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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s amendment in which claims 1, 6-8, and 10-11 have been amended, and claims 1-12 remain pending.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frappier (US 2021/0154563).
Regarding claim 1, Frappier discloses a tightening strap (112) for ski boots adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff of a ski boot to tighten said cuff on the user's leg; the tightening strap comprising an oblong flexible element, which is adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff (wherein the strap is capable of being wound in a loop around a cuff) and includes at least one elastic member with auxetic behavior (interior region with auxetic pattern) that is able to stretch lengthwise (wherein the interior auxetic portions is able to stretch lengthwise) and, at the same time, also to widen in elastic manner when the tightening strap is subjected to traction; the tightening strap wherein said elastic member with auxetic behavior comprises an oblong plate-like body, which has a monolithic structure and is divided into a plurality of contiguous flat sectors (connecting portions between apertures 146; Fig. 1), each of which has a macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behavior, which is capable of stretching and, at the same time, also of widening in elastic manner when the oblong plate-like body is subjected to traction, and also differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors (wherein the size of the apertures, and therefore the size of the connecting portions varies across the interior region: paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1). (paragraphs 0026, 0029-0031, 0034-0035, 0039-0040; Fig. 1-4)
Regarding claim 2, Frappier discloses that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behavior of said flat sectors is a two-dimensional reticular structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Frappier discloses that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behavior of each flat sector differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors in shape and/or dimensions (paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Frappier discloses that said oblong flexible element is longitudinally divided into at least a first segment (perimeter end portions) with substantially inextensible structure, and into at least a second segment (interior region) incorporating said oblong plate-like body (paragraph 0040; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Frappier discloses that the second segment of said oblong flexible element comprises an oblong and flexible plate-like element, which is made of plastic material (paragraph 0030) and is longitudinally divided into a central section (central portion of interior region) incorporating said oblong plate-like body, and into two opposite lateral sections (side portions of interior region) that seamlessly join to said central section, on opposite sides thereof (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Frappier discloses that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element are structured so as to channel the tensile stresses in a series of prefixed and limited points of the central section of the same oblong plate-like element (paragraph 0035, 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Frappier discloses that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element have a sunburst-like structure (apertures 146 at side portions) converging towards the free end of the oblong plate-like element (Fig. 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fougere (US 6,026,594) in view of Frappier (US 2021/0154563).
Regarding claim 1, Fougere teaches a tightening strap (28) for ski boots adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff of a ski boot to tighten the cuff on the user's leg; the tightening strap comprising an oblong flexible element, which is adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff and includes at least one elastic member (2) that is able to stretch lengthwise (column 4, line 48-column 5, line 30; Fig. 1-8).
Fougere does not disclose that the elastic member has auxetic behavior. Frappier teaches a tightening strap (112) for ski boots which includes at least one elastic member with auxetic behavior (interior region with auxetic pattern) that is able to stretch lengthwise and, at the same time, also to widen in elastic manner when the tightening strap is subjected to traction; the tightening strap wherein the elastic member with auxetic behavior comprises an oblong plate-like body, which has a monolithic structure and is divided into a plurality of contiguous flat sectors (connecting portions between apertures 146; Fig. 1), each of which has a macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behavior, which is capable of stretching and, at the same time, also of widening in elastic manner when the oblong plate-like body is subjected to traction, and also differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors (wherein the size of the apertures, and therefore the size of the connecting portions varies across the interior region: paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1) (paragraphs 0026, 0029-0031, 0034-0035, 0039-0040; Fig. 1-4). The auxetic structure allows the strap to flex while supplying enough structural support to secure a boot, and to form to the shape of the boot, providing a better connection (paragraphs 0030, 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an elastic member with auxetic behavior, as taught by Frappier, to the elastic member of the strap of Fougere, in order to allow the strap to flex while supplying enough structural support to secure a boot, and to form to the shape of the boot, providing a better connection.
Regarding claim 2, Frappier teaches that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behavior of the flat sectors is a two-dimensional reticular structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Frappier teaches that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behavior of each flat sector differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors in shape and/or dimensions (paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fougere discloses that the oblong flexible element is longitudinally divided into at least a first segment (1, 1A) with substantially inextensible structure, and into at least a second segment (2) incorporating the oblong plate-like body.
Regarding claim 5, Frappier teaches that the second segment of the oblong flexible element comprises an oblong and flexible plate-like element, which is made of plastic material (paragraph 0030) and is longitudinally divided into a central section (central portion of interior region) incorporating the oblong plate-like body, and into two opposite lateral sections (side portions of interior region) that seamlessly join to the central section, on opposite sides thereof (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Frappier teaches that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element are structured so as to channel the tensile stresses in a series of prefixed and limited points of the central section of the same oblong plate-like element (paragraph 0035, 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Frappier teaches that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element have a sunburst-like structure (apertures 146 at side portions) converging towards the free end of the oblong plate-like element (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Fougere discloses that the tightening strap additionally comprises a manually-operated fastening device (4), which is adapted to connect the opposite ends or end portions of the oblong flexible element one to the other in a stable, though releasable manner (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 9, Fougere discloses that the fastening device is stably placed at a first end or end portion of the oblong flexible element, and is structured so as to connect in a stable, though releasable manner, to a second end or end portion of the same oblong flexible element, opposite to the first end (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 10, Fougere discloses that the fastening device is fixed to the first end or end portion of the oblong flexible element in a manually adjustable manner (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 11, Fougere discloses a ski boot comprising: a substantially rigid foot-case (21), which is adapted to accommodate the user's foot; a substantially rigid cuff (22), which is adapted to surround the lower part of the user's leg, and is hinged on the foot-case so as to swing about a first rotation axis substantially perpendicular to the ski-boot midplane; a protective inner-boot (23), which is placed inside the foot-case and is shaped/structured so as to accommodate and protect at least the user's foot; and manually-operated closing means that are structured so as to selectively tighten the foot-case and/or cuff, respectively, on the user's foot and leg; the closing means comprising a tightening strap (28), that surrounds the cuff so as to selectively close/tighten the cuff on the user's leg (column 4, lines 48-64; Fig. 1-4).
Fougere and Frappier discloses that the tightening strap is realized according to Claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claim 12, Fougere discloses that the tightening strap is fitted/fixed on the cuff in a removable manner (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Frappier’s toe strap 112 is a binding-mounted snowboard toe strap that is not an oblong flexible element adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff of a ski boot. Applicant further argues that claim 1 does not recite an arbitrary flexible element that could hypothetically be removed and repurposed. However, claim 1 does not positively recite a ski boot or the tightening strap’s relationship with the ski boot. Frappier discloses an oblong flexible strap that includes an elastic member with auxetic behavior, as recited in claim 1. The strap of Frappier is capable of being wound in a loop around the cuff of a ski boot.
It is noted that the limitation "adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff" is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to perform and/or function. As Frappier discloses the structure as recited above, there would be reasonable expectation for the strap of Frappier to perform such function. It is well settled that it is possible for functional language to define structure, but that where no distinguishing structure has been defined, the limitation is not patentable and is fully met by the reference. See In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226. See also General Electric v. United States, 198 USPQ 73 which further reinforced the concept that functional language which defines no structure cannot distinguish over the prior art. Frappier discloses the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Applicant argues that Frappier’s toe strap includes a solid perimeter, and is not configured as a lengthwise-stretching elastic member. However, even if the perimeter of Frappier has limited stretch, the central auxetic structure still stretches lengthwise. The auxetic portion conforms locally to the three-dimensional toe region, and in doing so stretches both lengthwise and widthwise. Frappier explicitly discusses that the auxetic area is able to stretch lengthwise (paragraph 0034).
Frappier further discloses that “the toe strap 112 can be relatively flexible to stretch along the general plane of the toe strap 112” (paragraph 0039, lines 2-3), and “it is also possible for the straps 110, 112 to have no solid perimeter 138, 140, in which case the auxetic pattern can extend to the edge of the straps 110, 112” (paragraph 0039, lines 13-16). Therefore, Frappier explicitly discloses embodiments in which the entire strap is able to stretch lengthwise.
Applicant argues that Fougere’s strap depends on lengthwise stretching, and replacing the elastic band with Frappier’s solid-perimeter toe strap would undermine Fougere’s purpose. However, Frappier explicitly discloses that the strap may also be formed with no solid perimeter, with auxetic pattern extending to the edges of the straps (paragraph 0039, lines 13-16). Therefore, including the auxetic structure of Frappier within the elastic band of Fougere would not undermine its purpose and limit longitudinal stretch.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (571) 272-4888. 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights