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 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.
Claims 1, 3-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanelec US D305,145 (hereafter Shanelec 145) in view of Sneddon US 5,273,470, and alternatively also in view of Shanelec US 4,961,715 (hereafter Shanelec 715).
Regarding claim 1, Shanelec 145 teaches a sports board comprising:
a monolithic structure composed of a single homogeneous material,
the monolithic structure having a continuous exterior skin including at least one purchase surface area (anywhere a user would choose to contact).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Shanelec 145 Figures 1-5
Shanelec 145 does not teach that the continuous exterior skin includes a plurality of cluster protrusions; the plurality of cluster protrusions defining the at least one purchase surface area. Sneddon discloses a sports board 10 comprising:
a monolithic structure composed of a single homogeneous material (column 3, lines 56-66);
the monolithic structure having a continuous exterior skin including at least one purchase surface area 24, 26, 36;
the continuous exterior skin including a plurality of cluster protrusions 28, 30, 34;
the plurality of cluster protrusions defining the at least one purchase surface area.
PNG
media_image2.png
550
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sport board of Shanelec 145 with a plurality of cluster protrusions defining a purchase area as taught by Sneddon in order to increase a user’s grip on the board.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Sneddon Figure 2)]If the applicant does not agree that Sneddon’s grip areas are protrusions, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the gripping features protrusions or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to optimize the grip or obtain the desired aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Shanelec 145 does not teach that the single homogeneous material is an expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize EPP in order to make the board light and strong while maintaining some flexibility, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Alternatively, Shanelec 715 teaches a surfboard comprising a monolithic structure composed of a single homogeneous material, wherein the single homogeneous material is an expanded EPP foam (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sport board of Shanelec 145 by forming it from homogenous EEP foam as taught by Shanelec 715 in order to make the board “extremely light weight and strong, yet able to float and safer than the devices of the prior art” (column 2, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 3, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the single homogeneous material is a recyclable material; and the monolithic structure is recyclable.
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shanelec 145 also teaches that the monolithic structure includes a top deck and a bottom surface. Sneddon also teaches that each cluster protrusion of the plurality of cluster protrusions includes a plurality of individual projections.
Neither Shanelec 145 nor Sneddon teach that the at least one purchase surface area is defined by the bottom surface, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a purchase surface/protrusions on the bottom surface in order to increase a user’s gripping ability (note that Sneddon teaches a user gripping the bottom surface), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Shanelec 145 does not teach that the single homogeneous material is an expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam with a density of 1.9 lbs/ft3, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize EPP with a density of 1.9 lbs/ft3 in order to make the board light and strong while maintaining some flexibility, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Alternatively, Shanelec 715 teaches that the single homogeneous material is an expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam with a density of 1.9 lbs/ft3 (column 3, lines 6-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sport board of Shanelec 145 by forming it from homogenous EEP foam as taught by Shanelec 715 in order to make the board “extremely light weight and strong, yet able to float and safer than the devices of the prior art” (column 2, lines 39-43).
Sneddon does not teach that the plurality of vent markings include a plurality of domed protrusions, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the grip surfaces domed or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide a comfortable and functional grip with the desired aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 6, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Sneddon also teaches that the plurality of vent markings include a plurality of ridges 28, 34.
Regarding claim 7, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Neither Shanelec 145 nor Sneddon teach that individual projections are arranged in a circular configuration and spaced from adjacent cluster protrusions of the plurality of protrusions, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the projections in circular clusters in order to optimize the grip or obtain the desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 8, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Neither Shanelec 145 nor Sneddon teach spacing for the protrusions, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to space the protrusions as necessary to obtain the desired grip and/or aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sneddon also discloses that the plurality of cluster protrusions 28, 30, 34 are arranged in a pattern within the at least one purchase surface area 24, 26, 36, as any cluster of protrusions can be interpreted to be a pattern. Neither Shanelec 145 nor Sneddon explicitly teach varying distances between adjacent cluster protrusions of the plurality of cluster protrusions, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the projections at varying distances in order to optimize the grip or obtain the desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Shanelec 145 nor Sneddon teach that the plurality of cluster protrusions are arranged with a first spacing between adjacent cluster protrusions adjacent a first end of the at least one purchase surface area and with a second spacing between adjacent cluster protrusions adjacent a second end of the at least one purchase surface area opposite the first end, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the projections at varying distances in order to optimize the grip or obtain the desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 11-14, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shanelec 145 does not teach specific board sizes, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the board whatever size was desired to accommodate different size riders or enable its use for different types of wave riding sports, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shanelec 145 also teaches a tail portion including a contoured surface defined by the continuous exterior skin; wherein the contoured surface is configured as a resting surface for resting the sports board in an upright position (see Shanelec figures 2-4).
Shanelec 145 does not teach that the single homogeneous material is an expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam with a density of 1.9 lbs/ft3, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize EPP with a density of 1.9 lbs/ft3 in order to make the board light and strong while maintaining some flexibility, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Alternatively, Shanelec 715 teaches that the single homogeneous material is an expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam with a density of 1.9 lbs/ft3 (column 3, lines 6-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sport board of Shanelec 145 by forming it from homogenous EEP foam as taught by Shanelec 715 in order to make the board “extremely light weight and strong, yet able to float and safer than the devices of the prior art” (column 2, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 22, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Shanelec 145 also teaches that the monolithic structure includes a top deck and a bottom surface located on an opposite side of the monolithic structure from the top deck with the top deck and the bottom surface extending between a nose, a tail, and a pair of sides adjacent to opposing edges of the monolithic structure. Sneddon also teaches that each cluster protrusion of the plurality of cluster protrusions includes a plurality of individual projections.
Neither Shanelec 145 nor Sneddon teach that the at least one purchase surface area is defined by the bottom surface, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a purchase surface/protrusions on the bottom surface in order to increase a user’s gripping ability (note that Sneddon teaches a user gripping the bottom surface), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 23, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 22. Shanelec 145 also teaches that the monolithic structure includes a top trough defined by the top deck that extends from the tail towards the nose and is spaced from opposing edges of the monolithic structure by a rail adjacent each of the pair of sides, and the top trough intersects the tail along a semi-circular edge defined at an intersection of the top deck and the tail (see Shanelec figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 24, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 23. Shanelec 145 also teaches that the monolithic structure includes a bottom trough defined by the bottom surface that extends from the tail towards the nose and is spaced from opposing edges of the monolithic structure by a rail adjacent each of the pair of sides, and the bottom trough intersects the tail along a semi-circular edge defined by the intersection of the top deck and the tail (see Shanelec figures 1-5).
Regarding claim 25, Shanelec 145 and Sneddon, together or also in view of Shanelec 715, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 24. Shanelec 145 also teaches that the tail includes a planar surface extending between each of the pair of edges of the monolithic structure with the planar surface intersecting the top deck at a first distance from the nose and the planar surface intersecting the bottom surface at a second distance from the nose with the second distance being greater than the first distance and the at least one purchase surface area (as modified) is spaced from the top deck (see Shanelec figures 1-5).
Claims 1, 3-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sneddon US 5,273,470, and alternatively in view of Shanelec US 4,961,715 (hereafter Shanelec 715).
Regarding claim 1, Sneddon discloses a sports board 10 comprising:
a monolithic structure composed of a single homogeneous material (column 3, lines 56-66);
the monolithic structure having a continuous exterior skin including at least one purchase surface area 24, 26, 36;
the continuous exterior skin including a plurality of cluster protrusions 28, 30, 34;
the plurality of cluster protrusions defining the at least one purchase surface area.
Note that the board comprises a monolithic structure, but also is taught to comprise a coating on the bottom of the board 14. In an alternative interpretation, if the applicant intended to recite that the board only has the monolithic core, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the bottom liner in order to reduce cost and/or simplify manufacturing of the item, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Sneddon does not teach that the single homogeneous material is an expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize EPP in order to make the board light and strong while maintaining some flexibility, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Alternatively, Shanelec 715 teaches a surfboard comprising a monolithic structure composed of a single homogeneous material, wherein the single homogeneous material is an expanded EPP foam (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the sport board of Sneddon by forming it from homogenous EEP foam as taught by Shanelec 715 in order to make the board “extremely light weight and strong, yet able to float and safer than the devices of the prior art” (column 2, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 3, Sneddon alone or in view of Shanelec 715 teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the single homogeneous material is a recyclable material; and the monolithic structure is recyclable.
Regarding claims 4-10, 15 and 21-25, Sneddon alone or in view of Shanelec 715 teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Each of claims 4-10, 15 and 21-25 recite details about the material of the board, and/or the shaping and/or placement of the protrusions.
Regarding the material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize EPP of whatever density was desired in order to make the board light and strong while maintaining some flexibility, 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding the location of the purchase areas and projections, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the projections wherever they were desired in order to optimize the grip or obtain the desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding the shape of the board and/or protrusions, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the board and/or protrusions of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to optimize the grip or obtain the desired aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Sneddon alone or in view of Shanelec 715 teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sneddon does not teach that the sports board has a board width in a range of about 6 to 18 or 36 to 72 inches and having a board length in a range of about 6 to 18 or 60 to 84 inches. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the board whatever size was desired to accommodate different size riders or enable its use for different types of wave riding sports, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Sneddon alone or in view of Shanelec 715 teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sneddon also teaches that the sports board has a board width in a range of about 20 to 36 inches and has a board length in a range of about 32 to 50 inches (column 3, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 13, Sneddon alone or in view of Shanelec 715 teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Sneddon also teaches that the sports board has a board width in a range of about 20 to 48 inches and has a board length in a range of about 10 to 40 inches (column 3, lines 45-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The only substantive argument presented by the applicant is that Sneddon’s purchase surfaces area is “formed by recesses, not protrusions” (page 6). The examiner replies that both are textured surfaces, and the raised portions between the recesses can be considered protrusions. In the interest of compact prosecution, this has been addressed above as an obvious change of shape.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights