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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the term “portion” is used extensively through the claims. The Examiner will use the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term which is “a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it” (www.dictionary.com).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 11-12, and 15-19 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second diameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the groove edge" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Presumably the “groove edge” is intended to be the “grooved edge”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first shoelace portion and second shoelace portion” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first diameter of the shoelace", “the first diameter of the diameter” and ‘the diameter at the second end” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “the first diameter of the diameter” is not understood. A diameter is a line and would not have a diameter.
Claims 12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected as depending 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris, U.S. Patent 10,709,205.
Regarding Claim 1, Harris teaches:
A first side (see below), a second side (see below), and a sidewall (see below) extending between the first side and the second side defining a body and shape of the apparatus (Figs. 2A-D), wherein a first aperture (see below), a second aperture (see below), and a third aperture (see below) are formed through the body of the apparatus,
wherein the first aperture has an aperture side wall (see below) having a first portion (see below) and a second portion (see below), wherein a first portion of the first aperture sidewall includes a first grooved edge (see below) and the second aperture has an aperture sidewall having a first portion (see below) and a second portion (see below), wherein a first portion of the second aperture sidewall includes a second grooved edge (see below),
wherein the first grooved edge is configured to interface with a first shoelace portion (Figs. 1, 4) and the second grooved edge is configured to interface with a second shoelace portion (Figs. 1, 4),
wherein the third aperture is configured to further secure a first end of the shoelace and a second end of the shoelace (Figs. 1, 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Harris teaches:
The third aperture further includes a first aperture portion (see below) and a second aperture portion (see below), wherein the first aperture portion is positioned at a first end and the second aperture is positioned at a second end, wherein a channel (see below) is formed between the first aperture portion and the second aperture portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
563
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Harris teaches:
A shoelace (300) comprised of elastomeric material (see Field of Invention, see Col 6, Lns 41-51, see Figs. 3A-C); and
a lace cinching apparatus for adjustably securing the shoelace on a shoe, comprising
a first side (see below), a second side (see below), and a sidewall (see below) extending between the first side and the second side defining a body and shape of the apparatus (Figs. 2A-D), wherein a first aperture (see below), a second aperture (see below), and a third aperture (see below) are formed through the body of the apparatus,
wherein the first aperture has an aperture side wall (see below) having a first portion (see below) and a second portion (see below), wherein a first portion of the first aperture sidewall includes a first grooved edge (see below) and the second aperture has an aperture sidewall having a first portion (see below) and a second portion (see below), wherein a first portion of the second aperture sidewall includes a second grooved edge (see below),
wherein the first grooved edge is configured to interface with a first shoelace portion (Figs. 1, 4) and the second grooved edge is configured to interface with a second shoelace portion (Figs. 1, 4),
wherein the third aperture is configured to further secure a first end of the shoelace and a second end of the shoelace (Figs. 1, 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, this claim is incoherent and cannot be meaningfully understood. However, Harris teaches the shoelace (300) having a diameter smaller than a diameter at one position and larger than a diameter at another position and this is interpreted to meet the claim as best understood (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
335
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris ‘205 as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Johansson, U.S. Design Patent D604,589.
Regarding Claim 3, Harris is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim.
Johansson teaches:
A channel opening (see below) extending from the bottom side of the apparatus and into the channel of the third aperture, wherein the channel opening forms a first hook portion (see below) and a second hook portion (see below) of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris with the channel opening as taught by Johansson because the channel opening would permit lateral insertion/extraction of the lace as opposed to “threading” of the lace through the aperture portions and this would save time for the user when clinching the desired laces and further reduce the dexterity required to use the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
393
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The first aperture portion of the third aperture has a first end (see below, see Figs. 6A, C, D) and a second end (see below, see Figs. 6A, C, D), wherein the diameter of the aperture at the first end is a first diameter, and the diameter of the first aperture portion at the second end is a second diameter and has an edge (see below, see Figs. 6A, C, D) configured to interface a portion of the shoelace (see Figs. 1, 4).
**Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that the first and second portions are selected as being circular and therefore have diameters (see Claim Interpretation above).
PNG
media_image5.png
275
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
366
620
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
Wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter (see drawing selections above, see Figs. 6A, C, D).
Claim(s) 6-12, 14-16 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris and Harris-Johannson as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Krout, U.S. Patent 11,096,449.
Regarding Claim 6, Harris, in the Harris-Johannson combination, teaches:
The groove edge has a first side and a second side (see surface on either side of grooved edge below), wherein the first side of the groove edge is generally planar.
Harris-Johannson does not teach:
The second side of the grooved edge is generally chamfered.
Krout clearly teaches a cord locking device that employs the use of chamfers on edges (see Col 6, Lns 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris-Johannson with the chamfers taught by Krout because the chamfers would reduce the likelihood of damage to edge and, as stated in Krout, would improve appearance and reduce the likelihood of injury.
PNG
media_image7.png
431
634
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The second side of the body of the apparatus includes a first channel (see below) extending from a first sidewall edge (see below) to the first aperture and a second channel (see below) extending from a second sidewall edge to the second aperture.
PNG
media_image8.png
520
561
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The shoelace is composed of an elastomer (see Field of Invention, see col 6, Lns 41-51, see Figs. 3A-C).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the shoelace is previously recited in the preamble of Claim 1 and in various “configured to” clauses in Claims 1 and 4 which is not considered a positive structural recitation, however, the prior art clearly teaches this limitation.
Regarding Claim 9, insofar as the claim is understood (see 112 rejection above) Harris, in the instant combination, teaches a structure (ridges 302) which disclosed a diameter smaller than that of the shoelace (see 300, see Figs. 3A-C).
Harris is silent with regard to the second diameter having this disclosed diameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the diameter taught by elements 302 on the second diameter because that would enhance the gripping friction of the device on the shoelace which reduce the likelihood of loosening and a duplication of parts is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure nor provided any other criticality associated with the claimed structure, In re Harza.
Regarding Claim 10, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The second portion of the first aperture sidewall is an angular wall (see teeth 210 comprised of walls, Figs. 2A, C) and the second portion of the second aperture sidewall is an angular wall (note duplicate sidewall structure in Figs. 2A, C), wherein the angular walls are configured to guide the shoelace through the aperture from the second side to the first side (see Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 11, insofar as the claim is understood (see 112 rejection above), Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The groove edge has a first side and a second side, wherein the first side of the groove edge is planar (see below).
Harris does not teach:
The second side of the groove edge is chamfered or radius.
Krout, in the instant combination, clearly teaches a cord locking device that employs the use of chamfers on edges (see Col 6, Lns 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris-Johannson with the chamfers taught by Krout because the chamfers would reduce the likelihood of damage to edge and, as stated in Krout, would improve appearance and reduce the likelihood of injury.
PNG
media_image9.png
554
668
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The second aperture portion of the third aperture has a first end (see rejection of claim 4, see Figs. 6A, C, D, note symmetry) and a second end (see below, see Figs. 6A, C, D), wherein the diameter of the second aperture at the first end is a first diameter, and the diameter of the second aperture portion at the second end is a second diameter and has an edge (see rejection of claim 4, see Figs. 6A, C, D, note symmetry) configured to interface a portion of the shoelace (see Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Harris teaches, in the instant combination, teaches:
The third aperture further includes a first aperture portion (see below) and a second aperture portion (see below), wherein the first aperture portion is positioned at a first end and the second aperture is positioned at a second end, wherein a channel (see below) is formed between the first aperture portion and the second aperture portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
563
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Johannson, in the instant combination, teaches:
A channel opening (see below) extending from the bottom side of the apparatus and into the channel of the third aperture, wherein the channel opening forms a first hook portion (see below) and a second hook portion (see below) of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris with the channel opening as taught by Johansson because the channel opening would permit lateral insertion/extraction of the lace as opposed to “threading” of the lace through the aperture portions and this would save time for the user when clinching the desired laces and further reduce the required dexterity to use the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
393
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The first shoelace portion and second shoelace portion (see below) extend around a middle portion of body portion (see below) located between the first and second apertures and the third aperture and then are positioned within the third aperture.
PNG
media_image10.png
275
409
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The shoelace has a first diameter (see Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 18, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
The first aperture portion of the third aperture has a first end (see below, see Figs. 6A, C, D) and a second end (see below, see Figs. 6A, C, D), wherein the diameter of the aperture at the first end is a first diameter, and the diameter of the first aperture portion at the second end is a second diameter and has an edge (see below, see Figs. 6A, C, D) configured to interface a portion of the shoelace (see Figs. 1, 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
275
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
366
620
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris-Johannson-Krout as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8 and 14 above, and further in view of Shu, CN 207322824.
Regarding Claim 20, the instant combination is silent with regard to the shoelace being comprised of TPU.
Shu clearly teaches a shoelace comprised of TPU (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Harris-Johannson-Krout with the TPU shoelace as taught by Shu because TPU, as stated by Shu, has good elasticity, is easy to clean and has oil, water and mildew resistance and these would all increase the useful lifetime of the shoelace.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights