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
The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amended drawings and specification (filed 11/10/2025).
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, p. 7).
The previous rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims (filed 11/10/2025).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed combination of the perpendicular handles of Gotthelf with the apparatus of Micari (1) would completely change the principle of operation of the hoop in Micari, (2) would require a complete redesign of the hoop in Micari, and (3) is considered impermissible hindsight (Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, pp. 10-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, in response to Applicant’s argument that Examiner’s proposed combination changes the principle of operation of the hoop in Micari, Examiner notes this argument is in regards to an intended use, and 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. Furthermore, the front portion of the hoop in Micari is merely to provide support to the beginner skier, and this front portion is easily capable of being held by the beginner’s hands in order to provide that support.
Secondly, in response to Applicant’s argument that Examiner’s proposed combination requires a complete redesign of the hoop in Micari, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to MPEP § 2141.II: “‘A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. ‘[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” Considering this, it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined a particular method of providing support as disclosed by Gotthelf with the apparatus of Micari, i.e., to directly integrate the supporting handles of Gotthelf, which more accurately mimic skiing as they require the user to mimic holding ski poles(Gotthelf, pars. 0005, 0013), with the front portion of Micari, which generally offers support to the user.
Furthermore, Applicant’s interpretation and rendering of the combination of the handles of Gotthelf with the apparatus of Micari (Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, p. 12), in which the handles are “spaced forward” from the “torso support” portion of Micari, still anticipates claim 1. The “torso support” portion and the “spaced forward” portion together could reasonably be considered the “front portion” recited by claim 1. Consequently under this interpretation, each of the handles is still coupled to said front portion, extend[s] perpendicular to the first plane, and is configured to be gripped by [a] hand of the beginner skier; similarly, the second handle is spaced from said first handle along said front portion.
Thirdly, in response to Applicant's argument that Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in detail below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micari and further in view of Gotthelf.
Regarding Claim 1, Micari discloses a front portion (fig. 2: front portion 120), said front portion including a first end (fig. 2: left end of front portion 120) and a second end (fig. 2: right end of front portion 120);
a back portion (fig. 2: back portion 130), said back portion including a third end (fig. 2: left end of back portion 130) and a fourth end (fig. 2: right end of back portion 130);
a first side portion (fig. 2: left side, consisting of extension member 125), said first side portion including a fifth end (fig. 2: front end of left side) and a sixth end (fig. 2: back end of left side), said first side portion extending between the third end of said back portion and the first end of said front portion (fig. 2: left side extension member 125 extends between the aforementioned first end and third end); and
a second side portion (fig. 2: right side, consisting of extension member 125), said second side portion including a seventh end (fig. 2: front end of right side) and an eighth end (g. 2: back end of right side), said second side portion extending between the fourth end of said back portion and the second end of said front portion (fig. 2: right side extension member 125 extends between the aforementioned second end and fourth end), wherein said front portion, said back portion, said first side portion, and said second side portion forming an internal cavity configured for the beginner skier (fig. 7: beginner skier is inside the internal cavity formed by the front, back, and side portions), wherein said front portion, said back portion, said first side portion, and said second side portion are configured in a first plane (figs. 1-2, 7: the front, back, and side portions form a flat plane).
Micari does not disclose perpendicular handles for the skier to hold. However, Gotthelf discloses a first handle (fig. 1: left handle 16), said first handle coupled to said front portion, said first handle extending perpendicular to the first plane, wherein said first handle configured to be gripped by one hand of the beginner skier (fig. 1: left handle 16 extending upward is perpendicular to the pane of the apparatus; par. 0013: “Handles 15 and handgrips 16 are held by the skier”); and
a second handle (fig. 1: right handle 16), said second handle coupled to said front portion, said second handle extending perpendicular to the first plane, wherein said second handle configured to be gripped by another hand of the beginner skier (fig. 1: right handle 16 extending upward is perpendicular to the plane of the apparatus; par. 0013: “Handles 15 and handgrips 16 are held by the skier”), wherein said second handle is spaced from said first handle along said front portion (fig. 1: left and right upright handles 16 have a space between them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the upward-facing handles of Gotthelf with the apparatus of Micari in order to provide handles which “simulate the proper position for holding the ski poles” (Gotthelf, pars. 0005, 0013) and may better prepare the beginner for “actual skiing when the ski trainer is no longer needed” (Gotthelf, par. 0013).
Regarding Claim 3, Micari further discloses said back portion, and said two side portions form a trapezoidal internal cavity (figs.1-2; Examiner notes under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “trapezoidal,” the shape of the internal cavity can be considered a trapezoid because it is four-sided and at least one pair of sides are parallel).
Regarding Claim 4, Micari further discloses said front portion, said back portion, and said two side portions form a rectangular internal cavity (figs. 1-2: rectangular internal cavity).
Regarding Claim 5, Micari further discloses said first side portion includes a first member (fig. 2: front member of left side) and a second member (fig. 2: back member of left side), the first member being telescopically received by the second member to adjust a length of said first side portion (fig. 2; par. 0027: “the adjusting means includes a plurality of lockable positions so that the frontal and handle sections 120 and 130 are arranged in a telescoping relationship in order to adjust the distance between the two skiers”).
Regarding Claim 6, Micari further discloses said second side portion includes a first member (fig. 2: front member of right side) and a second member (fig. 2: back member of right side), the first member being telescopically received by the second member to adjust a length of said second side portion (fig. 2; par. 0027: “the adjusting means includes a plurality of lockable positions so that the frontal and handle sections 120 and 130 are arranged in a telescoping relationship in order to adjust the distance between the two skiers”).
Regarding Claim 9, Micari further discloses said front portion, said back portion, said first side portion, and said second side portion are formed by hollow tubes (par. 0024: “Hoop 100 is stiff, and may be formed of a tubular material having… a hollow cross section”).
Regarding Claim 10, Micari discloses a handle for the instructor to hold, but it is not perpendicular to the first plane. However, Gotthelf further discloses a third handle (fig. 1: left handle 16), said third handle coupled to said back portion, said third handle extending perpendicular to the first plane (fig. 1: left handle 16 extending upward is perpendicular to the plane of the apparatus), wherein said third handle configured to be gripped by one hand of the instructor (par. 0014: “Handgrip… is used by the ski instructor to direct the skier in a particular direction and/or to pull the skier in a forward direction”); and
a fourth handle (fig. 1: right handle 16), said fourth handle coupled to said back portion, said fourth handle extending perpendicular to the first plane (fig. 1: right handle 16 extending upward is perpendicular to the plane of the apparatus), wherein said fourth handle configured to be gripped by another hand of the instructor (par. 0014: “Handgrip… is used by the ski instructor to direct the skier in a particular direction and/or to pull the skier in a forward direction”), wherein said fourth handle is spaced from said third handle along said back portion (fig. 1: left and right upright handles 16 have a space between them).
The combination of the apparatus of Micari with the set of handles of Gotthelf described above for Claim 1 would have included this further implementation of handles. Additionally, Gotthelf teaches that the instructor’s form of handles may be implemented in any number of ways (e.g., a closed ring, a protruding end portion, or separate handlebars) so long as the instructor has some method to hold onto the device (Gotthelf, par. 0014), so replacing the instructor’s handle bar of Micari with the same style of upward handles as already provided for the beginner (see claim 1) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micari in view of Gotthelf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beck.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Micari does not disclose an adjustable width. However, Beck discloses said front portion includes a first member and a second member (figs. 1-2: front portion consisting of pieces 1 and 2), the first member being telescopically received by the second member to adjust a width of said front portion (abstract: “the modular sections and connectors capable of being various sizes… and widths to form a rectangular configuration when interconnected… modular section[s] that are telescopic in nature, which make the device capable to be quickly and easily reduced or enlarged in the size of the device while keeping each component of the device fully connected and in proper order;” par. 0022: “the hollow tubes (2) may be of various widths and diameters to allow for telescopic adjustments”).
Micari and Beck are analogous arts because they both teach hoop-shaped athletic training devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the telescoping members of Beck with the apparatus of Micari in order to allow the user to make the device wider or narrower during use or transportation (Beck, abstract; par. 0008).
Regarding Claim 8, Micari modified by Beck further discloses said back portion includes a first member and a second member (Beck, figs. 1-2: back portion consisting of pieces 1 and 2), the first member being telescopically received by the second member to adjust a width of said back portion (Beck, abstract: “the modular sections and connectors capable of being various sizes… and widths to form a rectangular configuration when interconnected… modular section[s] that are telescopic in nature, which make the device capable to be quickly and easily reduced or enlarged in the size of the device while keeping each component of the device fully connected and in proper order;” par. 0022: “the hollow tubes (2) may be of various widths and diameters to allow for telescopic adjustments;” par. 0024: “the two parallel ends/widths of device may have lengths that are shorter or longer than the other parallel end/width”). The combination of the apparatus of Micari with the telescoping members of the front portion of Beck described above for Claim 7 would have included the telescoping members of the back portion.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micari in view of Gotthelf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruiz.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Micari does not disclose a wrist strap. However, Ruiz discloses a wrist strap for carrying the ski training device (par. 0014: “an associated wrist strap extending therefrom”).
Micari and Ruiz are analogous arts because they both teach apparatuses which tether an experienced skier to a beginner in order to provide ski training. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wrist strap of Ruiz with the apparatus of Micari in order to make the device easier to carry and/or to maintain a better connection to the device while using it (Ruiz, pars. 0014, 0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0101063 (Sudit) teaches an instructional device for an experienced skier to use with a student skier. The student can brace their body against their side of the device and/or hold a pair of upright handles, and the instructor can optionally use a pair of upright handles.
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 JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. 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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715