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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 20 – 38 have been examined. Claims 1 – 19 have been canceled by Applicant.
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.
Claims 20 – 23 and 27 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phibbs (8,075,014) in view of Hess (6,062,585). In regard to claim 20, Phibbs discloses a snowboard or a ski comprising a base having an exposed bottom surface configured for sliding on a snow surface (Fig. 17, bottom of item 100), a core disposed above the base (Fig. 17, item 100), and an edge extending along a length of the base and being secured to the base or the core, the edge comprising a first edge having a first base face and a first outer side face that converge at a first outside corner (Fig. 17, central portion of item 912).
In regard to claim 27, Phibbs discloses a top surface and a sidewall extending from the edge to the top surface (), wherein the sidewall is sloped so that when the bottom surface of the base is horizontally disposed, the sidewall inwardly slopes at a third angle relative to vertical from the edge to the top surface (Fig. 17, item 1710).
In regard to claim 28, Phibbs discloses wherein the edge has a top face, the sidewall extending to the top face at a location laterally spaced apart from the first outer side face (Fig. 17).
In regard to claim 29, Phibbs discloses a second edge extending directly from the first edge, the second edge comprising a second base face and a second outer side face that converge at a second outside corner, the first edge and the second edge being integrally formed as a single unitary member (Fig. 17, lower portion of item 912).
Phibbs does not disclose an upwardly sloping base face. In regard to claim 20, Hess discloses a snowboard or ski comprising an edge having a base face and a first outer side face that converge at an outside corner (Fig. 13, item 9), wherein the base face is angled relative to the base so that when the bottom surface of the base is horizontally disposed, the base face upwardly slopes to the outside corner at a first angle relative to horizontal (Fig. 13, item α).
In regard to claim 21, Hess discloses wherein the first angle is at least 1° (column 5, lines 56 – 67).
In regard to claim 22, Hess discloses wherein the first angle is in a range between 1° and 5° (column 5, lines 56 – 67).
In regard to claim 23, Hess discloses wherein the outer side face of the edge is vertically disposed when the bottom surface of the base is horizontally disposed (Fig. 13).
In regard to claim 30, Hess discloses one or more edge tabs outwardly projecting from the edge and secured to the base or core (Fig. 13, unnumbered inner portion of item 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the upwardly sloping base face of Hess, to the edge of Phibbs, in order to facilitate maneuvering and increase safety on ice and slippery ground.
Claims 24 – 26 and 31 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phibbs (8,075,014) in view of Hess (6,062,585) as applied to claims 20 – 23 and 27 – 30 above, and further in view of Nyman (5,462,304). Phibbs in view of Hess does not disclose inwardly sloping outer side face. In regard to claims 24 and 32, Nyman discloses a snowboard or ski comprising an edge having a base face and an outer side face that converge at an outside corner (Figs. 3B and 3C, outer portion of items 12 and 13), wherein the outer side face is angled so that when the bottom surface of the base is horizontally disposed, the outer side face inwardly slopes relative to vertical at a first angle (Figs. 3B and 3C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inwardly sloping outer side face of Nyman, to the edge of Phibbs in view of Hess, in order to facilitate maneuvering and increase safety on ice and slippery ground.
Phibbs in view of Hess and Nyman do not disclose the specific angle of slope of the outer side face. In regard to claims 25 – 26 and 32 – 33, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a slope of between 1° and 5°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bandrowski (3,790,184) discloses a ski construction;
Vance (6,193,244) discloses dual edge snowboard with straight edge portions;
Olson (9,308,432) discloses a dual-edged snowboard and snow skis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at 303.297.4337. 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613