DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 1, 12 and 20 to emphasize the mounting brackets fixedly couple the respective foot mounts to the opposing side of the fin. More specifically, claim 1 now requires “a first mounting bracket fixedly coupling a first foot mount to the first side of the fin; and a second mounting bracket fixedly coupling a second foot mount to the second side of the fin”. Claims 12 and 20 are similarly amended. Applicant argues Moore fails to teach this limitation since the assembly includes a movable/rotatable linkage assembly that connects the feet of the user to the fin.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner generally agrees with Applicant’s assessment of Moore in that the assembly includes a movable/rotatable linkage assembly that connects the feet of the user to the fin, the claim does not appear to preclude such movement. As interpreted in the rejection of record Moore teaches a first mounting bracket(16,30) coupling a first foot mount(18,26 or 118,126) to the first side of the fin and a second mounting bracket(16,30) coupling a second foot mount(18,26 or 118,126) to the second side of the fin. While the linkage assembly of Moore allows for movement in the X and Y directions, the linkage assembly do not allow for movement in the Z direction (direction parallel to the surface of the side of the fin). As such, it appears the first/second mounting bracket fixedly couples the first/second foot mount to the first/second side of fin relative to the Z direction, which meets the claim.
Examiner notes Applicant’s specification as originally filed does not explicitly recite the phrase “fixedly coupling” nor does it define the phrase “fixedly” in the context of the invention. The term has been construed using its plain meaning under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Furthermore, while the current amendments are not considered new matter, any additional amendments will be evaluated under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 13-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (US 6561862).
In Regard to Claim 1
Moore teaches:
A swimming device(10), comprising:
a fin(14) defining a first side(user left foot side as viewed in Fig 1) and a second side opposing the first side(user right foot side as viewed in Fig 1);
a first mounting bracket(16,30) fixedly coupling a first foot mount(18,26 or 118,126) to the first side of the fin(Fig 1; while 16,30 allows for movement in the X and Y directions, the linkage assembly do not allow for movement in the Z direction which runs parallel to the surface of the side of the fin, as such 16,30 fixedly couples 18,26 to the first side of the fin); and a second mounting bracket(16,30) fixedly coupling a second foot mount(18,26 or 118,126) to the second side of the fin(Fig 1; while 16,30 allows for movement in the X and Y directions, the linkage assembly do not allow for movement in the Z direction which runs parallel to the surface of the side of the fin, as such 16,30 fixedly couples 18,26 to the second side of the fin);
wherein the first and second foot mounts are configured to receive respective feet of a user(Fig 1; Col 4, ln. 5-43); and
wherein when the feet of the user are received in the first and second foot mounts, the fin extends along or parallel to a median plane between the feet of the user(plane that includes axis 12’; Fig 1; Col 3, ln. 30-40).
In Regard to Claim 2
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fin defines a planar or flat body(visually apparent from Fig 1-3) extending from a proximal edge(edge of 14’) to a distal point(point of 48 at 14,42).
In Regard to Claim 3
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fin includes a distal body section(14) with a top fin extension(14,42 and a bottom fin extension(14,44) defining a V-shaped configuration(48; Fig 1; Col 4, ln. 44-66).
In Regard to Claim 5
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 3(see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the top fin extension includes a top fin point(at 14,42) and the bottom fin extension includes a bottom fin point(at 14, 44), the top fin point and the bottom fin point disposed an equal distance from a proximal edge of the fin(visually apparent from Fig 1, 3 and 4).
In Regard to Claim 6
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fin includes curved top and bottom edges(42,44) extending from a proximal edge to a single rear fin point(42,44 are curved from 14 to 14’ during use as water is moved from 14 to 14’ by the user; Col 4, ln. 44 to Col 5, ln. 12).
In Regard to Claim 7
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fin includes a first set of holes(first group of holes at 22) complementary to holes of the first and second mounting brackets for coupling of the first and second mounting brackets to the fin(as shown in Fig 2, the first and second mounting brackets have complimentary holes at 22 for coupling the first and second mounting brackets to the fin).
In Regard to Claim 8
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the fin includes a first set of holes(first group of holes at 22 disposed proximate 42) and a second set of holes(second group of holes at 22 disposed proximate 44) both complementary to holes of the first and second mounting brackets for coupling of the first and second mounting brackets to the fin in two different positions(as shown in Fig 2, the first and second mounting brackets have complimentary holes at 22 disposed proximate 42 and 44 for coupling the first and second mounting brackets to the fin).
In Regard to Claim 9
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the two different positions are opposing flipped positions(the two different positions are disposed on opposite sides of 16).
In Regard to Claim 10
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first and second mounting brackets each include a first flange(32) and a second flange(26) extending perpendicularly from the first flange(Fig 5; Col 5, ln. 14-26).
In Regard to Claim 11
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 10(see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the first flange defines a semicircular configuration(at 38; Fig 6-7) and the second flange defines a rectangular configuration(26 is rectangular in at least a portion; Fig 5-7).
In Regard to Claim 13
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first and second foot mounts each include first base section, a second base section extending from a distal edge of the first base section, and a third base section extending from a distal edge of the second base section(each of the foot mounts include a first, second and third base section, see annotated fig 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
909
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Regard to Claim 14
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 13(see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the first, second and third base sections define a uniform bottom surface(visually apparent in Fig 5 and 8).
In Regard to Claim 15
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 13(see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein first, second and third base sections each include a top surface, the top surface of the first base section tapering upward from a proximal edge of the first base section to the distal edge of the first base section by a first angle(at least a portion of the top surface of the first base section tapers upward at a first angle; see annotated Fig 8 above), and the top surface of the second base section tapering upward from a proximal edge of the second base section to the distal edge of the second base section by a second angle(the top surface of the second base section continues to taper upward at a second angle from a proximal edge to a distal edge; see annotated Fig 8 above).
In Regard to Claim 18
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 13(see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the first and second foot mounts include strap connected on opposing sides of the first base section, the strap defining an inner passage configured to receive a respective foot of the user(Col 4, ln. 5-25).
In Regard to Claim 19
Moore teaches:
The swimming device of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein when the feet of the user are received in the first and second foot mounts, a side-to-side motion of the fin is in a direction parallel to a coronal plane of the user(as is visually apparent from Fig 6-7 a side-to-side motion of the fin is in a direction parallel to a coronal plane of the user; Col 4, ln. 25-43).
In Regard to Claim 20
Moore teaches:
A method of swimming, comprising:
inserting a first foot of a user into a first foot mount(18,26 or 118,126) of a swimming device(10; Fig 1, 3, 5-10);
inserting a second foot of the user into a second foot mount(18,26 or 118, 126) of the swimming device(Fig 1, 3, 5-10), the swimming device including
a fin(14) defining a first side(user left foot side as viewed in Fig 1) and a second side opposing the first side(user right foot side as viewed in Fig 1),
a first mounting bracket(16,30) fixedly coupling a first foot mount(18,26 or 118,126) to the first side of the fin(Fig 1; while 16,30 allows for movement in the X and Y directions, the linkage assembly do not allow for movement in the Z direction which runs parallel to the surface of the side of the fin, as such 16,30 fixedly couples 18,26 to the first side of the fin), and
a second mounting bracket(16,30) fixedly coupling a second foot mount(18,26 or 118,126) to the second side of the fin(Fig 1; while 16,30 allows for movement in the X and Y directions, the linkage assembly do not allow for movement in the Z direction which runs parallel to the surface of the side of the fin, as such 16,30 fixedly couples 18,26 to the second side of the fin); and
moving the fin in a side-to-side direction with the fin extending along or parallel to a median plane between the first and second feet of the user(as is visually apparent from Fig 6-7 a moving the fin in a side-to-side direction of the fin is in a direction parallel to a median plane between the feet of the user; Col 4, ln. 25-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12 and 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In Regard to Claim 4, Moore teaches the top fin point and the bottom fin point extend the same distance from the proximal edge of the fin. This configuration reduces spillover and increases contact time, which ultimately enhances the effectiveness and performance of the swimming device. Moore fails to teach wherein the top fin extension includes a top fin point and the bottom fin extension includes a bottom fin point, the top fin extension disposed further from a proximal edge of the fin than the bottom fin point.
In Regard to Claim 12, Moore fails to fairly teach or suggest the first flange includes holes complementary to holes of the fin for coupling the first flange to the fin, and the second flange includes holes complementary to holes of the first and second foot mounts for coupling of the first and second foot mounts to the respective second flange.
In Regard to Claim 16, Moore teaches the first and second angles are the same but fails to fairly teach or suggest wherein the second angle is greater than the first angle.
In Regard to Claim 17, Moore teaches the top surface of the third base section extends at the same angle as the top surface of the second base section but fails to fairly teach or suggest wherein the top surface of the third base section extends uniformly without a taper and parallel to a bottom surface.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Court D. Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745