DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 17-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Xianxin (US D885 496).
Xianxin clearly discloses curved bodies defining an arcuate path with a predetermined radius of curvature and with at least five holes disposed to receive fasteners at predetermined angles of rotation (e.g. Figs 1 and 3, forming the “trunk” and “head”), the pairs mirrored about an axis of rotation (centerline) and two of the pairs having different sizes (e.g. the “trunks” contain two differently sized curved bodies), with the holes at “substantially” 17 degrees (six holes equally spaced between 0 and 90 degrees, rendering an angle of approximately 18 degrees, which is “substantially” 17 per the level of tolerance in afforded by the applicant’s disclosure).
Note: the sports equipment is intended use, and thus not afforded patentable weight.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Osborn (US 2 954 236).
Osborn clearly discloses a pair of curved bodies (14) defining an arcuate path with a predetermined radius of curvature and with holes (20) disposed to receive fasteners at predetermined angles of rotation (as seen in Fig 2) and mirrored about an axis of rotation (Fig 2).
Note: the aquatic sports equipment is intended use, and thus not afforded patentable weight.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hennen (DE 20 2019 003 534).
Regarding independent claims 8, and claims 9 and 10:
Hennen discloses a pair of curved bodies (28; generally rounded shape) with holes (6) at predetermined angles of rotation (as seen in Fig 2) and mirrored about an axis of rotation (opposing sides of strap).
Regarding claim 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 8 is relied upon.
Hennen discloses a plurality of pairs of bodies (multiple straps 5, with two bodies per).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Bregmann, Jr. (US 2012/0025490).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 17, and claims 2-5, and 18-21:
Van Bregmann, Jr. discloses curved bodies (20; one for each foot) with holes (60) extending along an arcuate path defining a predetermined radius of curvature and at predetermined angles of rotation (as seen in Fig 8), with a separation between two of the holes of 12 degrees (4 degrees of separation between holes, so the third hole away would be at 12 degrees), and “substantially” at 17 degrees (fourth hole at “approximately” 16 degrees, which is “substantially” 17 per the level of tolerance in afforded by the applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Van Bregmann, Jr. disclose five apertures (any five holes 60).
Regarding independent claim 8, and claims 9-12:
The discussion above regarding claims 1-3 and 17-19 is relied upon.
Van Bregmann, Jr. discloses a pair of bodies mirrored about an axis of rotation (transverse axis of the board, Fig 1).
Claim(s) 8-10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peyre (EP 0 346 509).
Regarding independent claim 8, and claims 9 and 10:
Peyre discloses a pair of curved bodies (21; having a rounded shape) with holes (for 24 and 53) at predetermined angles of rotation (as seen in Fig 2) mirrored about an axis of rotation (opposing sides of strap).
Regarding claims 13 and 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 8 is relied upon.
Hennen discloses six pairs of bodies (multiple straps 5, with two bodies per; Fig 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyre (‘509).
The discussion above regarding claim 15 is relied upon.
Peyre discloses three pairs of curved bodies for foot straps (Fig 1; each 50 would have a pair), but does not disclose three pairs at a first size and three at a second size.
One of ordinary skill would recognize that insert size would correlate to the binding size, and would also recognize that different users may have different size feet to bind (e.g. men vs women vs children), which would require different size bindings.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Peyre to use some inserts/bindings of a different size to provide a “one board fits all” approach, to permit (e.g. rental) companies to reduce their stock while still providing for consumer demand, and since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the claims recite a relationship between the insert and the board, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” MPEP 2114. The claims only require the curved insert itself, not the system of the insert mounted within the board. The cited prior art meet the structure of claimed insert itself, and thus anticipates the claims.
In response to applicant’s argument that Van Bregmann does not disclose an arcuate body, the claims recite the body “extending along an arcuate path.” A circular body extends “along an arcuate path” via its circumference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619