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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 13 September 2023. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 30, 35, 37, 39 and 52 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1, 11 and 13-14 are as originally presented. Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19-20, 22, 30, 35, 37, 39 and 52 are currently amended. Claims 3, 6-7, 9, 16, 18, 21, 23-29, 31-34, 36, 38, 40-51 and 53 are cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. AU2021900783, filed on 16 March.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 September 2023 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 38 is not clear as the pointer to reference number “251” points internal to the circle shown. The spec. page 34 recites “body 251”, however “ends 253, 254” would also apply when pointing to the middle of the end as shown in fig. 38. The applicant may correct this by pointing to the outside perimeter of the circle or label the inside of the circle as either “253” or “254” as applicable. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor.
Spec. page 18 of 43, lines 21 recite “surfboard 15” therefore either line 14 or line 21 should refer to fig. 4 which shows “surfboard 15”.
Spec. page 28 of 43, line 13 recites “two flexible spines 40” and should be “two flexible spines 40, 40a”.
Spec. page 31 of 43, line 18 recites “flexible spine 151a” and should be “flexible spine 150a”.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “…mechanical means…” in claim 1, line 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Additionally, claim 1 (line 14) recite “…dynamic flex pattern…” and claim 35 (line 4), recite “…flex pattern…” is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the Examiner is interpreting this claimed element as defined by the applicant in the spec. on page 40 lines 27-33 “…Dynamic Flex Pattern. The flexible spine will flex to absorb force, distributing and storing energy and then respond back to its natural position. This response (or rate of return) provides a whip effect, creating acceleration and generating drive. The flexible spine is designed to flex in unity with the surfer and the wave, for example holding speed whilst going straight (minimal flex) and flexing when manoeuvring…”. Therefore, the Examiner interprets “…dynamic flex pattern…” or “…flex pattern” to be a material property that can be shown at least in the following manner: (1) a stress-strain curve represented by operation of the material with stress and strain forces in the line up to the Elastic modulus or Young’s modulus or (2) a figure showing the overall flex of the fin.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 30, 35, 37, 39 and 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 1, lines 9-10, recite “…a continuous molding process…” where the spec. page 16, line 2, recite “…The continuous molding process is a pultrusion process….”. It is not clear that “…a continuous molding process…” would lead one skilled in the art to the plastic manufacturing process of “a pultrusion process” without importing the limitation from the spec. The phasing of “…a continuous molding process…” is interpreted as taking a molding process and making it continuous, for example using the process of compression molding and adding additional manufacturing equipment to make it continuous, thereby continuous compression molding. Additionally, the word “…molding…” is interpreted as requiring a mold where the continuous processes of pultrusion and extrusion use a heated die. (See at least: NPL. Chapter 5 “Plastic and Composites Processing.”. Manufacturing Process Selection Handbook [online]. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2013 [retrieved on 2026-02-11]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080993607000057>. for the different processes known in the art.). The Examiner notes: it would clear the record to recite “…a continuous pultrusion process…” or “…a pultrusion process…”.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 30, 35, 37, 39 and 52 are rejected based on the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). {Examiner notes: This dependent rejection is only provided once however applies to any claim that is being rejected with a dependent claim.}.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "…one end of the base…" in line 2. Where “one end” is unclear in view of line 3’s “…a second end of the base…”. Therefore, "…one end of the base…" should be “a first end of the base”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "…a composition…" in line 2. Claim 1, line 9, recites “…a composition of fibers and resin…”. It is not clear that "…a composition…" of claim 4 is the same or different than that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "…the flexible spine…" three times; one time each in lines 1, 2 and 6. Claim 4, line 2, recites “…the at least one flexible spine…”. It is not clear that "…the flexible spine…" of claim 5 is the same or different than that of at least claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “…a longer life span…” in claim 8, line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “…longer…” and “…life span…” 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. The Applicant does not define a “normal” life span nor provides a unit of measure such as, time or cycles until failure.
The limitation “…a controlled vibration frequency and greater dampening properties than traditional fins…” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “…vibration frequency…” and “…dampening properties…” 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. The Applicant provides no unit of measure how to assess the claimed limitation when compared to “…traditional fins…”. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
The term “…a balanced feel…” in claim 11, line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “…feel…” 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. The term “…feel…” has no unit of measure and is interpreted differently by each individual user. Feel is defined as an experience (an emotion or sensation).
