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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 12, lines 6,8,14,16, the limitations of “the lugs” and “the lug” should be changed to ---the at least one lug--- to be consistent with “at least one lug” as claimed in line 4. 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 1,3-15,18-23 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.
For claim 1, line 23, the limitation of “two webs” is unclear because are these two webs part of the webs claimed in line 22 or addition or different webs due to the two webs not referring back to the webs. For example, applicant can state “two webs of said webs” if applicant’s intention is to refer the two webs back to the webs in line 22 in order to clarify the unclearness.
For claim 12, there is no transitional phrase such as comprising, consisting of, consisting essential of, or the like to determine what applicant is claiming and if it is open-ended or close-ended. In addition, in line 10, the limitation of “the recess” is unclear because in line 9, applicant claimed “recesses” and not one recess. In line 12, the limitation of “two webs (8.7) are formed on opposite sides of each recess (8.6)” is unclear because are these two webs part of the webs claimed in line 9 or addition or different webs due to the two webs not referring back to the webs. For example, applicant can state “two webs of said webs” if applicant’s intention is to refer the two webs back to the webs in line 9 in order to clarify the unclearness.
For claim 20, the limitation of “the center of gravity” lacks prior antecedent basis.
For claim 22, the limitation of “the edge of the perforation plate” lacks prior antecedent basis.
All other claims depending on one or more of the above rejected claims are also rejected the same.
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 1,3,4,11-15,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salowsky et al. (DE 102018110772 A1) in view of Ruetenik (US 20100095641 A1), Ruede et al. (DE 10112675 A1), Broadus (US 20160157474 A1) and Fremgen et al. (DE 3840223 A1).
For claim 1, Salowsky et al. teach a hoof protector (figs. 4-5) comprising a hoof protector sole (13) and a hoof protector lug system (10,11,12),
wherein the hoof protector sole for a hoof of an equine comprises a base plate (13 the sole) formed of a thermoplastic polymer, wherein the base plate has an upper side (side that is in contact with the hoof) and a bottom side (side that is in contact with the ground), wherein the bottom side substantially replicates a shape of a ground contact area of the hoof,
wherein the hoof protector lug system is formed from a collar (12), and at least one lug (11), wherein the collar and each of the at least one lug is connected to each other via a web area (in the area of ref. 19),
wherein the web area connects the at least one lug with the collar via webs (areas on the left and right of ref. 22), the web area comprises at least one recess (22) in the form of a circle, two webs (left and right areas of the recess 22) are formed on opposite sides of each recess, and a number of the webs is twice a number of the at least one recess (each recess 22 has left and right webs, thus, the number of webs is twice the recess),
the hoof protector lug system further comprises a fold area (area of ref. 15) arranged between the at least one lug and the collar, and an inner angle (angle create by hinge or fold area 15 to contour with the hoof wall) is defined between the at least one lug and the collar.
However, Salowsky et al. are silent about the base plate formed of a thermoplastic polymer, wherein the thermoplastic polymer of the base plate has a hardness of at least 35 Shore A, wherein the base plate comprises a core and a mantle enclosing the core, wherein the mantle is formed from a thermoplastic polymer, and wherein a surface of the core comprises core indentations or comprises core elevations and core indentations or comprises structured core elevations, wherein the hoof protector lug system is formed from a thermoplastic polymer for attachment of the hoof protector sole the hoof, the at least one recess which is in the form of an ellipse or a superellipse, and the at least one recess and the webs are arranged below the fold area.
Ruetenik teaches in the same field of endeavor of a hoof protector, the protector comprising a base plate (the sole plate per para. 0032) formed of a thermoplastic polymer (para. 0032), wherein the thermoplastic polymer of the base plate has a hardness of at least 35 Shore A (para. 0032). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base plate of Salowsky et al. be formed of a thermoplastic polymer as taught by Ruetenik, wherein the thermoplastic polymer of the base plate has a hardness of at least 35 Shore A as taught by Ruetenik, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice (thermoplastic polyurethane as taught in Ruetenik is a known material used for sole plate for horse protector due to the abundant of the material, moldable, and hardness). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Ruede et al. teach in the same field of endeavor of a hoof protector (10), the protector comprising a base plate (1,3) comprises a core (1) and a mantle (3) enclosing the core, wherein the mantle is formed from a thermoplastic polymer (translation states: “A jacket 3 made of a thermoplastic, in particular a block polymer of polyterephthalic acid with polyalkylene glycol, is applied to the core 1”), and wherein a surface of the core comprises core indentations or comprises core elevations and core indentations or comprises structured core elevations (fig. 1, core 1 has a plurality of indentations or elevations as shown where refs. 1,2 are pointing at). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base plate of Salowsky et al. be comprised of a core and a mantle enclosing the core as taught by Ruede et al., wherein the mantle is formed from a thermoplastic polymer as taught by Ruede et al., and wherein a surface of the core comprises core indentations or comprises core elevations and core indentations or comprises structured core elevation as taught by Ruede et al. in order to provide a more stronger and durable sole plate, for the combination of the core, the mantle and the indentations or elevations would further provide structural stability for the base plate.
Fremgen et al. teach in the same field of endeavor of a hoof protector (1a), the protector comprising a hoof protector lug system (3’) that is formed from a thermoplastic polymer (abstract: “the wall elements (3) being made of a thermoplastic material”) for attachment of the hoof protector sole the hoof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hoof protector lug system of Salowsky et al. be formed from a thermoplastic polymer as taught by Fremgen et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice (thermoplastic as taught in Fremgen et al. is a known material used for hoof protector lug system due to the abundant of the material, moldable, and hardness). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Broadus teaches in the same field of endeavor of a hoof protector (10), the protector comprising at least one recess (36) which is in the form of a superellipse. As stated, the at least one recess “assists with adhesively securing the shoe to the hoof as adhesive therein adheres to the hoof. Also, should the shoe separate from the hoof, the openings should assist in collapsing the clip to minimize chance of injury.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one recess of Salowsky et al. be in the form of a superellipse as taught by Broadus in order to assists with adhesively securing the shoe to the hoof and to assist in collapsing the clip to minimize chance of injury.
The combination of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus (emphasis on Salowsky et al. with modification from Broadus superellipse shape for the recess) teaches the at least one recess and the webs arranged just above the fold area (15) in fig. 1 of Salowsky et al., but is silent about the at least one recess and the webs are arranged below the fold area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one recess and the webs of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus be arranged below the fold area, depending on the area where the user wishes to apply the adhesive and ventilation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 3, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the Hoof protector sole according to claim 1, but is silent about wherein the mantle is formed from a thermoplastic polymer of one hardness, or at least two-layered from at least two thermoplastic polymers of the same or different hardnesses, wherein, in relation to a vertical section of the hoof protector sole, a first thermoplastic polymer is arranged at the top and a second thermoplastic polymer is arranged at the bottom. In addition to the above, Ruede et al. teach wherein the mantle is formed from a thermoplastic polymer of one hardness, or at least two-layered from at least two thermoplastic polymers of the same or different hardnesses, wherein, in relation to a vertical section of the hoof protector sole, a first thermoplastic polymer is arranged at the top and a second thermoplastic polymer is arranged at the bottom (as stated in the translation of Ruede, the mantle 3 is made out of a thermoplastic polymer, and fig. 1 shows the upper layer near refs. 1,2 and the lower layer where ref. 3 is pointing at). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mantle of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus be formed from a thermoplastic polymer of one hardness, or at least two-layered from at least two thermoplastic polymers of the same or different hardnesses, wherein, in relation to a vertical section of the hoof protector sole, a first thermoplastic polymer is arranged at the top and a second thermoplastic polymer is arranged at the bottom as further taught by Ruede et al., since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice (thermoplastic as taught in Fremgen et al. is a known material used for hoof protector lug system due to the abundant of the material, moldable, and hardness). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
For claim 4, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the hoof protector sole according to claim 1, and further teach (emphasis on Ruede et al. because they are relied on for the core and the mantle as stated in the above) wherein the core is formed entirely or partially from the same material as the mantle surrounding the core, or is formed from a different material than the mantle (as stated in the translation of Ruede, the core is metal, which is a different material than the mantle; translation states: “An extruded light metal core 1 with a rectangular cross section is provided, in the four long sides of which dovetail-shaped longitudinal grooves 2 are formed”).
For claim 11, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the hoof protector sole according to claim 1, but are silent about wherein the hoof protector sole comprises nail counterbores. In addition to the above, Ruede et al. further teach the hoof protector sole comprises nail counterbores (11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include nail counterbores as taught by Ruede et al. in the hoof protector sole of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus in order to provide bores for nails, screws or the like so as to fasten the hoof protector sole to the hoof.
For claim 12, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above teaching of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus.
For claim 13, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the Hoof protector lug system according to claim 12, and further teach wherein the hoof protector lug system comprises at least one fold (15 of Salowsky) arranged between the collar and the lug.
For claim 14, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the Hoof protector lug system according to claim 13, and further teach wherein the fold area is formed of two successive folds (figs. 3,5 of Salowsky, one fold in the front and one fold in the back at hinge 15, similar to fig. 7(B) of applicant’s drawings).
For claim 15, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the Hoof protector lug system according to claim 12, and further teach wherein the lug and/or the collar is constructed of at least two-layers, wherein one of the layers is oriented on the hoof side and one of the layers is oriented away from the hoof (fig. 3 of Salowsky shows at least two layers, film 20, tape 19 and tab 11). However, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus are silent about wherein at least one of the layers is formed from the thermoplastic polymer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one of the layers of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus be formed from the thermoplastic polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice (thermoplastic polymer is a notoriously well-known material in the art). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
For claim 18, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the hoof protector lug system according to claim 1, and further teach wherein the thermoplastic polymer of the base plate ranges from 50 to 98 Shore A (per para. 0032 of Ruetenik).
Claims 5,20,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choplin (US 4420046 A; note, this reference is the same as the previous FR 2487166 A1).
For claim 5, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the Hoof protector sole according to claim 2, further teach wherein the base plate comprises a substantially U-shaped design (fig. 5 of Salowsky shows a typical U-shape of the sole to contour to the hoof; also, since Ruede was relied on for the core and the mantle, fig. 2 of Ruede shows both of a U-shape design), such that the base plate comprises two thighs (legs at 12 of Ruede, which is typical horseshoe design). However, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus are silent about wherein the thighs are connected to each other via a bridge, the bridge connects the separated thighs to each other in the distal portion of the thighs.
Choplin teaches a hoof protector comprising thighs (left and right legs of the horseshoe) are connected to each other via a bridge (25,21,28), the bridge connects the separated thighs to each other in the distal portion of the thighs (as shown in fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bridge as taught by Choplin connecting the two thighs of the hoof protector of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus in order to prevent buckling of the two thighs and to create a more stable protector so that the thighs will not bend too much inward or outward.
For claim 20, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the hoof protector lug system according to claim 1, but are silent about a receiving eyelet is arranged in the center of gravity horizontally to the base plate.
In addition to the above, Choplin teaches a receiving eyelet (36) arranged in a center of gravity horizontally to a base plate (20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a receiving eyelet as taught by Choplin arranged in the center of gravity horizontally to the base plate of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus in order to provide a plate to block out dirt or the like and to allow the user to remove the plate by the eyelet for cleaning.
For claim 21, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Choplin teach the hoof protector lug system according to claim 20, but are silent about an extension is connected with the base plate and opposite to the receiving eyelet. In addition to the above, Choplin teaches an extension (33) connected with the base plate and opposite to the receiving eyelet for firmly immobilized the dirt plate (39) in the base plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an extension as taught by Choplin connected with the base plate and opposite to the receiving eyelet of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Choplin in order to immobilize the dirt plate in the center of the base plate.
Claims 6,7,22,23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzalez et al. (EP 3132679 A1).
For claim 6, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the hoof protector sole according to claim 1, but are silent about wherein the base plate comprises a perforation plate, wherein the perforation plate is arranged in particular horizontally in the height of the base plate in such a way that the perforation plate is neither in contact with the hoof nor with the ground.
Gonzalez et al. teach in the same field of endeavor of a hoof protector comprising a base plate (5) comprises a perforation plate (10), wherein the perforation plate is arranged in particular horizontally in the height of the base plate in such a way that the perforation plate is neither in contact with the hoof nor with the ground (see figs. -4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a perforation plate as taught by Gonzalez et al. in the base plate of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus in order to prevent dirt or the like from entering the bottom of the hoof and at the same time, have ventilation with the perforation.
For claim 7, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Gonzalez et al. teach the hoof protector sole according to claim 6, and further teach wherein the perforation plate (of Gonzalez et al.) is connected to the base plate via a circumferential framing (fig. 4, framing shown where ref. 9 and or ref. 11 are pointing at around the opening of the sole for the plate 10), wherein the material thickness of the circumferential framing is less than a height of the base plate (figs. 3,4 the perforation plate 10 is shown to be less thick than the height of the base plate or sole 5). However, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Gonzalez et al. are silent about wherein the material thickness of the circumferential framing is less than a quarter of the height of the base plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the material thickness of the circumferential framing of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Gonzalez et al. be less than a quarter of the height of the base plate, depending on how thick the user wishes to make the framing in order to support the plate, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 22, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Gonzalez et al. teach the hoof protector lug system according to claim 6, and further teach (emphasis on Gonzalez et al. since they are relied on for the perforation plate) a circumferential framing (fig. 4 of Gonzalez et al., framing shown where ref. 9 and or ref. 11 are pointing at around the opening of the sole for the plate 10) formed at the edge of the perforation plate, the circumferential framing has a lower material wall thickness than that of the perforation plate (figs. 3,4 of Gonzalez et al. the perforation plate 10 is shown to be less thick than the height of the base plate or sole 5) and allows the user to easily remove the perforation plate mechanically.
For claim 23, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Gonzalez et al. teach the hoof protector lug system according to claim 6, and further teach (emphasis on Gonzalez et al. since they are relied on for the perforation plate) wherein the perforation plate defines a plurality of perforations (12 of Gonzalez et al.) but are silent about the plurality of perforations tapering in a direction opposite to an underside of the hoof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the diamond-shaped perforations of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Gonzalez et al. with tapering perforations in a direction opposite to an underside of the hoof as claimed by applicant, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both shapes of perforation would allow ventilation and maintenance). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forstner et al. (EP 3243379 B1).
For claim 8, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the Hoof protector sole according to claim 2, but is silent about wherein a profiling with a wing-shaped pattern is arranged on the bottom side of the base plate.
Forstner et al. teach a hoof protector comprising a profiling (4) with a wing-shaped pattern (see fig. 2) is arranged on the bottom side of the base plate (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include profiling with a wing-shaped pattern as taught by Forstner et al. on the bottom side of the base plate of the hoof protector of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus in order to provide traction.
For claim 9, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., Broadus, and Forstner et al. teach the Hoof protector sole according to claim 8, wherein the profiling is formed in whole or in part from at least one single profile element (as shown in fig. 2 of Forstner), wherein the at least one single profile element can be arranged in the bottom side of the base plate by means of a form-fit connection (molding or whatever means of connection as taught in Forstner would be considered form-fit connection).
For claim 10, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the hoof protector sole according to claim 1, but are silent about wherein reflecting strips and/or Piezo-driven illuminants are arranged on the outer wall (3.7) of the base plate (3.0).
In addition to the above, Forstner et al. teach wherein reflecting strips and/or Piezo-driven illuminants (translation states: “Advantageously, the toe guard 5 can be used for security purposes, for example by means of an attached, light-reflecting passive retroreflective element, for information purposes, for example by means of an attached name of the animal or a code number, or for marketing purposes, for example by means of an attached emblem.”) are arranged on the outer wall of the base plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include reflecting strips as taught by Forstner et al. on the outer wall of the base plate of the hoof protector of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus in order to provide safety feature at night or the like.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rose (US 4972909 A).
For claim 19, Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus teach the hoof protector lug system according to claim 1, but are silent about wherein the core is formed entirely or partially from the same material as the mantle.
Rose teaches in the same field of endeavor of hoof protector comprising a sole plate having a core (11) and a mantle (12), the core is formed entirely or partially from the same material as the mantle (the core is thermoplastic polyurethane and glass fiber and the mantle is polyurethane, which means that the core is partially from the same material as the mantle). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the core of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus be formed entirely or partially from the same material as the mantle as taught by Rose, depending on the ground or surface that the horse trots or walk on so as to have the core and the mantle more rigid or softer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice (thermoplastic polymer is a notoriously well-known material in the art). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,3-15,18-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, certain pertinent arguments for Salowsky and Ruede will be addressed herein.
Applicant argues that, in Ruede, the casing 3 is made of plastic and the core 1 is made of metal. While, in claim 1, the base plate (3.0) and the core (6.0) are both made of thermoplastic polymer. The core 1 of Ruede and the core (6.0) of claim 1 are made of different materials.
Applicant’s claim 1 does not state that the core is a thermoplastic polymer. While applicant stated that the base plate is formed of a thermoplastic polymer, the base plate comprises a core and a mantle, the mantle is the element that applicant defined as made out of a thermoplastic polymer, and not the core. This is clearly stated in claim 1, line 12, “wherein the mantle (7.0) is formed from a thermoplastic polymer”. Thus, a base plate having two elements, core and mantle, can be designated as made of a thermoplastic polymer as long as one of these elements (i.e. mantle) is a thermoplastic polymer. The claimed limitation never stated the core is made of a thermoplastic polymer. Given this, Ruede does not have to teach the core being made out of a thermoplastic polymer because the mantle is made out of a thermoplastic polymer, thus, the base plate in Ruede can be considered as made out of a thermoplastic polymer.
In addition, there are a plethora of base plate in the horseshoe art that has a core and a mantle made out of the same material. For example, Rose teaches a base plate having a core and a mantle made out of a thermoplastic polymer. Thus, it is clear that the argued subject matter of applicant is nothing new in the art.
Applicant argues that, in amended claim 1, each web area (8.2) includes a recess (8.6) and two webs (8.7) arranged on opposite sides of the recess (8.6), the recess (8.6) can be regarded as a groove and in a form of ellipse or superellipse. The web area (8.2) is arranged between the at least one lug (8.1) and the collar (8.3) and serves to connect the at least one lug (8.1) to the collar (8.3). Since the shape, position, and function of the web area (8.2) are different from those of the double-sided adhesive tape 19, the web area (8.2) cannot be equated with the double-sided adhesive tape 19.
Applicant’s lug system and Salowsky’s lug system are strikingly similar. The only differences are the shape of the recess and the location of the recess being below the fold area. However, Salowsky’s lug system still creates two webs which are areas or spaces on the left and the right of the recess 22 as shown. This is no different from that of applicant’s invention. As for the shape in a form of ellipse or superellipse, as stated in the above rejection, Broadus teaches a similar lug system wherein there are recesses 36 that are shaped as in a form of superellipse. Although not needed to create the webs, the superellipse shape recess of Broadus replacing the circular shape recess of Salowsky will create two webs on the left side and the right side of the recess. In addition, Broadus stated in para. 0054, the recess 36 not only assist in adhesively securing but also prevent collapsing, which is maximizing the torsional strength indirectly.
As for the location of the recess, as stated in the above rejection, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the at least one recess and the webs of Salowsky et al. as modified by Ruetenik, Ruede et al., Fremgen et al., and Broadus be arranged below the fold area, depending on the area where the user wishes to apply the adhesive and ventilation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights