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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears applicant is trying to delete the reference numerals in the claims. However single brackets (e.g. [101]) is not proper. According to 37 CFR 1.121 (c)(2) double brackets should be used e.g. [[101]].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the phrase “wherein threaded holes and by a threaded screw” is unclear and indefinite. It would appear applicant is referring to the “threaded holes” of the cubes (104) and the corresponding “threaded screw”. The claim should be amended to properly claim these limitations.
The term “cubes” used throughout the claims is inaccurate inasmuch as the cubes (103) as shown in the figures (especially see figure 5) is not square like a cube. It is suggested applicant change “cubes” to a “set of projections” or other similarly language.
In claim 2, the term “dowels” lacks proper antecedent basis. Moreover, the dowels appears to be referring to the “cubes”. Similar terminology must be used throughout the claims. As noted above “cubes” is inaccurate, therefore the terminology should be changed to a term more accurate with what is shown in the figures.
In claim 1, line 3, “reinforcement” should be changed to “a reinforcement” to properly introduce this structure in the claim.
In claim 1, lines 3-4, the phrase “cubes, protruding from the bottom of the upper [107] wherein threaded holes [104] and by a threaded screw [105]” is unclear, inaccurate and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “cubes, wherein the cubes protrude from a bottom of the endoskeleton, wherein the cubes have threaded holes engaged by a threaded screw”.
In claim 1, line 6, “the top” lacks proper antecedent basis and therefore is unclear and indefinite. It would appear this phrase should be changed to “a top”.
In claim 1, lines 6-7, the phrase “one loop for the laces and the holes that match the cubes present on the elastic membrane” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “one loop and first set of holes, wherein the one loop is configured to receive a shoe lace and the holes configured to match the cubes”. As noted above the term “cubes” need to be changed to be more descriptive and accurate.
In claim 1, lines 9-10, the phrase “a tip module wherein the presence of holes that match the cubes present in the front of the elastic membrane” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “a tip module having a second set of holes that match the cubes in a front portion the elastic membrane”.
In claim 1, lines 11-12, the phrase “a heel module [112], equipped with felts [126] that engage the outer back of the upper” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. It is not clear what structure applicant means by “felts”. Also, “the outer back” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 13-14, the phrase “a lacing module [118] wherein central holes [119] that match the cubes [103] present on the elastic membrane [102]” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “a lacing module having a set of central holes that match the cubes of the elastic membrane”.
In claim 1, lines 16-17, the phrase “present in the front of the elastic membrane” is inaccurate in as the cubes of the rear sole match the cubes in a rear portion of the elastic membrane. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “in the front portion and a rear portion of the elastic membrane, respectively”.
In claim 1, lines 18-19, the phrase “a tongue [117] wherein at least one housing hole [118] through which the at least one loop [123] for the laces present on the upper [107] is passed.” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “a tongue having at least one housing hole, wherein the one shoe lace is configured to pass through the housing hole and at least one loop of the upper.”
In claim 2, lines 3-6, the phrase “an endoskeleton [101] is to be inserted inside [the] an upper 107 by entering [the] at least one cubes [103] present on the endoskeleton [101] inside [the] at least one holes [109] present on [the] a base [108] of the upper” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “an endoskeleton having a set of cubes projecting on a bottom of the endoskeleton, wherein the endoskeleton is to be inserted inside an upper by entering at least one of the set of cubes inside at least a set of holes on a base of the upper”.
In claim 2, lines 6-10, the phrase “a lacing module [118] is to be positioned below the central part of the upper making sure that the cubes [103] present on the endoskeleton, already positioned inside the upper [107], engage [the]a second at least one holes [119] to then position [the] a third hole and a fourth hole as to be positioned to a respective a first and second [two] perforated soles [113 and 114] under the upper [107,]” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “a lacing module positioned below a central part of the upper, and a first sole and second sole positioned below the lacing module, wherein the cubes of the endoskeleton, when positioned inside the upper, engage a second set of holes of the lacing module and at least one hole in the first sole and at least one hole in the second sole”.
In claim 2, lines 11-12, the phrase “making the first and second perforated soles match [the] at least one dowels [103] present on the endoskeleton [101], already positioned inside the upper [107]” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “making the holes of the first and second holes match at least one cube of the endoskeleton, already positioned inside the upper”.
In claim 2, lines 13-14, the phrase “inserting a heel module [112] in the back of the upper, passing it through [the] a slot[121] and positioning [the] a tab [117] on the upper [107,]” is unclear and indefinite. The phrase is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with U.S practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. One suggestion to correct would be to change this phrase to “inserting a heel module in a back of the upper, by passing it through a slot in the back of the upper and positioning a tongue on the upper”.
In claim 2, lines 15-16, the phrase “by matching a different holes present therein” is not understood. What different holes is applicant referring to? The holes (119) of the lacing module (118) have already introduced earlier in claim 2.
Lines 17-18 of claim 2 are unclear and indefinite. This phrase should be changed to “threading a set of threaded screws into a set of threaded holes of the cubes”.
Note as a reminder “cubes”, in claims 1-2, is inaccurate and should be changed to something like “a set or projections” to properly introduce and adequately describe elements 103 as shown in the figures.
The examiner has made several suggestions to correct the indefinite language, and if applicant uses these suggestions, it is applicant responsibility to make sure all the language is definite. The examiner hasn’t had the opportunity to see a full set of claims with all the changes made to double check accuracy.
An effort have been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, the claims are written rather narrative in form, and Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections may not be conclusive and Applicant is required to review every claim for compliance to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, by the addition of suitably specific language.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art teaches several of the features claimed but not the complete combination of elements as claimed. The prior art of record do not disclose, teach or fairly suggest the combination as claimed; thus such as combination would only be arrived at using improper hindsight reasoning using information gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
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