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 .
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 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 present application, filed on or after March 8, 2024, of which claims 1-15
were presented for examination, is being examined under the first inventor to file
provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 9-10 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “the major longitudinal segment of the moveable arm (line: 4)” and “the minor longitudinal segment of the movable arm (lines: 5-6),” however, these limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s). The terms “the major longitudinal segment of the moveable arm” and “the minor longitudinal segment of the movable arm” are introduced for the first time in the claim with the definite article “the,” which indicates a previously defined element. Claim 5, which claim 9 depends directly from, and/or in earlier lines of claim 9 do not recite those terms. Examiner assumes the terms are being introduced for the first time in the set of claim(s) that claim 9 is in.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the head of the command lever (lines: 1-2)” however, this limitation lack proper antecedent basis in the claim(s). The term “the head of the command lever” is introduced for the first time in the claim with the definite article “the,” which indicates a previously defined element. Claim 12, which claim 13 depends directly from, and/or in earlier lines of claim 13 do not recite the term. Examiner assumes the term is being introduced for the first time in the set of claim(s) that claim 13 is in.
Claim 10 is rejected for depending directly/indirectly from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haugen et al. “Haugen” (US PG Pub. 2014/0013629).
Regarding claim 1, Haugen discloses a ski boot (invention as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: a substantially rigid foot-case (S, Fig. 1), which is adapted to accommodate the user's foot (“adapted to…foot” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function); a substantially rigid cuff (C), which is adapted to embrace the user's lower leg (“adapted to…leg” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function), and is hinged to the foot-case (S) so as to be able to swing around a first rotation axis (axis P) substantially perpendicular to the midplane of the boot (Par. 0050); and a manually-operated cuff locking device (110, Fig. 6-10d), which is adapted to selectively lock the cuff (C) rigidly to the foot-case (S) in a predetermined down-hill position (Par. 0068);
the cuff locking device (110) comprising: a supporting plate (178, Fig. 9) located on the cuff (C, as shown in Fig. 9), above the heel of the ski boot (as shown in Fig. 6); and a movable arm (combination of 122 and 118, which is an element within assembly, 116), which is pivoted on the supporting plate (178, examiner notes “pivoted on the supporting plate” through element 116 connection to pivot axis of 164 and 120) so as to be able to rotate around a second rotation axis (axis of 164), to and from a locking position (as shown in Fig. 10a, Par. 0076, lines: 8-11 and Par. 0084) in which the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) extends downwards and couples its lower end (lower end of 122, Fig. 7 and 10a) in a rigid, though releasable manner to an anchoring structure (136, Fig. 8) integral with the foot-case (S, Fig. 8);
the ski boot being characterized in that the cuff locking device (110) additionally comprises a manually-operated locking member (144, Fig. 7), which is attached to the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118, as shown in Fig. 7 and 10a-10d) with the capability of moving between a first operating position (as shown in Fig. 10a as position element 144 is in) in which the locking member (144) immobilizes the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) in the locked position (Par. 0075 and Par. 0076, lines: 8-11, as shown in Fig. 10a), and a second operating position (as shown in Fig. 10d) in which the locking member (144) allows the movable arm (116) to move freely with respect to the supporting plate (178, Par. 0078).
Regarding claim 2, Haugen discloses the cuff locking device (110) additionally comprises: an elastic member (182), which is adapted to elastically bring and maintain the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) in said locking position (Par. 0088, lines: 1-5 and Par. 0099, lines: 1-6, examiner note elastic member, 182 acts on arm, combination of 122 and 118, through locking member, 144); and a manually-operated command lever (190), which is movably mounted on the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118, examiner notes “movably mounted” through elements 120 and 164) and is adapted to contact cooperate with the supporting plate (178) so as to selectively shift/move the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) away from the locking position by overcoming the thrust of the elastic member (182), so as to decouple and move the lower end of the movable arm (lower end of 122) away from the anchoring structure (136, Fig. 10c-10d, Par. 0096-0097, “adapted to…structure” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 3, Haugen discloses wherein the command lever (190) is adapted to autonomously arrange the locking member (144) in the second operating position when the movable arm (122) is shifted/moved away from said locking position (“adapted to…locking position” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes as shown in Fig. 10c-10d).
Regarding claim 4, Haugen discloses wherein the locking member (144) is structured so as to contact cooperate, when in the first operating position, with the supporting plate (178, “contact cooperate” through elements 120 and 190) to prevent any movement of the movable arm (122) from the locking position (Par. 0098).
Regarding claim 5, Haugen discloses wherein the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) is rocker pivoted on the supporting plate (178, “rocker pivoted” on supporting plate through elements 164, 120, and 190) so that its lower end (lower end of 122) and its upper end (top end of 118 in Fig. 7) are arranged on opposite sides of said second rotation axis (axis of 164, examiner notes as shown in Fig. 7 and 10a-10d).
Regarding claim 6, Haugen discloses wherein the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) is provided with a major longitudinal segment (see annotated Fig. 7 below) extending from said second rotation axis (axis 164, Par. 0074, lines: 12-16) up to the lower end of the movable arm (lower end of 122), and with a minor longitudinal segment (see annotated Fig. 7 below) extending from said second rotation axis (axis of 164) up to the upper end of the movable arm (upper end of 118); the command lever (190) being located on the major longitudinal segment of the movable arm (examiner notes since element 190 is aligned with the major longitudinal segment it is being considered to be align with it); the locking member (144) being at least partially located on the minor longitudinal segment of the movable arm (as shown in annotated Fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
904
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7-Examiner Annotated
Regarding claim 7, Haugen discloses wherein the locking member (144) is shaped/structured so as to selectively wedge/fit between the minor longitudinal segment of the movable arm (see annotated Fig. 7 above) and the supporting plate (178, examiner notes 144 is shown partly between the minor longitudinal segment and supporting plate in Fig. 10a), in order to prevent any rotation/tilting of the minor longitudinal segment towards the same supporting plate (178, “is shaped/structured so…plate” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function).
Regarding claim 8, Haugen discloses wherein the locking member (144) is fixed on the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) with the capability of sliding back and forth between said first and said second operating positions (“capability of…positions” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, as shown in Fig. 10a-10d, “sliding” due to linear movement of 144 along the length of moveable arm).
Regarding claim 9, Haugen discloses the locking member (144) extends on the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) astride the second rotation axis (axis of 164, as shown in Fig. 10a), so that its first end (see annotated Fig. 7 above) is arranged on the major longitudinal segment of the movable arm (see annotated Fig. 7 above), and its second end (see annotated Fig. 7 above) is arranged on the minor longitudinal segment of the movable arm (see annotated Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 10, Haugen discloses wherein the first end of the locking member (see annotated Fig. 7 above) is adapted to contact cooperate with said command lever (190, examiner notes the annotated “first end” cooperates with element 190 through elements 140, 118, and 120).
Regarding claim 11, Haugen discloses wherein the command lever (190) is butt hinged to the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118, as shown in Fig. 7) so as to rotate between a first operating position in which the command lever (190) arranges the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) in said locking position (examiner notes “first operating position” is as shown in Fig. 10a, due to rotation), and a second operating position in which the command lever (190) arranges the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) in an unlocking position in which the lower end of the movable arm (lower end of 122) is away/detached from said anchoring structure (136, examiner notes “unlocking position” is as shown in Fig. 10d).
Regarding claim 12, Haugen discloses wherein the command lever (190) is butt hinged to the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118, as shown in Fig. 7) so as to be able to rotate about a third rotation axis (axis 196) substantially parallel to said second rotation axis (axis 164).
Regarding claim 13, Haugen discloses wherein the head of the command lever (see annotated Fig. 7 above) is cam-shaped (examiner notes the annotated “head” is “cam shaped” due to being curved) and is adapted to rest on the supporting plate (178, as shown in Fig. 10a-10d) so as to locally move the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) away from the supporting plate (178, “adapted to…plate” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, Fig. 10d).
Regarding claim 14, Haugen discloses wherein said elastic member (182) is adapted to pull the movable arm (combination of 122 and 118) elastically towards the supporting plate (178, “adapted to…plate” is considered as a functional limitation, the device of the prior art discloses substantially all of the claimed structural elements and therefore it is fully capable to perform the claimed function, as shown in Fig. 10d).
Regarding claim 15, Haugen discloses wherein said elastic member (182) is interposed between the command lever (144) and the supporting plate (178, as shown in Fig. 10a-10d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent (See
PTO-892) to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAKOTA MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri., 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISSA TOMPKINS can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/DAKOTA MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA J TOMPKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732