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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B (Figures 4-6) is acknowledged. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed December 2, 2025. Applicant indicates that no claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s traversal is on the grounds that Species B (Figures 4-6) and Species C (Figure 7) are obvious variants of one another rather than independent and distinct inventions. Examiner accepts this proposition and therefore acquiesces to Applicant’s desire to elect both Species B and Species C, as discussed in the Applicant Initiated Interview conducted on November 21, 2025 and detailed in the Examiner Interview Summary mailed November 26, 2025. As such, the restriction requirement between Species A and D-G versus Species B and C is maintained but the restriction requirement between Species B and C is withdrawn. Any claims which recite elements from either Species B or Species C will therefore merely be considered obvious variants of one another.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening mechanism” in claim 1, “closure mechanism” in claims 10 and 19, “retention members” in claim 18, and “release mechanism” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites the limitation “the heel end of the upper,” which should be amended to recite “a heel end of the upper” for purposes of proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “fastening mechanism” (line 7). This limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder (mechanism) that is coupled with functional language (fastening) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. However, although the phrase “fastening mechanism” is recited in the abstract of the disclosure it is not recited in the specification of the disclosure and therefore does not recite corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, as required by 35 USC 112(f). As such, the limitation “fastening mechanism” is not described in the specification in such a way as to convey possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 1-9 and 17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “fastening mechanism” (line 7). This limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder (mechanism) that is coupled with functional language (fastening) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. However, it is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of this 35 USC 112(f)-invoking limitation because it is not recited in the specification of the disclosure. As such, the specification does not recite corresponding structure for performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, as required by 35 USC 112(f).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a top section” (line 13). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because it is unclear to which previously-recited element it refers (i.e., a top section of what?). For example, does this limitation refer to a top section of the “upper,” a top section of the “cord,” a top section of the “lateral side of the upper,” or some other top section? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “a top section of the upper.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to be pushed inwardly to release the fastening mechanism from a tightened configuration” (lines 1-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because, upon information and belief, the fastening mechanism itself is not capable of assuming a tightened configuration but instead merely capable of imposing a tightened configuration upon other portion(s) of the article of footwear? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to be pushed inwardly to release the article of footwear from a tightened configuration.” Clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a top section” (line 3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because it is unclear to which previously-recited element it refers (i.e., a top section of what?). For example, does this limitation refer to a top section of the “upper,” a top section of the “cord,” a top section of the “lateral side of the upper,” or some other top section? For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as reciting “a top section of the upper.”
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 11,185,130 Bock et al. in view of USPN 9,095,188 Cavaliere.
To claim 1, (insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner) Bock discloses an article of footwear (44) (see especially Figures 1-17B; col. 6, line 44 – col. 21, line 20), comprising:
an upper (50) that is attached to a sole (52) (see especially Figures 2-8; col. 7, lines 25-67);
a longitudinal axis (84) that extends between a rear end (86) and a front end (88) of the article of footwear (see especially Figures 6A-6B; col. 8, line 58 – col. 9, line 5);
a midfoot region (58) that is disposed between a forefoot region (56) and a heel region (60) (see especially Figures 6A-6B; col. 9, lines 6-23);
a fastening system (24) including a fastening mechanism (140) that is operably engaged with a cord (142,144) (see Figures 2-17B; col. 11, lines 24-58);
and a panel (64) (see especially Figures 4-5 and 8; col. 7, lines 45-67; col. 11, lines 24-48),
wherein the panel includes an edge, wherein the edge is curved (see especially Figures 4-5 and 8; col. 7, lines 45-67; col. 11, lines 24-48),
wherein the cord is laced through a plurality of eyelets (68,146,148) arranged on the panel (see especially Figures 4-5 and 8; col. 7, lines 45-67; col. 11, lines 24-48),
wherein the cord extends on a lateral side of the upper (Figure 4) so that a first segment extends diagonally downward from a top section toward the sole before extending diagonally upwardly toward the top section (see Figure 4; col. 11, lines 24-48), and
wherein the first segment crosses over a second segment of the cord (see Figures 4-5; col. 11, lines 24-48).
Bock does not expressly disclose an article of footwear comprising a heel component in addition to the upper, the heel component disposed adjacent the rear end within the heel region, the heel component having a midsection that includes padding.
However, Cavaliere teaches an article of footwear (100) (see Figures 1-13; col. 2, line 35 – col. 9, line 3) comprising an upper (102) and a heel component (150,200) (see Figures 1-13; col. 4, line 6 – col. 9, line 3) disposed adjacent a rear end (106) of the article of footwear within the heel region, the heel component having a midsection (annotated Figure 6, see below; it is respectfully noted that the terms “section” and “midsection” are very broad) that includes padding (col. 8, lines 59-67; in a configuration of heel component 150,200 where member 150 comprises foam, the portions of element 166 of member 150 disposed in the midsection will be considered to provide padding).
PNG
media_image1.png
899
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bock and Cavaliere teach analogous inventions in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the footwear of Bock to include a heel component as taught by Cavaliere because Cavaliere teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for serving as a heel counter for the footwear (col. 8, lines 36-46).
To claim 2, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to be twisted or rotated by a user (col. 6, lines 14-20 and lines 54-67 of Bock).
To claim 3, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the cord extends in a V- shaped pattern on the lateral side of the upper and a lowermost point of the V-shaped pattern of the cord is positioned on the upper in the midfoot region (see Figures 4-5 and col. 11, lines 24-48 of Bock).
To claim 4, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to be iteratively actuated to reach successive tightness levels (col. 13, lines 41-56 of Bock).
To claim 5, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the fastening mechanism is arranged on the lateral side of the upper (see Figure 6A of Bock; obvious variant of central location of upper 50).
To claim 6, (insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner) the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the fastening mechanism is configured to be pushed inwardly to release the article of footwear from a tightened configuration (col. 6, lines 14-20 and lines 54-67 of Bock).
To claim 7, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the panel is superimposed on the lateral side and a medial side of the upper within the forefoot region and the midfoot region (see especially Figures 4-5 and 8, col. 7, lines 45-67, and col. 11, lines 24-48 of Bock).
To claim 8, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the cord extends in a V- shaped pattern (see especially Figures 4-5 and 8, col. 7, lines 45-67, and col. 11, line 24 – col. 13, line 40 of Bock).
To claim 9, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein upper is formed of a hydrophobic material (col. 8, lines 1-13 of Bock).
To claim 16, Bock discloses an article of footwear (44) (see especially Figures 1-17B; col. 6, line 44 – col. 21, line 20), comprising:
an upper (50) that is attached to a sole (52) and includes a panel (46) defined between a pair of edges (see especially Figures 2-8; col. 7, lines 25-67; col. 11, lines 24-48);
a longitudinal axis (84) that extends between a heel end (86) and a toe end (88) of the article of footwear (see especially Figures 6A-6B; col. 8, line 58 – col. 9, line 5);
a midfoot region (58) that is disposed between a forefoot region (56) and a heel region (60) (see especially Figures 6A-6B; col. 9, lines 6-23);
a fastening system (24) arranged on the upper and including a cord (142,144) (see Figures 2-17B; col. 11, lines 24-58); and
wherein the pair of edges of the panel are curved (see especially Figures 4-5 and 8; col. 7, lines 45-67; col. 11, lines 24-48).
Bock does not expressly disclose an article of footwear comprising a heel component in addition to the upper, the heel component disposed adjacent a heel end of the upper within the heel region and extending from the heel end of the upper in a rearward direction relative to the longitudinal axis, wherein the heel component includes a midsection that is relatively thicker than surrounding portions of the heel component, and wherein the midsection curves concavely between a lateral side and a medial side of the heel component relative to the toe end of the article of footwear.
However, Cavaliere teaches an article of footwear (100) (see Figures 1-13; col. 2, line 35 – col. 9, line 3) comprising an upper (102) and a heel component (150,200) (see Figures 1-13; col. 4, line 6 – col. 9, line 3) disposed adjacent a heel end of the upper within the heel region and extending from the heel end of the upper in a rearward direction relative to the longitudinal axis (see Figures 1-13; col. 4, line 6 – col. 9, line 3), wherein the heel component includes a midsection that is relatively thicker than surrounding portions of the heel component (annotated Figure 6, see above; it is respectfully noted that the terms “section” and “midsection” are very broad; the midsection is relatively thicker at least due to the presence of element 200 which is absent from surrounding portions of heel component 150,200), and wherein the midsection curves concavely between a lateral side and a medial side of the heel component relative to the toe end of the article of footwear (see Figures 1-13 and annotated Figure 6; col. 4, line 6 – col. 9, line 3).
Bock and Cavaliere teach analogous inventions in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the footwear of Bock to include a heel component as taught by Cavaliere because Cavaliere teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for serving as a heel counter for the footwear (col. 8, lines 36-46).
To claim 17, (insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner) the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the cord extends in a V-shaped pattern on a lateral side of the upper, such that the cord extends diagonally downwardly from a top section toward the sole before extending diagonally upwardly toward the top section (see Figures 4-5 and col. 11, lines 24-48 of Bock).
To claim 18, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein a plurality of retention members (68,146,148 of Bock) are arranged on the upper for retaining the cord (see especially Figures 4-5 and 8, col. 7, lines 45-67, and col. 11, line 24 – col. 13, line 40 of Bock).
To claim 19, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the fastening system includes a closure mechanism and a release mechanism (see especially Figures 9A-16 and col. 15, line 15 – col. 20, line 20).
To claim 20, the modified invention of Bock (i.e., Bock in view of Cavaliere, as detailed above) further teach an article of footwear wherein the closure mechanism is configured to be twisted by a user and wherein the release mechanism is configured to be pressed by a user (col. 6, lines 14-20 and lines 54-67 of Bock).
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2021/0235819 Andreasen et al. in view of USPN 10,660,408 Houng et al.
To claim 10, Andreasen discloses an article of footwear (10) (see Figures 1-12; paras. 0038-0046 and 0086-0130), comprising:
an upper (100) that is attached to a sole (200) (see Figures 1-4; para. 0042);
a longitudinal axis (A10) that extends between a rear end (14) and a front end (12) of the article of footwear (see Figure 1; para. 0040);
a midfoot region (22) that is disposed between a forefoot region (20) and a heel region (24) (see Figures 1-3; para. 0041);
a heel component (432,434) disposed adjacent the rear end within the heel region, the heel component having a midsection (434) that includes padding (see Figures 1-5D; paras. 0125-0130);
a fastening system (300,400) including a closure mechanism (300) that is operably engaged with a cord (402) (see Figures 1-12; para. 0039);
and a panel (not numbered; annotated Figure 1, see below),
wherein a distance is defined between the midsection of the heel component and the upper, wherein the distance is configured to be adjusted by a force applied by a user between a first configuration and a second configuration (see Figures 5A-5D; paras. 0125-0130),
wherein, in the first configuration, the midsection of the heel component is configured to be translated rearward relative to the longitudinal axis, and wherein, in the second configuration, the midsection of the heel component is configured to be translated forward relative to the longitudinal axis (see Figures 5A-5D; paras. 0125-0130),
wherein the panel includes a first edge (annotated Figure 1; paras. 0039 and 0042), and
wherein the cord is routed through the panel (annotated Figure 1; paras. 0039 and 0042).
PNG
media_image2.png
904
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Andreasen does not expressly disclose an article of footwear wherein the first edge is curved.
However, Houng teaches an article of footwear (10) (see Figures 1-3; col. 4, line 1 – col. 6, line 31) comprising a panel (22) including a first edge, wherein the first edge is curved (see Figures 1-3; col. 8, lines 33-54).
Andreasen and Houng teach analogous inventions in the field of footwear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the panel of the footwear of Andreasen to be curved as taught by Houng because Houng teaches that this configuration is known in the art and allows the panel to better conform to the shape of the foot of a wearer at the instep region in comparison to a flap having a straight end (col. 3, lines 6-14).
To claim 11, the modified invention of Andreasen (i.e., Andreasen in view of Houng, as detailed above) further teaches an article of footwear wherein the midsection of the heel component curves concavely between a lateral side and a medial side relative to a toe end (see Figures 1-5D and paras. 0125-0130 of Andreasen).
To claim 12, the modified invention of Andreasen (i.e., Andreasen in view of Houng, as detailed above) further teaches an article of footwear wherein the cord defines a winding region that extends across the upper (see Figures 1-12 and para. 0039 of Andreasen).
To claim 13, the modified invention of Andreasen (i.e., Andreasen in view of Houng, as detailed above) further teaches an article of footwear wherein the panel includes a second edge that is opposite the first edge, wherein the second edge includes convex curvatures therealong (see Figures 1-3 and col. 8, lines 33-54 of Houng).
To claim 14, the modified invention of Andreasen (i.e., Andreasen in view of Houng, as detailed above) further teaches an article of footwear wherein the upper is formed of a hydrophobic material (para. 0045 of Andreasen).
To claim 15, the modified invention of Andreasen (i.e., Andreasen in view of Houng, as detailed above) further teaches an article of footwear wherein the heel component is configured to retain its shape in a rest configuration (see Figures 1-5D and paras. 0125-0130 of Andreasen).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,459.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they each recite a closure system/fastening system for an article of footwear and/or an article of footwear comprising substantially the same elements including an upper, a sole, actuating/fastening/release/closure mechanism(s), and cord having multiple segments operably engaged with the actuating/fastening/release/closure mechanism(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additional footwear analogous to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732