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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in fig. 3 of Ostby “As shown above, and when the ski (or "runner") of Ostby is elevated, from the first position shown above, the wheels "are below the runners and lift the same from the ground” (Col. 1, Lines 38-39 of Ostby). However, the spindle is now moved substantially ground forward such that its axis is closer to the vertical line of the axis of the front wheel. This is contrary to the present invention.”.
In response, Examiner notes that applicant’s claim requires structurally from amended claim 1: “a snow vehicle ski comprising … a bottom surface (48) … a portion of each one of the pair of in-line wheels (52, 54) extends below the bottom surface … a vertical line drawn downwardly from the central axis of the spindle (24) provides a reference point for setting the distances from the vertical lines drawn downwardly from the central axis of the front wheel (fig. 4) and from the central axis of the rear wheel (fig. 4); and wherein the distance between the central axis line of the front wheel (52) and the central axis of the vertical line of the spindle (24) is greater than the distance between the central axis line of the rear wheel (54) and the central axis of the vertical line of the spindle.” (Figs. 2 and 4 show the applicable structure.) As shown in Ostby (fig. 1), and agreed to by Applicant, Ostby teaches “a snow vehicle ski comprising … a bottom surface (seen in fig. 1) … a portion of each one of the pair of in-line wheels (front 13, rear 13) extends below the bottom surface … a vertical line drawn downwardly from the central axis of the spindle (25; seen in annotated fig. 1 below) provides a reference point for setting the distances from the vertical lines drawn downwardly from the central axis of the front wheel (front 13) and from the central axis of the rear wheel (rear 13) (structure seen in annotated fig. 1 below); and wherein the distance between the central axis line of the front wheel (front 13) and the central axis of the vertical line of the spindle (24) is greater than the distance between the central axis line of the rear wheel (54) and the central axis of the vertical line of the spindle.” (Seen in annotated fig. 1, below.) The fact that Ostby teaches of multiple positions for the wheels is irrelevant. Ostby teaches the limitations that are claimed in the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
356
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/08/2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spindle" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robillard (US 10,059,362), as cited by Applicant, in view of Ostby (US 2,468,271).
With respect to claim 1, Robillard discloses a snow vehicle ski comprising: a leading end portion (fig. 2; front portion of 150); a medial portion (fig. 2; middle portion of 150); a trailing end portion (fig. 2; end portion of 150); a top surface (fig. 2; top of 188); a bottom surface (fig. 2; bottom of 150): a spindle support (area of 188 where 190 is located; see fig. 2, col. 8, lines 58-67, col. 9 lines 1-14) extending upwardly from the top surface (fig. 2) and disposed at the medial portion of the ski (fig. 2); a spindle pivot point (128), the spindle pivot point (128) comprising an axis (fig. 2, col. 6, lines 28-40); a pair of in-line wheels (110, 112); wherein a portion of each one of the pair of in-line wheels (110, 112) extends below the bottom surface (fig. 2); wherein the pair of in-line wheels (110, 112) comprises a front wheel (110) and a rear wheel (112); wherein the front wheel (110) comprises an axis (fig. 6); wherein the rear wheel (112) comprises an axis (fig. 6); wherein a vertical line drawn downwardly from the central axis of the spindle (126) provides a reference point for setting the distances from the vertical lines drawn downwardly from the central axis of the front wheel (110) and from the central axis of the rear wheel (112). (Figs. 1-28, col. 4, lines 27-67, cols. 5-19.) Robillard is silent regarding the front and rear wheels at different distances from the axis of the spindle. Ostby teaches of the forwardly disposed front wheel (front 13; fig. 1) comprises an axis and the rearwardly disposed rear wheel (rear 13; fig. 1) comprises an axis; wherein a vertical line drawn downwardly from the central axis of the spindle (25) provides a reference point for setting the distances from the vertical lines drawn downwardly from the central axis of the front wheel (annotated fig. 1, above) and from the central axis of the rear wheel (annotated fig. 1, above); and wherein the distance between the central axis line of the front wheel (annotated fig. 1, above) and the central axis of the vertical line of the spindle (annotated fig. 1, above) is greater than the distance between the central axis line of the rear wheel (annotated fig. 1, above) and the central axis of the vertical line of the spindle (25) (annotated fig. 1, above). (Figs. 1-4, cols. 1-2.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Ostby into the invention of Robillard, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to hold the wheels in operative positions. (Col. 1, lines 38-44.)
With respect to claim 3, Robillard, as modified, discloses each of the pair of in-line wheels (110, 112) comprises a hard structure that is highly resistant to impact damage (col. 8, lines 35-57). (Figs. 1-28, col. 4, lines 27-67, cols. 5-19.) In addition, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a hard structure that is highly resistant to impact damage, 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614