Claims 13 and 14 recites the limitation "…its length…" in line 2. Claim 1 does not recite “…a length…” and therefore “length” is unknown in the claim tree. Additional “its” is not clear if it is pertaining to “the at least one flexible spine” or “a fin”. The Examiner notes: claim 15 defines “the length”, claim 5 recites “a length” and claim 17 recites “a substantial length”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "…the length…" in line 3. Claim 1 does not recite “…a length…” and therefore “length” is unknown in the claim tree. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "…the uniform section…" two times; once each in lines 3 and 4. Claim 17 line 2 recites “…a section of uniform cross-sectional shape…”. It is not clear that “…the uniform section…” is the same or different than “a section of uniform cross-sectional shape…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "…a fiberglass panel…" in line 6. Claim 30 line 3 recites “…a fiberglass panel…”. It is not clear that “…a fiberglass panel …” of line 6 is the same or different than “…a fiberglass panel …” of line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "…the customized flex pattern and strength…" in line 4. Claim 1 line 14 recites "…a customized dynamic flex pattern and strength…”. It is not clear that "…the customized flex pattern and strength…" of claim 35 is the same or different than "…a customized dynamic flex pattern and strength…” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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, 2, 13 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 5480331 A) in view of Dalina et al. (NPL: Properties of Fiberglass/MWCNT Buckypaper/Epoxy Laminated Composites. Research paper [online]. www.sciencedirect.com, 2016 [retrieved on 2026-02-18]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876619616001844>.).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses a fin (fin 1; See at least fig. 1) for a watercraft (watercraft; See at least: col. 1 line 5) comprising:
a substantially planar (triangular foil 3; See at least fig. 1) member having a first side surface (side 6 or 8; See at least fig. 2 and col 2 line 48-49 “to one side 5,8” {Examiner interprets this as side 6 and 8 as “5” is a slab and not a side}), a leading edge (fore edge 9; See at least fig. 1), a second side surface opposite the first side surface (side 8 or 6; See at least fig. 2), a trailing edge opposite the leading edge (aft edge 10; See at least fig. 1), and a base (mounting side or top 2; See at least: figs. 1-2 and 4) providing an area for attachment to a watercraft surface by either mechanical means or permanent bonding (See at least: fig. 1 and col. 2 lines 18-20 “The fin has a mounting side or top 2 shaped and dimensioned to be installed within an appropriate mounting sleeve.”),
wherein the leading edge and the trailing edge intersect at a fin tip (tip 15: see at least fig. 1 and 4);
at least one flexible spine (core sheet 4; See at least: figs. 2-4) having an elongate body (See at least figs. 1-4 for shape of the fin 1 where the core sheet has the same shape) with a top side (side of core sheet 4 associated with side 6 or 8; See at least fig. 2), a bottom side (side of core sheet 4 associated with side 8 or 6; See at least fig. 2), a first end (end of core sheet 4 associated with top 2 or tip 15; See at least figs. 2 and 4) spaced apart from a second end (end of core sheet 4 associated with tip 14 or top 2; See at least figs. 2 and 4) and peripheral edges (See at least: figs. 1-2, where fig. 2 shows the section view showing thickness of core sheet 4 which would extend to edges of fig. 1) joining the top and bottom sides such that a spine width (See at least: fig. 3 which shows a width section view) associated with at least the top side is greater than a spine thickness (See at least fig. 2 which shows a length section view which has the core sheet 4 thickness shown, and col. 2 lines 21-27 “The foil comprises a core sheet 4 made from 5 to 12 plies of fiberglass laminated together to a thickness of 1 to 4 millimeters (40-160 mils). A eight-ply core sheet of 2.5 millimeters (100 mils) is preferably selected for the given dimensions; it being understood that a larger fin may accommodate a thicker core sheet and vice versa.”) associated with the peripheral edges, each flexible spine is molded (laminated {Examiner interprets the heated press or roller from the lamination process to mold a sheet form.}) from a composition of fibres (fiberglass) and resin (laminated{Examiner interprets the adhesive used in a lamination process to be one of a group that can contain resin}) using a continuous molding process (laminated {Examiner interprets lamination process to be continuous when taking sheets from rolls and using roller press})); and
wherein the at least one flexible spine is bonded to be fixed between the first and second side surfaces of the fin (See at least col. 2 lines 28-33 “A first slab 5 of resiliently compressible synthetic foam material preferably a closed-cell polyurethane foam is bonded to the right face 6 of the core sheet. A second slab 7 similar and symmetrical to the first slab 5 is bonded to the left face 8 of the core sheet.”); and
wherein the number, placement and size (See at least: figs. 1-4) of the at least one flexible spine between the first and second side surfaces of the fin, provides the fin with a customised dynamic flex pattern and strength (See at least fig. 4 and col. 2 lines 50-60 “As a general rule, the number of plies and thickness of the core sheet 4 should be adjusted to allow an average lateral flexion A of 1 to 5 degrees from the rest position over the length of the foil when it is subject to a lateral differential force F between the tip 15 and the root 16 of the foil of 5 kilograms (11 lbs) as illustrated in FIG. 4. In general, the size of the fin, and the thickness and radii of curvature of the foam pads should be adjusted according to the other characteristics of the craft and desired performances. It should be understood that both the flexibility of the foil and its lateral compressibility contribute to the improved maneuverability.” {Examiner notes: the core sheet 4 is an integral part of the fin 1 and therefore the adjustments discussed about the fin would apply to the core sheet 4 too.}).
However, Lewis does not explicitly disclose …a composition of fibres (fiberglass) and resin (laminated{Examiner interprets the adhesive used in a lamination process to be one of a group that can contain resin})…
Dalina et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a composition (laminated; See at least title) of fibres (fiberglass) and resin (epoxy resin (See at least: page 2 of 8 step 2.1 Materials “Epoxy resin DER 332”) and flex pattern and strength (See at least: fig. 2 Flexural Strength and Modulus and fig. 5 stress and strain, both showing a comparison of 3GF and 4GF defined on page 2 of 8 in the 3rd para of 1 “introduction” control samples of fiberglass/epoxy laminated composites (three-ply fiberglass/epoxy (3GF) and four-ply fiberglass/epoxy (4GF) laminated composites)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the laminated fiberglass of Lewis with epoxy resin of Dalina et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of bonding the fiberglass together to make a laminated composite of different ply thickness for different/better flexural strength properties. (See at least: Dalina et al. abstract “three-ply and four-ply glass fiber/epoxy laminated composites… of lightweight structures with better flexural strength properties…” and figs. 2 and 5 showing the performance differences between 3GF and 4GF).
Regarding claim 2, Lewis in view of Dalina et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Lewis discloses wherein the fin further comprises a leading corner (See at least: fig. 1 modified by Examiner, below) formed at the junction of the leading edge and one end of the base and a trailing corner (See at least: fig. 1 modified by Examiner, below) formed at the junction of the trailing edge and a second end of the base, and a centre line axis (See at least: fig. 1 modified by Examiner, below) extends from the leading corner to the fin tip.
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Lewis in view of Dalina et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Lewis discloses wherein the at least one flexible spine comprises a uniform cross-section (See at least: fig. 2 and col. 2 lines 21-27 {recited above}) throughout its length.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 39, Lewis in view of Dalina et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Lewis discloses wherein the substantially planar member is a vertical rigid convex foil (See at least: fig. 2 showing a convex shape across the length of the fin 3) with the leading edge curving from the leading corner of the fin base to the fin tip (See at least: fig. 1 showing the curving of the fore edge along with fig. 2 curve), the first and second side surfaces extending from the leading edge and terminating at the trailing edge curving from the fin tip to the trailing corner of the fin base (See at least: fig. 3 showing the curving of the width of the fin 3), wherein both the leading and trailing edges intersect at the fin tip (See at least: fig. 1).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 5480331 A) in view of Dalina et al. (NPL: Properties of Fiberglass/MWCNT Buckypaper/Epoxy Laminated Composites.), in further view of Holloway (US 20200017174 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis in view of Dalina et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Holloway in a similar field of endeavor, teaches …each flexible spine (at least one flexible spine 50; See at least: para. [0015] and fig. 2) is molded from a composition of fibres and resin (See at least: para [0122] “…fibres are saturated with a liquid polymer resin…”) using a continuous molding process (See at least: para [0122] “continuous molding process is a standard unidirectional pultrusion process”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the laminated fiberglass of Lewis with the resin as taught by Dalina et al. with flexible spine 50 of Holloway with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a composite material that is resilient in the torsion (twisting) of the final product (See at least: See at least para [0181] recited above and para [0222] “…due to the large, constantly varying and reverse bending and twisting stresses in surfboards…”).
Regarding claim 4, Lewis in view of Dalina et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Lewis does not disclose wherein the at least one flexible spine is formed from a composition comprising a plurality of unidirectional fibres and a resin, the composition of fibres and resin forming an elastically deformable spine (See at least fig. 4).
Holloway in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one flexible spine (at least one flexible spine 50; See at least: para. [0015] and fig. 2) is formed from a composition comprising a plurality of unidirectional fibres and a resin (See at least: para [0122] “the flexible spine 50 can be manufactured using a continuous molding process whereby the fibres are saturated with a liquid polymer resin and then formed and pulled through a heated die to form the flexible spine 50. The continuous molding process is a standard unidirectional pultrusion process were the fibres are impregnated with resin, possibly followed by a separate preforming system, and pulled through a heated stationary die where the resin undergoes polymerisation. The impregnation is either done by pulling the fibres through a bath or by injecting the resin into an injection chamber which typically is connected to the die. Many resin types may be used in pultrusion including polyester, polyurethane, vinylester and epoxy. Resin provides the resistance to the environment, (i.e., the corrosion resistance, the UV resistance, the impact resistance, etc.) and the glass provides strength for the flexible spine 50.”), the composition of fibres and resin forming an elastically deformable spine (See at least para [0181] “…the flexible spine 50 is elastically deformable in that the flexible spine 50 will change in the shape or size due to an applied force such as the result of tensile (pulling) forces, compressive (pushing) forces, shear, bending or torsion (twisting). The flexible spine 50 is elastically deformable which means the deformation is reversible. Once the forces are no longer applied, the flexible spine 50 will return to its original shape.”).
Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Scott et al. (US 20130244514 A1) teaches Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM) is one common example of a mass production technique for forming the fin (See at least: para. [0053]). This is relevant to the Applicant’s claims 30 and 35.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615