DETAILED ACTION
In the reply filed 1/9/2026, claims 32, 34, 35, 53 and 57 are amended, and new claim 58 is added. Claims 32-35 and 38-58 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 52 is objected to because of the following informalities:
A claim identifier is missing for claim 52. It is believed the claim should have been indicated “original” because no amendments are apparent in the claim. Applicant is reminded to use the correct status identifiers. Failure to do so may result in a Notice of Non-Compliant amendment; see MPEP 714.
In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 48-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 48 recites: “wherein a front quarter of the blade holder and a rear quarter of the blade holder are free of inter-pillar structure limiting a widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting blade when the skater skates.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “blade-supporting blade”. Does the “blade-supporting blade” imply the blade is self-supporting?
Claims 49-52 also require the “blade-supporting blade”, and are indefinite for similar reasons as claim 48.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 32-34, 41-58 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Chenevert (EP 1 013 314 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Chenevert teaches:
a blade holder (including at least element 21) for holding a blade (30) of an ice skate, the ice skate comprising a skate boot (18) for receiving a foot of a skater, the blade holder comprising:
a front pillar (22);
a rear pillar (24) spaced from the front pillar in a longitudinal direction of the blade holder; and
an elongated blade-supporting base (26) for supporting the blade between the front pillar and the rear pillar;
wherein: the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to support the skate boot and transmit forces exerted when the skater skates; and the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to allow a controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates (see at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033 and 0035]).
Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 1. Deflection of the elongated blade-supporting base (26) is shown in Fig. 7.
Chenevert describes material properties, including resilience and deflection in paragraphs [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033 and 0035]. While vertical deflection is specifically shown in Fig. 7, those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the blade holder from Chenevert, given the described material properties, would also be capable of controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder. During turning maneuvers, the blade holder would experience lateral forces. These lateral forces would result in the flexion as claimed. See especially [0033]: “Runner holder 20 provides an energy distribution during the power stroke that is advantageous to the skater. In a turning maneuver, pressure is applied to runner holder 20 in the same manner. A deflection of runner holder 20 occurs which partially absorbs or stores the energy of the turn providing a smooth transfer of forces between boot 18 and the ice surface.” Additionally, Chenevert describes the blade holder being made from plastic, which is known to deform in response to, and in the direction of, applied forces. Those having ordinary skill in the art would, upon review of the disclosure from Chenevert, understand that the flexible nature of the blade holder facilities flexing in more than just the vertical direction.
Should it be found that Chenevert fails to teach the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to allow a controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade holder from Chenevert such that the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to allow a controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates, as claimed. Such a modification may require only minor alterations in the material and/or shape of the blade holder.
Chenevert does express that the blade holder (21) has a relatively low modulus of elasticity, and that the blade holder is deflectable; see [0023, 0033 and 0035]. The distance of displacement permitted is facilitated by material of the blade holder, the shape of the blade holder, and the force applied to displace the blade holder.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade holder with a shape that facilitates the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to allow a controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would require a mere change in shape of a prior art device. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the blade holder made from a material that facilitates the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to allow a controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification is an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. 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. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
The skate taught by Chenevert, upon being modified as expressed above, would be sufficient for carrying out its intended purpose. Paragraphs [0029-0030] do not imply a requirement of absolute rigidity along the longitudinal axis. Rather, Chenevert suggests that there must be enough rigidity “to ensure stability and high performance of the skate”. The skate is similarly rigid in the vertical direction, even though compression and resilience in the vertical direction are described. Too much flexion and low rigidity would yield breaking and injuries. Rigidity that allows some flexion provides smooth transmission of forces and impact absorption. This quality is not only desirable for forces in the vertical direction, but also widthwise, as forces in both of directions are experienced during regular use of the skate.
Regarding claim 33, Chenevert further teaches: wherein each of the front pillar and the rear pillar is configured to elastically rotationally deform when the skater skates. See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033, and 0035]. The physical shape of the blade holder and the materials from which it is made would cause the blade holder would react this way under skating forces. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the material and shape of the pillars taught by Chenevert would permit at least a limited amount of elastic rotational deformation under high forces.
Regarding claim 34, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the elongated blade-supporting base is configured to elastically flex in the widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates. The elongated blade-supporting base is configured to flex as claimed at least due to the elasticity of the material and shape of the base. See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033, and 0035].
Regarding claim 41, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the elongated blade-supporting base is configured to allow the blade to flex when the skater skates. The elongated blade-supporting base is configured to flex as claimed at least due to the elasticity of the material and shape of the base. See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033, and 0035] and Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 42, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the blade holder is configured to impart a curvature to the blade when the skater skates. See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033, and 0035].
Regarding claim 43, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the blade holder is configured to kickback in the widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates. The elongated blade-supporting base is configured to kickback as claimed at least due to the elasticity of the material and shape of the base. See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033, and 0035].
Regarding claim 44, Chenevert further teaches: the blade holder comprises a central portion (29) longitudinally between the front pillar and the rear pillar; and the central portion is configured to compress such that a height of the blade holder at the central portion is reduced when the skater skates. See Fig. 1 and [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033, and 0035].
Regarding claim 45, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the blade holder is configured to kickback in the height direction of the blade holder when the skater skates. See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033, and 0035].
Regarding claim 46, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the blade holder comprises an upper structure (34, 35, or alternatively, 62) for facing the skate boot, the upper structure comprises a front portion and a rear portion; the front pillar extends towards the front portion of the upper structure and the rear pillar extends towards the rear portion of the upper structure. See Figs. 7, 8.
Regarding claim 47, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the upper structure comprises a central portion between the front portion and the rear portion. See Fig. 7, where a portion of element 62 extends between the front and rear portions.
Regarding claim 48, Chenevert further teaches: wherein a front quarter of the blade holder and a rear quarter of the blade holder are free of inter-pillar structure limiting a widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting blade when the skater skates. See at least Fig. 1 and [0035].
It is noted that Applicant presents a special definition for inter-pillar structure substantially limiting a widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base while the skater skates (see [0122]):
any structure
(i) between the front and rear pillars 1561, 1562,
(ii) extending downwardly to and secured at the elongated blade-supporting base 157,
(iii) having a material composition corresponding to that of (i.e., made of a same material or combination of materials as) a given one of the front and rear pillars 1561, 1562, and
(iv) reducing the widthwise deflection of the elongated blade-supporting base 157 in response to a given load by at least 10%.
Regarding claim 49, Chenevert further teaches: wherein a front third of the blade holder and a rear third of the blade holder are free of inter-pillar structure limiting a widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting blade when the skater skates. See at least Fig. 1 and [0035]. See also the special definition discussed above.
Regarding claim 50, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the blade holder is free of inter-pillar structure limiting a widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting blade when the skater skates between the front pillar and the rear pillar. See at least Fig. 1 and [0035].
Regarding claim 51, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the blade holder is free of inter-pillar structure extending to the elongated blade-supporting blade between the front pillar and the rear pillar. See at least Fig. 1 and [0035].
Regarding claim 52, Chenevert further teaches: the blade holder comprises an inter-pillar structure (29) extending downwardly to and secured at the elongated blade-supporting base; and the inter-pillar structure is configured to allow the widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base without limiting the widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base. See at least Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 53, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the front pillar, the rear pillar and the elongated blade-supporting base form a U-shaped member. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 54, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the U-shaped member is an outer U-shaped member, and the blade holder comprises an inner U-shaped member (29). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 55, Chenevert further teaches: an ice skate comprising the blade holder of claim 32. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 56, Chenevert teaches: a blade holder (21) for holding a blade (30) of an ice skate, the ice skate comprising a skate boot (18) for receiving a foot of a skater, the blade holder comprising:
a front pillar (22);
a rear pillar (24) spaced from the front pillar in a longitudinal direction of the blade holder; and
an elongated blade-supporting base (26) for supporting the blade between the front pillar and the rear pillar;
wherein: the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to support the skate boot and transmit forces exerted when the skater skates; each of the front pillar and the rear pillar is configured to elastically rotationally deform when the skater skates; and the elongated blade-supporting base is configured to elastically flex in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates.
The physical shape of the blade holder and the materials from which it is made would cause the blade holder would react this way under skating forces. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the material and shape of the pillars taught by Chenevert would permit at least a limited amount of elastic rotational deformation under high forces. The elongated blade-supporting base is configured to flex as claimed at least due to the elasticity of the material and shape of the base.
See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033 and 0035].
Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 57, Chenevert teaches:
a blade holder (21) for holding a blade (30) of an ice skate, the ice skate comprising a skate boot (18) for receiving a foot of a skater, the blade holder comprising:
a front pillar (22);
a rear pillar (24) spaced from the front pillar in a longitudinal direction of the blade holder; and
an elongated blade-supporting base (26) for supporting the blade between the front pillar and the rear pillar;
wherein: the front pillar and the rear pillar are configured to support the skate boot and transmit forces exerted when the skater skates; and the blade holder is configured to impart a curvature to the blade in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates.
See at least [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033 and 0035]. Relevant elements are best shown in Fig. 1.
The claims have been interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation. The claimed phrase “impart a curvature” does not require flexibility. See the art recognized definition of “impart” from the Cambridge Dictionary: “to communicate information to someone” or “to give something a particular feeling, quality, or taste” (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/impart).
For the purpose of addressing new claim 58 (which depends from claim 54), an alternative rejection of claim 54 is presented:
Regarding claim 54, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the U-shaped member is an outer U-shaped member, and the blade holder comprises an inner U-shaped member (see the U-shaped members formed by adjacent projections 34, shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 58, Chenevert further teaches: wherein the outer U-shaped member is spaced from the inner U-shaped member in a vertical direction of the blade holder. The spacing is best shown in Figs. 3D, E.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The statute which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action is expressed above.
Claims 35, 38-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chenevert, as relied upon above, alone.
Regarding claim 35, Chenevert is silent regarding specific displacements of the blade holder. As such, Chenevert fails to teach: wherein a displacement of the elongated blade-supporting base in the widthwise direction of the blade holder at a longitudinal midpoint of the blade holder is at least 2 mm when a lateral force of at least 500 N is applied in a middle of the blade holder.
However, Chenevert does express that the blade holder (21) has a relatively low modulus of elasticity, and that the blade holder is deflectable; see [0023, 0033 and 0035]. The distance of displacement permitted is facilitated by material of the blade holder, the shape of the blade holder, and the force applied to displace the blade holder.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade holder with a shape that facilitates a displacement of the elongated blade-supporting base in the widthwise direction of the blade holder at a longitudinal midpoint of the blade holder is at least 2 mm when a lateral force of at least 500 N is applied in a middle of the blade holder; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would require a mere change in shape of a prior art device. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the blade holder made from a material that facilitates a displacement of the elongated blade-supporting base in the widthwise direction of the blade holder at a longitudinal midpoint of the blade holder is at least 2 mm when a lateral force of at least 500 N is applied in a middle of the blade holder; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification is an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. 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. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Regarding claim 38, Chenevert is silent regarding specific displacements of the blade holder. As such, Chenevert fails to teach: wherein a ratio of: (i) a displacement of the elongated blade-supporting base in the widthwise direction of the blade holder at a longitudinal midpoint of the blade holder over (ii) a lateral force applied in a middle of the blade holder is at least 1/250 mm/N.
However, Chenevert does express that the blade holder (21) has a relatively low modulus of elasticity, and that the blade holder is deflectable; see [0023, 0033 and 0035]. The distance of displacement permitted is facilitated by material of the blade holder, the shape of the blade holder, and the force applied to displace the blade holder.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade holder with a shape that facilitates the claimed ratio; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would require a mere change in shape of a prior art device. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the blade holder made from a material that facilitates the claimed ratio; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification is an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. 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. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Regarding claim 39, Chenevert is silent regarding specific displacements of the blade holder. As such, Chenevert fails to teach: wherein a ratio of: (i) a displacement of the elongated blade-supporting base in the widthwise direction of the blade holder at a longitudinal midpoint of the blade holder over (ii) a lateral force applied in a middle of the blade holder is at least 1/175mm/N.
However, Chenevert does express that the blade holder (21) has a relatively low modulus of elasticity, and that the blade holder is deflectable; see [0023, 0033 and 0035]. The distance of displacement permitted is facilitated by material of the blade holder, the shape of the blade holder, and the force applied to displace the blade holder.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade holder with a shape that facilitates the claimed ratio; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would require a mere change in shape of a prior art device. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the blade holder made from a material that facilitates the claimed ratio; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification is an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. 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. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Regarding claim 40, Chenevert is silent regarding specific displacements of the blade holder. As such, Chenevert fails to teach: wherein a ratio of: (i) a displacement of the elongated blade-supporting base in the widthwise direction of the blade holder at a longitudinal midpoint of the blade holder over (ii) a lateral force applied in a middle of the blade holder is at least 1/100mm/N.
However, Chenevert does express that the blade holder (21) has a relatively low modulus of elasticity, and that the blade holder is deflectable; see [0023, 0033 and 0035]. The distance of displacement permitted is facilitated by material of the blade holder, the shape of the blade holder, and the force applied to displace the blade holder.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade holder with a shape that facilitates the claimed ratio; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification would be obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of design choice, yielding the same predictable results, since such a modification would require a mere change in shape of a prior art device. A change in shape is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47.
Additionally/alternatively, those having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide the blade holder made from a material that facilitates the claimed ratio; the motivation being: for impact absorption and for optimizing the area of the blade which contacts the ice. Such a modification is an obvious design choice, yielding the same predictable results, as such a modification would require a mere change in materials. 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. Also, it is common knowledge to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose a material that has sufficient strength for the intended use of the material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner agrees that the claims, as amended, overcome the previously-applied rejections for indefiniteness.
Applicant's arguments regarding the previously applied prior art rejections have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant points to the longitudinal rigidity of the frame 21 from Chenevert, citing paragraphs [0029-0030]:
“[0029] Along longitudinal axis 100, the tubular structure of bridge portion 26 increases the longitudinal rigidity of frame 21 and prevents torsion of bridge portion 26 and twisting motion between front and rear pedestals 22 and 24. This provides the required rigidity along longitudinal axis 100 to ensure stability and high performance for the ice skate 19.
[0030] The tubular structure of bridge portion 26 combined with reinforcement members 29 creates a runner holder 20 having smooth delivery of forces to the ice surface, impact absorption means and high longitudinal rigidity.”
Applicant states: “Chenevert indicates in paragraph [0030] that the tubular structure of bridge portion 26 combined with reinforcement members 29 creates a runner holder 20 having high longitudinal rigidity [0030]. High longitudinal rigidity of the bridge portion 26 hinders elastic flexing in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates.”
As stated above, Chenevert suggests controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates. Deflection of the elongated blade-supporting base (26) is shown in Fig. 7. Chenevert describes material properties, including resilience and deflection in paragraphs [0023, 0025, 0028, 0033 and 0035]. While vertical deflection is specifically shown in Fig. 7, those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the blade holder from Chenevert, given the described material properties, would also be capable of controlled flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base in a widthwise direction of the blade holder. During turning maneuvers, the blade holder would experience lateral forces. These lateral forces would result in the flexion as claimed. See especially [0033]: “Runner holder 20 provides an energy distribution during the power stroke that is advantageous to the skater. In a turning maneuver, pressure is applied to runner holder 20 in the same manner. A deflection of runner holder 20 occurs which partially absorbs or stores the energy of the turn providing a smooth transfer of forces between boot 18 and the ice surface.” Additionally, Chenevert describes the blade holder being made from plastic, which is known to deform in response to, and in the direction of, applied forces. As such, a strong lateral force applied to a side of the blade-supporting base would yield flexion. Those having ordinary skill in the art would, upon review of the disclosure from Chenevert, understand that the flexible nature of the blade holder facilities flexing in more than just the vertical direction.
Paragraphs [0029-0030] do not imply a requirement of absolute rigidity along the longitudinal axis. Rather, Chenevert suggests that there must be enough rigidity “to ensure stability and high performance of the skate”. The skate is similarly rigid in the vertical direction, even though compression and resilience in the vertical direction are described. Too much flexion and low rigidity would yield breaking and injuries. Rigidity that allows some flexion provides smooth transmission of forces and impact absorption. This quality is not only desirable for forces in the vertical direction, but also widthwise, as forces in both of directions are experienced during regular use of the skate.
Regarding claim 57, Applicant asserts that Chenevert does not teach the blade holder is configured to impart a curvature to the blade in a widthwise direction of the blade holder when the skater skates, as claimed. As expressed above, the claims have been interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation. The claimed phrase “impart a curvature” does not require flexibility.
Regarding claims 46, 47, Applicant asserts element 62 is not a component of the runner holder. The fact that Applicant has recognized a different grouping of components does not prevent Chenevert from reading on the claim. There is not necessity that the blade holder elements should be restricted to only components of element 20. The claims do not describe the upper structure in a way that distinguishes over the element 62 from Chenevert.
Regarding claims 50, 51, Applicant asserts that the presence of elements 26 and 29 prevent Chenevert from reading on the limitation “wherein the blade holder is free of inter-pillar structure limiting a widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting blade when the skater skates between the front pillar and the rear pillar.”
It is noted that Applicant presents a special definition for inter-pillar structure substantially limiting a widthwise flexion of the elongated blade-supporting base while the skater skates (see [0122]):
any structure
(i) between the front and rear pillars 1561, 1562,
(ii) extending downwardly to and secured at the elongated blade-supporting base 157,
(iii) having a material composition corresponding to that of (i.e., made of a same material or combination of materials as) a given one of the front and rear pillars 1561, 1562, and
(iv) reducing the widthwise deflection of the elongated blade-supporting base 157 in response to a given load by at least 10%.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because neither element 26 or 29 meet each of these criteria, provided in Applicant’s own definition. Arguments presented with regard to claim 52 are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Applicant presents remarks regarding new claim 58. An explanation of how Chenevert reads on the new claim is provided in the discussion above.
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 EMMA K FRICK whose telephone number is (571)270-5403. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M, T, F.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4324. 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.
/EMMA K FRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613