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 with traverse of Species B (Figs. 9-13) in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no search burden exists as the species are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because the entire application contains a number of species that are patentably distinct from one another and including divergent claimed subject matter that separate the species, and such recognized divergent subject matter separating the species is a burden to examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 16-35 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 16-21 and 25-35.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12520909. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of US 12520909 includes all of the limitations in claim 21 in similar terms, except claim 1 of US 12520909 recites, “the plurality of constraint elements comprises a body and a tape secured to the body, the tape forming one or more eyelets for passage of the cord” while claim 21 of the instant application recites, “at least two of the constraint elements comprise one or more eyelets for passage of the cord and in that the eyelets for the cord are formed by at least one tape secured to the constraint element” and the scope of both limitations as the same as there are a plurality (two) of constraint elements and tape secured to two constraint elements to form one or more eyelets on each.
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 loosening means (claim 17, note this second portion is not shown in the elected embodiment), the second portion of the cord (claim 17, note this second portion is not shown in the elected embodiment) and the loosening means connected to the at least one second portion of the cord (claim 17), the passages for sliding the cord (claims 30 and 35) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the locking means (claim 16), the loosening means (claim 17), the pair of stop elements of the cord (claims 30 and 35), and the retractable side portions (claims 30 and 35) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). While each of these structures is pointed to in the drawings of the elected embodiment (Figs. 9-13), none of the these structures is shown with any detail to provide a proper understanding of what has been invented by Applicant.
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 following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification does not include the above sections headings (Each should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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: “locking device” in claims 26, 30, 32, and 35.
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
Claims 16, 19, 25-29, and 31-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
“the foot” in claim 16, line 2;
“the top instep area” in claim 16, line 5;
“the side/heel area” in claim 16, lines 5-6;
“the side areas” in claim 19, line 3;
“the free ends” in claim 25, line 2;
“the sliding” in claim 26, line 3;
“the free ends” in claim 27, line 2;
“the side area” in claim 28, line 2
“the inner side” in claim 29, line 2;
“the free ends” in claim 31, line 2;
“the sliding” in claim 32, line 3;
“the free ends” in claim 33, line 2;
“the inner side” in claim 34, line 2;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 17 (and claims 31-35 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 17 recites, “characterized by comprising loosening means connected to at least one second portion of the cord and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the at least one constraint element in loose condition.” Examiner notes “loosening means” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), and in claim 17, the loosening means is only claimed as part of the footwear, and not part of the tensioning means or locking means. In addition, the locking means, locking device, and loosening means of the elected embodiment are only described in the following paragraphs in the specification:
[0121] Further, in such second embodiment the locking means 24 comprise a locking device 43 designed to pass from an inoperative position (see figures 9 and 12) wherein the locking device 43 allows the sliding of the cord 14 there through and an operative position (see figures 10 and 11) wherein the locking device 43 prevents the sliding of the cord 14 there through.
[0122] In particular, the locking device 43 has two passages (not visible in the figures) for two sections of the cord 14 corresponding to the free ends thereof.
[0123] The operative position of the locking device 43 is defined by a pair of stop elements 45 placed at the respective sections of the cord 14; further, the user may move the locking device 43 in the operative position by pushing the retractable side portions 48 of the locking device 43 in order to free the passages for the sliding of the cord 14 and by making the locking device 43 slide along the cord 14 until it reaches the stop elements 45. In this second embodiment the loosening means 26 may be defined by the locking device 43 moved in the inoperative position and the first portion 15 of the cord 14 substantially coincides with the second portion 17 of the cord 14 described above with reference to the first embodiment.
Based on the specification, the locking means comprises a locking device and the locking device comprises the loosening means. However, the loosening means does not appear to be a structure, but is instead by a condition in which the locking device is moved in the inoperative position, but pushing the retractable side portion of the locking device to free the passages. Further, the loosening means is not shown in the drawings of the elected embodiment. The locking device is shown, however not with sufficient detail to determine what part of it can be the loosening means. Therefore the limitation fails to comply with the requirement for written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16-21, 25-27, 30-33, and 35 (and claims 28-29 and 34 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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.
An effort have been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, since the claims are replete with indefinite language, Examiner notes the below 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.
Claim 16 is indefinite as it recites, “at least one constraint element designed to be positioned at the top instep area or at the side/heel area of the foot of the user”. It is unclear as to the meaning of side/heel area as is unknown what the “/” represents. The limitation could mean the constraint element can be at the top instep area, at the side area, or at the heel area. Or the limitation could mean the constraint element can be at the top instep area or at a side of a heel area. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 16 is indefinite as it recites, “tensioning means connected to a first portion of the cord and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the cord into a tensioned condition in order to bring the at least one constraint element in the tightened condition; and - locking means for locking the cord in tensioned condition.” In addition, as the claim recites, “in tensioned condition”, it is unclear if “tensioned condition” is the same as “a tensioned condition” recited earlier in claim 16 or if it is a different condition.
Claim 17 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized by comprising loosening means connected to at least one second portion of the cord and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the at least one constraint element in loose condition.” Based on the specification, the locking means comprises a locking device and the locking device comprises the loosening means (see paras. 0121-0123), however, in claim 17. The loosening means is simply claimed as part of the footwear and not as part of the locking means and not even as part of the retention system. Therefore, it is unclear if the loosening means is a separate structure or if it part of the retention device and/or the locking means. Further, as neither the loosening means or the second portion of the cord is shown in the elected embodiment, it is unclear how the loosening means is connected to the cord or designed to be handled by the user. In addition, as the claim recite, “in loose condition”, it is unclear if “loose condition” is the same as “a loose condition” recited in claim 16 or if it is a different condition”.
Claim limitation “loosening means” in claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Since the loosening means is not shown or described in such a way as to reasonably apprise one of what structure is may or may not include, and is merely described as a function of the locking device, it is unclear as to what structure can be included or excluded by the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 18 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the retention system comprises a plurality of constraint elements which are at least partially movable there between for passing from the loose condition to the tightened condition and vice versa, the cord being slidably coupled to at least two of the constraint elements”. As claim 16 recites, “at least one constraint element”, it is unclear if “a plurality of constraint elements” is in addition to claim 16 or is further defining the at least one constraint element. Further, it is unclear if “at least two of the constraint elements” is referring to two of the plurality or are in addition to the plurality. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “characterized in that the at least one constraint element comprises a plurality of constraint elements which are at least partially movable there between for passing from the loose condition to the tightened condition and vice versa, the cord being slidably coupled to at least two of the constraint elements of the plurality of constraint elements”.
Claim 19 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the retention system comprises one constraint element designed to be positioned on the top instep of the foot of the user and two constraint elements designed to be positioned at the side/heel or at the side areas of the foot of the user.” It is unclear if “one constraint element” is part of or in addition to the plurality of the constraint elements or the at least two constraint elements. Further, it is unclear if the “two constraint elements” is part of or in addition to the plurality of constraint elements or the “at least two constraint elements”. Further “the side/heel” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear if it is referring to the side/heel “area” previously claimed or an additional area(s).
Claim 20 is indefinite as it recites, "the constraint elements are flexible elements and are made of a yielding or soft material”. It is unclear if “the constraint elements” is referring to the at least one constraint element, the plurality of the constraint elements, or the at least two constraint elements.
The term “soft” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore it is unclear what materials can be included or excluded by the claim.
Claim 21 is indefinite as it recites, “at least two of the constraint elements comprise one or more eyelets for the passage of the cord and in that the eyelets for the cord are formed by at least one tape secured to the constraint elements.” It is unclear if “at least two of the constraint elements” is referring to two of the plurality of constraint elements or the at least two of the constraint elements from claim 18. Further, it is unclear if “the eyelets” are referring to referring to the required one eyelet on each of the two or more constraint elements or is if it is now required that each of the two or more constraint elements has more than one eyelet. Further it is unclear if all the eyelets are formed by at least one tape that is secured to all the constraint elements or just the at least two constraint elements or if each eyelet is formed by at least one tape. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be referring to two of the plurality of the constraint elements, and has interpreted the limitation to be referring to the at least one eyelet being formed by a tape secured to a respective one of the at least two constraint elements.
Claim 25 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the tensioning means comprise a puller tab designed to be grasped by the user, the free ends of the cord being secured to the puller tab. As “comprise” is used instead of “comprises”, it is unclear if the tensioning means is singular or plural. In other words, are there more than one tensioning means required. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean there is a singular tensioning means and respectfully suggests amending to recite, “comprises”. Further, it is unclear as to what is meant by “free ends” since if they are secured to the puller tab, how can they be considered free. Examiner has interpreted the free ends to be referring to terminal ends.
Claim 26 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the locking means comprise a locking device designed to pass from an inoperative position wherein the locking device allows the sliding of the cord there through and an operative position wherein the locking device prevents the sliding of the cord there through.” As “comprise” is used instead of “comprises”, it is unclear if the locking means is singular or plural. In other words, are there more than one locking means required. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean there is a singular locking means and respectfully suggests amending to recite, “comprises”.
Claim 27 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the locking device has two passages for two sections of the cord corresponding to the free ends thereof.” First, it is unclear what structure “thereof” is referring to as it may be the locking device, the passages, the two sections, or the cord. Further, it is unclear as to what is meant by “free ends” since they are secured to the puller tab, and therefore they are not ends that are free. Examiner has interpreted the free ends to be referring to terminal ends. Finally, it is unclear what is meant by “two sections of the cord corresponding to the free ends” as it is unknown how to interpret the term “corresponding”. Does this mean that two sections of the cord are the free ends of the cord or are they near the free ends of the cord? Further, are the two sections corresponding to the free ends the same or different than the first portion where the tensioning means is located (see claim 16).
Claim 30 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the footwear comprises a pair of stop elements placed at the respective sections of the cord for defining the operative position of the locking device and in that the locking device comprises retractable side portions designed to be pushed by the user for moving the locking device in the operative position, freeing the passages for the sliding of the cord and making the locking device slide along the cord until the locking device reaches the stop elements.” First, “the respective sections” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear what is meant by “the respective sections” and if there is a pair of stop elements on each respective section or if there is a stop element on each respective section, and since it is further unclear are the stop elements are not shown with sufficient detail to make a determination. Further, “the passages” also lacks antecedent basis in the claims and as they are recited in a functional/intended use limitation, it is unclear if they are required by the claim. In addition, as there is no sufficient structure of the locking device, the retractable side portion, or the passages is shown, it is unclear how the retractable side portions are pushed for moving the device in the operative condition, how the retractable side portions are pushed to “free” the passages for sliding the cord, and what the passages are free of as no structure other than the ever present cords are shown or disclosed within the passages.
Claim 31 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the tensioning means comprise a puller tab designed to be grasped by the user, the free ends of the cord being secured to the puller tab. As “comprise” is used instead of “comprises”, it is unclear if the tensioning means is singular or plural. In other words, are there more than one tensioning means required. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean there is a singular tensioning means and respectfully suggests amending to recite, “comprises”. Further, it is unclear as to what is meant by “free ends” since if they are secured to the puller tab, how can they be considered free. Examiner has interpreted the free ends to be referring to terminal ends.
Claim 32 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the locking means comprise a locking device designed to pass from an inoperative position wherein the locking device allows the sliding of the cord there through and an operative position wherein the locking device prevents the sliding of the cord there through.” As “comprise” is used instead of “comprises”, it is unclear if the locking means is singular or plural. In other words, are there more than one locking means required. Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean there is a singular locking means and respectfully suggests amending to recite, “comprises”. However, claim 32 depends from claim 17 which recites, “characterized by comprising loosening means connected to at least one second portion of the cord and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the at least one constraint element in loose condition”. As disclosed in paras. 0121-0123, the loosening means is part of the locking device and it is unclear what the difference between the loosening means and the locking device is and what further structure is required by claim 32.
Claim 33 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the locking device has two passages for two sections of the cord corresponding to the free ends thereof.” First, it is unclear what structure “thereof” is referring to as it may be the locking device, the passages, the two sections, or the cord. Further, it is unclear as to what is meant by “free ends” since they are secured to the puller tab, and therefore they are not ends that are free. Examiner has interpreted the free ends to be referring to terminal ends. Finally, it is unclear what is meant by “two sections of the cord corresponding to the free ends” as it is unknown how to interpret the term “corresponding”. Does this mean that two sections of the cord are the free ends of the cord or are they near the free ends of the cord? Further, are the two sections corresponding to the free ends the same or different than the first portion where the tensioning means is located (see claim 16).
Claim 35 is indefinite as it recites, “characterized in that the footwear comprises a pair of stop elements placed at the respective sections of the cord for defining the operative position of the locking device and in that the locking device comprises retractable side portions designed to be pushed by the user for moving the locking device in the operative position, freeing the passages for the sliding of the cord and making the locking device slide along the cord until the locking device reaches the stop elements.” First, “the respective sections” lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear what is meant by “the respective sections” and if there is a pair of stop elements on each respective section or if there is a stop element on each respective section, and since it is further unclear are the stop elements are not shown with sufficient detail to make a determination. Further, “the passages” also lacks antecedent basis in the claims and as they are recited in a functional/intended use limitation, it is unclear if they are required by the claim. In addition, as there is no sufficient structure of the locking device, the retractable side portion, or the passages is shown, it is unclear how the retractable side portions are pushed for moving the device in the operative condition, how the retractable side portions are pushed to “free” the passages for sliding the cord, and what the passages are free of as no structure other than the ever present cords are shown or disclosed within the passages. Finally, as claim 35 depends from claims 17 and 32, it is further unclear what the difference between the loosening means and the locking device is since pushing the retractable side portions free the passages to slide the locking device. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean the locking means comprises a locking device and the locking device comprises loosening means and under 35 USC 112(f) the loosening means need to perform an equivalent function to the retractable side portions of the locking device.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16, 18-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Crumbleholme (US 2022/0110401).
Regarding claim 16, Crumbleholme discloses a footwear (10) with retention system (218/300/400), the footwear comprising an upper (200/250) delimiting an inner space for the foot of a user (cavity 204), wherein the retention system is positioned at least partially in the inner space of said upper (as the majority of the tensioning system is under 250 as can be seen in Fig. 1) and comprises:- at least one constraint element (218a-e and 220) designed to be positioned at the top instep area or at the side/heel area of the foot of the user (as can be seen in Figs. 1-3), the at least one constraint element being designed to pass from a loose condition to a tightened condition with respect to the foot of the user, and vice versa (disclosed in para. 0078); - a cord (302) slidably coupled to the at least one constraint element (as it extends through each end 226 and as the cord is movable, see para. 0048); - tensioning means (340; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and 340 of Crumbleholme is a functional equivalent to tensioning means 22/puller tab 41 of the instant application as it is capable of being pulled to create tension, as described in para. 0099 of Crumbleholme) connected to a first portion of the cord (314, see Fig. 4) and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the cord into a tensioned condition in order to bring the at least one constraint element in the tightened condition (see para. 0099); - locking means for locking the cord in tensioned condition (400; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the locking means 400 of Crumbleholme is a functional equivalent to locking means 24 of the instant application as it is capable of being keeping the cord in a locked and tensioned condition, see para. 0102 of Crumbleholme).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the footwear, there would be a reasonable expectation for the footwear to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Crumbleholme discloses the footwear characterized in that the retention system comprises a plurality of constraint elements (218a-e and 220) which are at least partially movable there between for passing from the loose condition to the tightened condition and vice versa (as disclosed in para. 0078), the cord being slidably coupled to at least two of the constraint elements (as understood from para. 0078-0080 the cord is at least slidable through each 218).
Regarding claim 19, Crumbleholme discloses the footwear characterized in that the retention system comprises one constraint element (such as constraint element 218b) designed to be positioned on the top instep (see Fig. 3) of the foot of the user and two constraint elements (218e and 218c) designed to be positioned at the side areas of the foot of the user (see Figs. 1 and 2b).
Regarding claim 21, Crumbleholme discloses the footwear characterized in that at least two of the constraint elements (any of 218) comprise one or more eyelets (228) for the passage of the cord (see para. 0079).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 16-20, 26-28, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 7428789) in view of Huber (US 2011/0067211).
Regarding claim 16, Holzer discloses footwear (1) with retention system (12), the footwear comprising an upper (16) delimiting an inner space for the foot of a user (as can be seen in Fig. 1, as inner sock-like structure 6 can be inserted into 16, 16 thus defines an inner space for the foot), wherein the retention system is positioned at least partially in the inner space of said upper (as seen in Fig. 2) and comprises: - at least one constraint element (each of the three parts 13) designed to be positioned at the top instep area or at the side/heel area of the foot of the user (as one is over the instep, one on the medial side of the foot and one on the lateral side of the foot, see Fig. 4), the at least one constraint element being designed to pass from a loose condition to a tightened condition with respect to the foot of the user, and vice versa (via 15, see col. 9, line 53- col. 10, line 10); - a cord (15) slidably coupled to the at least one constraint element (as 15 is inserted into lacing elements 31 of each constraint element 13 and can be pulled to tighten the constraint elements).
While the cord 15 can be tied to keep the retention system the tightened condition, Holzer does not expressly disclose tensioning means connected to a first portion of the cord and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the cord into a tensioned condition in order to bring the at least one constraint element in the tightened condition; and - locking means for locking the cord in tensioned condition.
Huber teaches a universal lace/cord lock system comprising tensioning means (108; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and 108 of Huber is a functional equivalent to pull tab 41 of the instant application as it is capable of being pulled to create tension, as described in para. 0026 of Huber) connected to a first portion of the cord (end portions of 106/107) and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the cord into a tensioned condition (see para. 0026); and - locking means for locking the cord in tensioned condition (locking means 101/102/103/105/105; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the locking means of Huber is a functional equivalent to locking means 24 of the instant application as it is capable of being keeping the cord in a locked and tensioned condition, see para. 0025 of Huber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the tensioning and locking means to the restraint system of Holzer, as taught by Huber, in order “to easily, rabidly, and effectively lock/unlock a lace in one single-handed swift motion” (see Abstract of Huber) and “to lock shoe laces quickly and securely without the necessity of tying them by hand” (see para. 0005 of Huber).
When used in combination, the tensioning means (108 of Huber) is designed to be handled by the user for bringing the cord into a tensioned condition (see para. 0026 of Huber) in order to bring the at least one constraint element (any of 13 of Holzer) in the tightened condition (as adding 108 of Huber to the ends of cord 15 of Holzer allow the user to pull on 108, thus adding tension to the cord which is attached to constraint elements 13 of Holzer, thus tightening the constraint elements).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the footwear, there would be a reasonable expectation for the footwear to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 17, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized by comprising loosening means (as best as can be interpreted by Examiner 103/104 represent the loosening means even though they are part of the locking means above as in the in instant application, the loosening means is part of the locking device, which is then in turn part of the locking means); Examiner notes loosening means has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and as 103/104 is capable to being be pressed/pushed together to loosen device by disengaging the teeth from the cord, as seen in para. 0029 and Fig. 1E, and is therefore at least functional equivalent to the unclear loosening means disclosed by Applicant in paras. 0121-0123) connected to at least one second portion of the cord (portion of cord withing locking means at any given time, connected via teeth) and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the at least one constraint element in loose condition (as 103/104 is capable to being be pressed/pushed together to loosen device by disengaging the teeth from the cord, as seen in para. 0029 and Fig. 1E).
Regarding claim 18, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the retention system comprises a plurality of constraint elements (each of 13) which are at least partially movable there between for passing from the loose condition to the tightened condition and vice versa (as each 13 is flexible, see col. 9 lines 20-53, and are only disclosed as connected to the outsole, then via the cord, each 13 can be brought closer together), the cord (15) being slidably coupled to at least two of the constraint elements (via eyelets 31, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the retention system (12) comprises one constraint element designed to be positioned on the top instep of the foot of the user (the 13 that is over the instep as seen in Fig. 3) and two constraint elements designed to be positioned at the side/heel or at the side areas of the foot of the user (13 on each of the lateral and medial side as seen in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the constraint elements (13) are flexible elements and are made of soft material (as they are disclosed as flexible and can be bend by hand or fingers, see col. 9,. lines 25-35, and can be fabric, see col. 15, lines 45-50, they are considered soft at least relative to another material).
Regarding claim 26, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the locking means (101/102/103/105/105 of Huber) comprise a locking device (as the means is a device; and as the locking device has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and as it has passages best seen in Fig. 1E and is capable of locking, it is at least a functional equivalent to the locking device 43 of the instant application as disclosed in para. 0121) designed to pass from an inoperative position wherein the locking device allows the sliding of the cord there through and an operative position wherein the locking device prevents the sliding of the cord there through (see paras. 0025-0029 of Huber).
Regarding claim 27, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the locking device (101/102/103/105/105 of Huber) has two passages (as seen in Fig. 1E of Huber, the structure is arranged such that there are two passages) for two sections of the cord corresponding to the free ends thereof (as seen in Fig. 1E of Huber).
Regarding claim 28, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the footwear comprises a zip (18) positioned in the side area (upper side, or as it may positioned slanted or asymmetrically, it would be on one of the lateral and medial sides, see col. 10,ones 60-65) of the upper (16) and designed to be closed once the retention system has been moved in the tightened condition (as it can be closed after the retention system is tightened).
Regarding claim 32, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the locking means (101/102/103/105/105 of Huber) comprise a locking device (as the means is a device and includes the loosening means; and as the locking device has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and as it has passages best seen in Fig. 1E and is capable of locking, it is at least a functional equivalent to the locking device 43 that includes the loosening means of the instant application as disclosed in para. 0121) designed to pass from an inoperative position wherein the locking device allows the sliding of the cord there through and an operative position wherein the locking device prevents the sliding of the cord there through (see paras. 0025-0029 of Huber).
Regarding claim 33, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the locking device (101/102/103/105/105 of Huber) has two passages (as seen in Fig. 1E of Huber, the structure is arranged such that there are two passages) for two sections of the cord corresponding to the free ends thereof (as seen in Fig. 1E of Huber).
Claim(s) 25 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Holzer and Huber, as applied to claims 16-17 above, and further in view of Yun (US 2022/0015509).
Regarding claim 25, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the tensioning means (108 of Huber) comprise a puller tool (as 108 is can be pulled) designed to be grasped by the user (see para. 0027 of Huber), the free ends of the cord being secured to the puller tool (as can be seen in Figs. 1A-1B of Huber), but does not expressly disclose the puller tool being a tab.
Yun teaches an easy lacing system for an article of footwear comprising tensioning means (72 with frictional coating 45; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and 72 of Yun, is a functional equivalent to pull tab 41 of the instant application as it is capable of being pulled to create tension, as described in para. 0043 of Yun) is a pull tab (as seen in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add make the puller tool of the modified footwear of Holzer to be a tab, as taught by Yun, in order to enhance the gripping characteristics of the cord for those with limited dexterity (see paras. 0046 and 0067 of Yun). Further, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 31, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses being characterized in that the tensioning means (108 of Huber) comprise a puller tool (as 108 is can be pulled) designed to be grasped by the user (see para. 0027 of Huber), the free ends of the cord being secured to the puller tool (as can be seen in Figs. 1A-1B of Huber), but does not expressly disclose the puller tool being a tab.
Yun teaches an easy lacing system for an article of footwear comprising tensioning means (72 with frictional coating 45; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and 72 of Yun, is a functional equivalent to pull tab 41 of the instant application as it is capable of being pulled to create tension, as described in para. 0043 of Yun) is a pull tab (as seen in Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add make the puller tool of the modified footwear of Holzer to be a tab, as taught by Yun, in order to enhance the gripping characteristics of the cord for those with limited dexterity (see paras. 0046 and 0067 of Yun). Further, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 29 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Holzer, Huber, and Yun, as applied to claims 16-17, 25 and 31 above, and further in view of Diemer (US 0654388).
Regarding claim 29, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses all the limitations of claims 16 and 25 above, but does not expressly disclose characterized in that the footwear comprises a pocket in the inner side of the upper and designed to house the puller tab once the user has pulled the puller tab and locked the cord in the tensioned condition.
Diemer teaches a lace tightening device on footwear characterized in that the footwear comprises a pocket in the inner side of the upper (see Fig. 1 and p. 1 lines 8-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pocket to the inner side of the upper of the modified footwear of Holzer, as taught by Diemer, in order “to provide… a convenient pocket on the inner side of the upper in which money, shoe-laces, and other articles of small bulk may be carried” (see p. 1, lines 8-17 of Diemer).
When used in combination, as the pocket is on the inner side of upper near the opening, the pocket is and designed to house the puller tab once the user has pulled the puller tab and locked the cord in the tensioned condition (as the pocket is in such a location that it is capable of housing the puller tab when in the tensioned condition).
Regarding claim 34, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses all the limitations of claims 16-17 and 31 above, but does not expressly disclose characterized in that the footwear comprises a pocket in the inner side of the upper and designed to house the puller tab once the user has pulled the puller tab and locked the cord in the tensioned condition.
Diemer teaches a lace tightening device on footwear characterized in that the footwear comprises a pocket in the inner side of the upper (see Fig. 1 and p. 1 lines 8-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a pocket to the inner side of the upper of the modified footwear of Holzer, as taught by Diemer, in order “to provide… a convenient pocket on the inner side of the upper in which money, shoe-laces, and other articles of small bulk may be carried” (see p. 1, lines 8-17 of Diemer).
When used in combination, as the pocket is on the inner side of upper near the opening, the pocket is and designed to house the puller tab once the user has pulled the puller tab and locked the cord in the tensioned condition (as the pocket is in such a location that it is capable of housing the puller tab when in the tensioned condition).
Claim(s) 30 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Holzer and Huber, as applied to claims 16-17, 26, and 32 above, and further in view of Yun.
Regarding claim 30, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses in that the locking device (101/102/103/105/105 of Huber) comprises retractable side portions (103 and 104) designed to be pushed by the user for moving the locking device in the operative position (as 103/104 is capable to being be pressed/pushed together to loosen device by disengaging the teeth from the cord, as seen in para. 0029 and Fig. 1E), freeing the passages (passages where the cord extends, see Fig. 1E) for the sliding of the cord and making the locking device slide along the cord (as understood from para. 0029), but does not expressly disclose comprising a pair of stop elements placed at the respective sections of the cord for defining the operative position of the locking device and configured for making the locking device slide along the cord until the locking device reaches the stop elements.
Yun teaches an easy lacing system for an article of footwear characterized in that the footwear comprises a pair of stop elements (65, see Fig. 8B) placed at the respective sections (see Fig. 8B) of the cord (42) for defining the operative position of the locking device (44) configured for making the locking device slide along the cord until the locking device reaches the stop elements (as the locking device is capable of sliding along the cord until it reaches the stop elements, see para. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add stop elements to the cord of the modified footwear of Holzer as taught by Yun in order to help a wearer understand the preferred positions of the locking device and as such “indicators may also be of use to parents, teachers, and other caregivers in order to quickly visually ascertain if the footwear is secured to the wearer's foot in the tightened position” (see para. 0078 of Yun).
Regarding claim 35, the modified footwear of Holzer discloses in that the locking device (101/102/103/105/105 of Huber) comprises retractable side portions (103 and 104; Examiner notes that as best as can be understood, the retractable side portions are the loosening means) designed to be pushed by the user for moving the locking device in the operative position (as 103/104 is capable to being be pressed/pushed together to loosen device by disengaging the teeth from the cord, as seen in para. 0029 and Fig. 1E), freeing the passages (passages where the cord extends, see Fig. 1E) for the sliding of the cord and making the locking device slide along the cord (as understood from para. 0029), but does not expressly disclose comprising a pair of stop elements placed at the respective sections of the cord for defining the operative position of the locking device and configured for making the locking device slide along the cord until the locking device reaches the stop elements.
Yun teaches an easy lacing system for an article of footwear characterized in that the footwear comprises a pair of stop elements (65, see Fig. 8B) placed at the respective sections (see Fig. 8B) of the cord (42) for defining the operative position of the locking device (44) configured for making the locking device slide along the cord until the locking device reaches the stop elements (as the locking device is capable of sliding along the cord until it reaches the stop elements, see para. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add stop elements to the cord of the modified footwear of Holzer as taught by Yun in order to help a wearer understand the preferred positions of the locking device and as such “indicators may also be of use to parents, teachers, and other caregivers in order to quickly visually ascertain if the footwear is secured to the wearer's foot in the tightened position” (see para. 0078 of Yun).
Claim(s) 16, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinndorf (US 2013/0276330) in view of Yun.
Regarding claim 16, Dinndorf discloses footwear (400, Fig. 7) with retention system (416), the footwear comprising an upper (412) delimiting an inner space for the foot of a user (see Fig. 7 and para. 0045), wherein the retention system is positioned at least partially in the inner space of said upper (as seen in Fig. 7, see para. 0045) and comprises: - at least one constraint element (at least two constraint elements 451 and 453) designed to be positioned at the top instep area or at the side/heel area of the foot of the user (as 451 is at the top instep area and parts of 453, such as 462 are at the side and heel areas of the foot, as shown in Fig. 7), the at least one constraint element being designed to pass from a loose condition to a tightened condition with respect to the foot of the user, and vice versa (via cord 456, see para. 0044); - a cord (456) slidably coupled to the at least one constraint element (through eyelets 460); - and locking means for locking the cord in tensioned condition (464; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the locking means of Dinndorf is a functional equivalent to locking means 24 of the instant application as it is capable of being keeping the cord in a locked and tensioned condition, see para. 0044 and 0047-0048 of Dinndorf where an example lock is illustrated).
Dinndorf does not expressly discloses tensioning means connected to a first portion of the cord and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the cord into a tensioned condition in order to bring the at least one constraint element in the tightened condition.
Yun teaches an easy lacing system for an article of footwear comprising tensioning means (72 with frictional coating 45; Examiner notes this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and 72 of Yun) is a functional equivalent to pull tab 41 of the instant application as it is capable of being pulled to create tension, as described in para. 0043 of Yun) connected to a first portion of the cord (end portion of 42, see Figs. 1) and designed to be handled by the user for bringing the cord into a tensioned condition in order to bring the at least one constraint element (such as 76) in the tightened condition (see paras. 0041-0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a tensioning means to the restraint system of Dinndorf, as taught by Yun, in order to enhancing the gripping characteristics of the cord for those with limited dexterity (see paras. 0046 and 0067 of Yun).
Regarding claim 18, the modified footwear of Dinndorf discloses being characterized in that the retention system comprises a plurality of constraint elements (451 and 453) which are at least partially movable there between (as disclosed in paras. 0007-0009, as the instep member, which includes 451 and 453 can be tighten against the instep, then they are at least partially movable relative to each other so that they become closer thus tightening around the foot) for passing from the loose condition to the tightened condition and vice versa (via cord 456, see para. 0044), the cord being slidably coupled to at least two of the constraint elements (via eyelets 460/462).
Regarding claim 21, the modified footwear of Dinndorf discloses being characterized in that at least two of the constraint elements (451 and 453) comprise one or more eyelets (460, 462) for the passage of the cord (456) and in that the eyelets for the cord are formed by at least one tape secured to the constraint element (as can be seen in Fig. 7, 460 and 462 are secured to 451 and 453 respectively).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Singh (US 2022/0279898) and Hopkins (US 11589653) each teaches a retention system on footwear with tensioning and locking means; and Andereasen (US 2021/0235819) teaches a retention system with tension, loosening, and locking means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights