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 without traverse of species XI (Shoe as shown in figures 32-33) in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-6 and 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/2026.
To the extent that the withdrawn claims get rejoined, applicant should amend them during prosecution. Accordingly, if the independent claim is no longer generic then applicant is encourage to cancel the withdrawn claims.
Drawings
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 woven perforations arranged in rows and columns (claim 7), braided strips or braided wires (claims 17), a first woven area different from a second woven area (claim 18), and perforations in a first woven area larger than the perforations in the second woven area (claim 19) 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: In claim 7, support for the terminology (i.e. rows and columns) is lacking support and antecedent basis for this terminology. The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. Glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP § 608.01(o) and MPEP § 2181, subsection IV. Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15-16 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 15, applicant refers to a “fourth upper” which is unclear and indefinite inasmuch as the upper (an upper) has already been recited in claim 1. Therefore, there is a double recitation of the upper (102 – per the elected embodiment) but two uppers claimed. the phrase “a fourth upper” is unclear and indefinite inasmuch as this language would suggest there are at least four uppers which is inaccurate.
In claim 15, the phrases “the at least one woven strap comprises one woven strap” and “the at least one buckle comprises one pin buckle” is unclear and indefinite since it is not clear how this language further limits the claim.
In claim 15, the phrase “a fourth connection strap” is unclear and indefinite inasmuch as this language would suggest there are at least four connection strap which is inaccurate.
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 1,7,15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0115793 (Kraisosky) in view of US 2781062 (White).
Regarding claims 1,7 and 15-17, Kraisosky discloses a shoe (12) with an adjustable upper structure, wherein the shoe comprises a sole (14), an adjustable structure and an upper (16,18,20,22,24 and buckle with pin shown), the upper is arranged on the sole, the adjustable structure comprises at least one pin buckle (see pin buckle and an adjustable strap (24) having holes (i.e. buckle and pin which interlocks with holes in the adjustable strap - see figures 1-3 and 9) and strap (24).
Kraisosky lacks teaching the strap being at least one woven strap of a mesh structure, and a plurality of woven perforations are distributed in the woven strap; each of the at least one woven strap is detachably connected with the respective pin buckle in such a manner that a pin of the respective pin buckle is capable of passing through one of the plurality of woven perforations of the woven strap when the woven strap is passed through the buckle of the respective pin buckle; and the pin of each of the at least one pin buckle is capable of being inserted into a different one of the plurality of woven perforations of a respective woven strap to adjust tightness of the upper.
White teaches a belt or strap (10) made out of braided strips or wires (18, 20, 22, 24) forming a woven or meshed structure as shown in the figures wherein a plurality of woven perforations (holes) are formed between the weave of wires (see col. 3, lines 53-57) so the pin (tongue 16) be inserted in any location along the belt or strap. 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 shoe as taught by Kraisosky, to form the strap out of braided strips or wires forming a woven or meshed structure as shown in the figures wherein a plurality of woven perforations (holes) are formed between the weave of wires, as taught by White, so the pin can be inserted in any location along the strap and to provide ventilating through the perforations in the strap.
Regarding claim 7, the woven structure of wire/strips as noted above form perforations in rows and columns as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, as understood, see the rejection above inasmuch as the limitations in claim 15 appear to be a double recitation of all the elements defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, see figure 1 show the strap connected to a topline defined by the fourth upper (22).
Regarding claim 17, the shoe as taught by the combination above fails to teach the woven strap made out of one of the material listed and having spacing between the perforations of 0.5-1mm and the perforations size of 0.5-3mm.
White teaches the wires are plastic coated; at least see col. 3, lines 58-72. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the plastic coated braided strips/wires of the shoe as taught above out of at least one of nylon or polyester or yarn materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The claimed material merely amounts to a matter of engineering design choice and thus does not serve to patentable distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. This view is buttressed by applicant's disclosure which does not reveal that the use of the specific material solves any particular problem and/or yields any unexpected results. With regard to the dimensions, it would appear to be an obvious design choice to construct the spacing between the perforations and the perforations sized as defined in claim 17 inasmuch as a number of sized would appear to be suitable depending on the individual wearer and the type of material. Generally, it is considered to have been obvious to develop workable or even optimum ranges for such variables. For example, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since the applicant has not demonstrated or even alleged that these specifically claimed parameters for the size of the spacing and the size of the perforations, it is our concluded that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to determine a workable or even optimum parameters for the spacings and perforations and thereby arrive at the specific values within the range as claimed by the applicant.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 1 above which teaches all of the limitations recited in claim 1.
Claim(s) 18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 101810606 (Jung). See English Translation of ‘606 (12 pages).
Jung teaches a shoe upper made of woven material forming various forms (e.g. shapes and sizes of air holes to provide proper ventilation in the shoe; e.g. see the abstract; figures 1,2,5 and 7; vent holes 30a,30b,30c,30d in figure 5; page 2, last four paragraphs; page 4, the last paragraph; page 5, the first paragraph and page 7, the last paragraph.
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 shoe as taught by the combination above with the vent perforations having different areas with perforations of different sizes (e.g. larger and smaller perforations), as taught by Jung, to provide different degrees of ventilation in different areas of the shoe.
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.
Some examples of other prior art:
PNG
media_image1.png
600
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights