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 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 1, the recitation of, “1” should recite, “one” to improve readability.
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"buoyant unit coupling system” in Claims 1 and 8-9
“foot coupling system” in Claims 1 and 10-13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure in the specification being:
"buoyant unit coupling system” -a pair of steel rods, one front of the centre
line, and one rear of the centre line, both embedded into and/or glued to both buoyant units, connecting/coupling them.
“foot coupling system” - a horizontal board, located at the buoyant centre
of the coupled buoyant units, connected to both buoyant units, with something resembling a water-ski foot connector (water ski bindings) attached to its upper surface.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of,
“the surface” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “a
“the water skates” in Lines 11-12 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of water skates” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
“effective” in Line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
“each buoyant unit must also be narrow enough such that when the water skates are worn, the wearer’s feet are able to be close enough to each other to avoid a wide “straddle” and to ensure that appropriate balance and comfort are maintained” in Lines 11-13 describes a function of each buoyant unit and includes relative terms such as “wide “straddle”” and “balance and comfort” which are 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of,
“the buoyant units” in Line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of buoyant units” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of,
“the buoyant units” in Line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of buoyant units” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of,
“the buoyant units” in Line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of buoyant units” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation of,
“the buoyant units” in Line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of buoyant units” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 6, the recitation of,
“the buoyant units” in Line 1 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of buoyant units” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitation of,
“the buoyant units” in Lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of buoyant units” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation of,
“the buoyant units” in Lines 1-2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the pair of buoyant units” and Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation accordingly.
Claims 2-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art considered to be US3541623A discloses a water skate comprising a pair of buoyant units (see bodies 10, figure 1 also reproduced above), each buoyant unit having a length, a width, and a height (see dimensions of 10, figure 1); and
a foot coupling system (see boot receiving assemblies 18, figure 1), positioned between the pair of buoyant units (see figure 1), to connect to a foot of a user (see figure 1), and configured to enable effective force transfer between the foot and the water skate (see figure 1). The prior art fails to disclose a pair of water skates for locomotion on the surface of water, each skate comprising:
a) a pair of buoyant units, each buoyant unit having a length, a width, and a height;
b) a buoyant unit coupling system to connect the pair of buoyant units, to keep them substantially parallel to each other, and to maintain a predefined distance from each other to form a hydrodynamic, highly stable paired structure;
c) a foot coupling system, positioned between the pair of buoyant units, to connect to a foot of a user, and configured to enable effective force transfer between the foot and the water skate; and
whereby the pair of water skates are configured to provide sufficient buoyant force to support the weight of the user; and whereby each buoyant unit must also be narrow enough such that when the water skates are worn, the wearer’s feet are able to be close enough to each other to avoid a wide “straddle” and to ensure that appropriate balance and comfort are maintained. Therefore, it is not known in, nor obvious from the prior art to construct a pair of water skates as claimed.
Claims 2-18 also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080100035 A1 discloses Hydroplaning Skis For Use On Wet Ground Surfaces (see figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:30 am-6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571- 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745