatable wheel (as shown in Fig. 4) defining a rotational axis of the rotatable wheel (shown as axis of 224), wherein the rotational axis is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (examiner notes due to the longitudinal axis being along the length of the shoe and the rotational axis being the axis of 224, the two are shown to be perpendicular in at least Fig. 2, where axis of 224 points outward of the page); and,
a lock module (220) comprises a first engagement member (270d, Fig. 7) configured to releasably engage a coupling feature of the base module (walls 302 and 304 in Fig. 8, “configured to…module” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function), and a second engagement member (270a) configured engage to the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) around the rotational axis (Col. 7, lines: 27-31, “configured to…axis” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function), wherein, during assembly, the lock module (220) is configured to slidably secure the base module (222) and the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) through the first engagement member (270d) and the second engagement member (270a, Col. 8, lines: 26-29, “configured to…second engagement member” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, examiner notes slidably secure due to rotation of axle assembly and being placed between elements 220 and 222), and, in an assembled state,
the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) is coupled to the base module (222, as shown in Fig. 1 and 2),
the first engagement member (270d) engages the base module (222, Col. 6, lines: 50-51, engagement occurs through securement of 222 and 220), and,
the second engagement member (270a) engages the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224), such that the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) is releasably locked within a cavity defined by the base module and the lock module (cavity is area of heel around element 200 in Fig. 2, where the tightening device is placed into).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson discloses the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) is configured to slide from the proximal end towards a distal end of the shoe. (“configured to…shoe” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, Col. 8, lines: 26-31, examiner notes slides due to counter clockwise rotation).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson discloses the base module (222) comprises an engagement collar (298d and 298a) extended from a top side of the opening towards a bottom (as shown in Fig. 8), wherein the engagement collar (298d and 298a) is configured to engage the first engagement member (270d), such that a forward force is exerted at the first engagement member towards a distal end of the shoe, (Col. 7, lines: 25-29, “configured to…shoe” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson discloses the lock module (220) comprises a first jaw (270b) and a second jaw (270a), wherein the first jaw and the second jaw is releasably coupled jointly to form a bipartite clamp in the assembled state (shown as a bipartite clamp in Fig. 7 since they are connected to each other in a spaced manner), wherein the bipartite clamp comprises a hook (formed from openings shown in 270b and 270c) configured as the second engagement member to engage the axle assembly, such that a backward force is exerted at the second engagement member towards the proximal end of the shoe (“configured as…shoe” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function.).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a lumen (246 and 247) configured to allow a shoelace of the shoe (combination of 190, 192, 136 and 137) to pass through (Col. 6, lines: 61-62, “configured to…through” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function.), wherein a length of the shoelace received along the axle shaft is directly proportional to an angular displacement of the axle shaft in a first direction, such that the shoelace is tightened when the rotatable wheel (212) is rotated in the first direction (Col. 6, lines: 38-43 and Col. 8, lines: 26-31, examiner notes the “first direction” is the counterclockwise direction).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a ratchet wheel (240 and 256) such that the rotatable wheel (212) is only allowed to be rotated in the first direction (Col. 8, lines: 34-37).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a unitary body (as shown in Fig. 5), such that the axle shaft is modularly replaceable (examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize shaft, 224 is modularly replaceable since it is a separate component from the wheel, 212).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a tapered eyelet at each end of the shaft (ends of 224), wherein a width of the eyelet is monotonically decreasing from a center of the axle shaft towards the peripheral of the axle shaft (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, -Johnson discloses a shoestring tightening device (210, Fig. 2 and 4) comprising:
an axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) comprising an axle shaft (224) configured to receive a shoelace of a shoe (combination of 190, 192, 136 and 137, Col. 6, lines: 61-62, “configured to…shoe” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function), and a rotatable wheel (212) connected to the axle shaft (224, as shown in Fig. 4) configured to actuate rotation of the axle shaft (224, Col. 6, lines: 64-65 and Col. 8, lines: 27-31); and,
a base module (222) permanently attached at a heel at a proximal end along a longitudinal axis of the shoe (as shown in Fig. 2 at the heel of the footwear, where the “longitudinal axis” is the length of said shoe, and “permanently attached” to the shoe while in use), wherein the base module comprises:
a top load cavity (Fig. 8, cavity is shown as spaces within chambers) configured to receive configured to receive the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224, Col. 6, lines: 48-50); and,
a bottom opening to the top load cavity (bottom opening is shown at the bottom of element 222 in Fig. 4) configured to expose the rotatable wheel at a bottom surface of the base module after the axle assembly is received within the top load cavity (“configured to…cavity” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, Examiner notes the wheel is exposed at the bottom surface, when assembled, as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a lumen (246 and 247) configured to allow a shoelace of the shoe (combination of 190, 192, 136 and 137) to pass through (Col. 6, lines: 61-62, “configured to…shoe” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function), wherein a length of the shoelace received along the axle shaft is directly proportional to an angular displacement of the axle shaft in a first direction, such that the shoelace is tightened when the rotatable wheel (212) is rotated in the first direction (Col. 6, lines: 38-43, Col. 8, lines: 26-31, examiner notes the “first direction” is the counterclockwise direction).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a ratchet wheel (240 and 256) such that the rotatable wheel (212) is only allowed to be rotated in the first direction (Col. 8, lines: 34-37).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a unitary body (as shown in Fig. 5), such that the axle shaft is modularly replaceable (examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize shaft, 224 is modularly replaceable since it is a separate component from the wheel, 212).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a tapered eyelet at each end of the shaft (ends of 224), wherein a width of the eyelet is monotonically decreasing from a center of the axle shaft towards the peripheral of the axle shaft (as shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson discloses a hands-free shoestring tightening device (210, Fig. 2 and 4) comprising:
a base module (222) fixedly attached at a shoe's heel at a proximal end along a longitudinal axis of a shoe (as shown in Fig. 2 at the heel of the footwear, where the “longitudinal axis” is the length of said footwear); and,
an axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) configured to releasably couple to the opening of the base module (opening of 222 as shown in Fig. 4 and 8, Col. 6, lines: 47-50, “configured to…module” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes releasably coupled into the opening due to screws, 232 and 233), wherein the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) comprises:
a rotatable wheel (212);
a first engagement member (244, Fig. 5) configured to engage a first coupling member of the base module (308 in Fig. 8, Col. 7, lines: 43-45, “configured to…module” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function), and,
a lock module (220) configured to release the first engagement member (242) from the complimentary coupling member base module (308, “configured to…module” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes releases through screws 232 and 233).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson discloses the axel assembly (combination of 212 and 224) further comprises a second engagement member (242) configured to engage a second coupling member at the heel of the shoe (306, as shown in Fig. 2 and 8, Col. 7, lines: 43-45, “configured to…shoe” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function.).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson discloses the axle assembly (combination of 212 and 224) further comprises an axle shaft (224) coupled through a center of the rotatable wheel (as shown in Fig. 4) defining a rotational axis of the rotatable wheel (shown as axis of 224), wherein the rotational axis is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (examiner notes due to the longitudinal axis being along the length of the footwear and the rotational axis being the axis of 224, the two are shown to be perpendicular in at least Fig. 2, where axis of 224 points outward of the page).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson discloses the axle shaft (224) comprises a ratchet wheel (240 and 256) such that the rotatable wheel (212) is only allowed to be rotated in the first direction (Col. 6, lines: 38-43 and Col. 8, lines: 26-31 and lines: 34-37, examiner notes the “first direction” is the counterclockwise direction).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson discloses the first engagement member (244) is configured to engage the first coupling member (308) via a snap-fit connection (“configured to…connection” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, examiner notes a “snap-fit connection” is achieve when the shaft, 224 is placed into the wells, 304 and 308), wherein the snap- fit connection is achieved through complementary engaging features on the lock module (220) and the base module (222, Col. 6, lines: 48-50, Col. 7, lines: 43-45, as shown when comparing both 220 and 222 found in Fig. 7 and 8).
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.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Johnson (US Patent 8,904,672).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Johnson does not disclose the axle shaft comprises bearings.
However, Johnson teaches yet another shoestring tightening device (Abstract), wherein Johnson teaches an axle shaft (230, Fig. 8) comprises bearings (290).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axle shaft of Johnson, by incorporating bearings as taught by Johnson, in order to have enhanced support radial and axle forces and friction reduction imposed on the shaft.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Johnson does not disclose the axle shaft comprises bearings.
However, Johnson teaches yet another shoestring tightening device (Abstract), wherein Johnson teaches an axle shaft (230, Fig. 8) comprises bearings (290).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axle shaft of Johnson, by incorporating bearings as taught by Johnson, in order to have enhanced support radial and axle forces and friction reduction imposed on the shaft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights