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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ groove for sliding said central rib” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because they include reference characters in parentheses. Use of references characters in the claim language makes it unclear if the structures referenced by the characters should be directly imported into the claim or if the broader terms used in the claim should be used. Using binding (AT) as an example, Fig. 1 shows a specific type of binding, i.e., an alpine-touring pin binding for backcountry ski use, however the term binding could be much broader than this, e.g., any type binding for attaching a user’s boot to the ski, e.g., a traditional alpine binding. Thus, reference characters within the claims should be removed and the claims are interpreted as not having reference characters.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a belt (6) closed on itself and wound longitudinally around the ski under a condition for which it slides around the two rollers (51, 52), being dragged in rotation by the above-mentioned drum (4) and being slidingly inserted on the duct (16)” is unnecessarily narrative in form and would be easier to understand if rewritten, for example, “a closed belt wound longitudinally around the ski and the two rollers being dragged in rotation by the drum and slidingly inserted through the duct.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “said belt (6) it dragged” should be and is interpreted as “said belt (13) [[it]]is dragged”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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 1-14 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 1, the phrase “a bridge-like structure” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the meets and bounds of the scope are of bridge-like are. Is it only bridge structures? Said in another way, it is unclear what structure would be “bridge-like” that wouldn’t also be considered a bridge structure. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claims are interpreted as reciting “a bridge
Further regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein said ski (1) comprises … a bridge-like structure (15, arranged … above the ski (1)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the bridge structure can be both part of the ski and arranged above the structure, i.e., the ski that it is a part of.
Further regarding claim 1, the phrase “the upper portion” lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 1, the phrase “a hooking surface (15a) for binding (AT) of a user’s boot” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is unclear. Fig. 1 depicts bindings attached to the upper surface of the bridge but the specification and figures are devoid of further details as to how the bindings are secured to the bridge, if secured via a hook this is not properly disclosed under 112(a). Under a second interpretation of the phrase, the phrase might be interpreted as claiming that the hooking surface, i.e., the binding, secures the user’s boot to the ski. However, this interpretation is challenging to make because of the character references present in the claim.
Regarding claims 2 and 7 the phrase “without continuity solution” is not understood and thus renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the meets and bounds of the claim are.
wherein said belt (6) even comprises an external level configured to come in contact with a ground and having a surface finishing of the seal skin type, or equivalent.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “wherein said belt (6) even comprises an external level configured to come in contact with a ground and having a surface finishing of the seal skin type, or equivalent” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the meets and bounds of the scope are of seal skin type are. The specification provides no additional details as to what seal skin type means other than seal skin itself. Although the Specification repeats “equivalents” it is unclear what other surface finished might be considered an equivalent as no examples have been listed.
Regarding claim 9, the following render the claim indefinite.
“the above-mentioned opposite flanks (F1, F2),” lacks antecedent basis, flanks are introduced in claim 8 not claim 6 which 9 depends from, and “above-mentioned” should be removed as it is redundant with antecedent basis established by “the”. This is merely one example of use of “above-mentioned” but all should be removed from the claims.
“has as many slots (Ap) extending in the sense of length of the ski (1) and which are suitable to be crossed by a transverse rod (71)” – the scope of the claim cannot be determined because it is unclear how many slots if any are required by the claim. How is it determined how many slots are suitable? What if none are?
“suitable to slid from an end to another one of said pair of slots (Ap)” – it is unclear what this “suitable” is referring to. “slide” or should it be “slide”?
“wherein the ends of said transverse rod (71) project outside such slots (Ap) to sustain the opposing arms (72) of the above-mentioned carriage (70)” – “such slots” is not proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what is meant by “to sustain the opposing arms”
which sustain, at their end positioned on the side of the above-mentioned drum (4), the above-mentioned tension roller (7); wherein the above-mentioned register means (8) of the tension roller (7) consists of two threaded handwheels (81) cooperating too with the above-mentioned slots (Ap), so as to be able to lock their position in a wished position of said slots (Ap)” – “above-mentioned tension roller (7); wherein the above-mentioned register means (8)” both the tension roller and the register means lack antecedent basis. It is unclear what is meant by a “wished position.”
Claim 9 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a cradle-like support” renders the claim indefinite because the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. What does it mean to be “cradle-like?”
Claim 12 contains the trademark/trade name “Velcro.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a hook and loop fastener system and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0113119 A1 to Burger.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Burger discloses sports equipment comprising a ski (2) and a lift group (13, 17, 18,94) (Burger Annotated Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 and Abstract):
wherein said ski (2) comprises a longitudinal axis (16), a tip (21), a tail (20), two lateral edges (Fig 1) and a bridge-like structure (36), arranged between the tail (20) and the tip (21), above the ski (Figs. 1, 8-10 and Burger Annotated Fig. 13 & [0055], [0109]);
said bridge-like structure (36) comprising, on the upper portion, a hooking surface (84) for bindings (6) of a user's boot (7) and defining, on the lower side, a duct (25) below said hooking surface (84) (Figs. 1, 8-10 and Burger Annotated Fig.13 & [0055], [0109]);
said lift group (13, 17, 18,94) comprising:
- an engine unit (17) comprising a motor (51) and a drum (50) moved by said
motor (51) (Figs. 1,3, Burger Annotated Fig. 13 & [0051] and [0068]);
said drum (50) having a rotation axis (57) orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (16) of the ski (2) (Figs. 1,3,13 & [0051] and [0068]);
- a management and control unit (94) connected to said motor (51) (Figs. 1,3, Burger Annotated Fig. 13 & [0114]-[0115]);
- a power supply battery (19) for said motor (51) of the engine unit (17) and said control unit (94) (Figs. 1,3,10, Burger Annotated Fig. 13 & [0113] and [0114]);
- a first roller (18) arranged on the tip (21) of the ski (2) (Fig. 1 & [0061]);
- a second roller (A) arranged on the tail (20) of the ski (2) (Burger Annotated Fig. 13 & [0068] disclose and depict a second roller at the end of the tail 20);
- a belt (13) closed on itself and wound longitudinally around the ski under a condition for which it slides around the two rollers (18,A), being dragged in rotation by the above- mentioned drum (50) and being slidingly inserted on the duct (25) (Burger Annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 1, & [0078], [0106]-[0107])
and characterized by the fact that - said belt (13) comprises a central rib (65) protruding from said belt (13) towards said ski (2) - said ski (2) comprises a groove (66) for sliding said central rib (65) when said belt (13) it dragged in rotation by the above-mentioned drum (50) (Burger Annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 5, & [0091]).
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Burger further discloses wherein said central rib (65) protrudes from said belt (13) for the whole extension of said belt (13) without continuity solution (Burger Annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 5, & [0091]).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Burger further discloses wherein said central rib (65) and said belt (13) are made of the same material and in one single piece (Fig 5 and [0090]-[0092] disclose and depict the belt is of a single piece. Assuming, arguendo, that Burger was silent as to the uniform construction, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have integrated the belt into a single piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (b); see also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) stating "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 4, Burger further discloses wherein said belt (13) comprises at least a structural primary (70) level proximate to said ski (2); and wherein said central rib (65) protrudes from said primary level of said belt (13) and it can be implemented in one single piece with said primary level of said belt (13) (Fig 5 and [0090]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 5, Burger further discloses wherein said belt (13) even comprises an external level configured to come in contact with a ground and having a surface finishing of the seal skin type, or equivalent ([0077]).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, Burger further discloses wherein said groove (66) extends on the entirety of the lower surface of the ski (2) without continuity solution (Burger Annotated Fig. 13, Figs. 1, 5 & [0091]).
PNG
media_image2.png
303
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Burger further discloses wherein said engine unit (17) comprises a supporting frame (B) fastened to the ski (2), wherein said frame (B) comprises two flanks (C,D) which delimit a compartment for housing said motor (51) and said drum (50) (Burger Annotated Figs. 6 and 13, and Figs. 6,7 & [0093]-[0095]).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, Burger further discloses wherein said lift group (13, 17, 18,94) comprises two sides (58) for the longitudinal edges of said belt (13) near the first roller (18) and near the second roller (A) (Burger Fig. 13 and Figs. 1,3 & [0079]-[0080] and [0089] disclose a fork mounts the front and rear rollers which is depicted as having two sides, one on each side of the roller and the mounted belt. Because the fork holds the rollers and thus the belt in place, it is interpreted as being “for the longitudinal edges of said belt).
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 1, Burger further discloses wherein said belt (13) comprises a first end and a second end suitable to be connected to each other through connecting means of detachable type (38) (Fig. 1 & [0078]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger in view of US 4,077,483 A to Randolph.
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Although Burger discloses the bottom of the ski includes a recess 66 for sliding the central rib 65, Burger does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein said drum (50) and said rollers (18,A) comprise annular cavities for sliding said central rib (65).
Randolph teaches that it was old and well known in the art of vehicles with endless belts, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, drum (36) and said rollers (46,48) comprise annular cavities for sliding said central rib (37) (Figs 1-3 and 9 & col 22 lns 44-col 3 ln 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles with endless belts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the endless belt driven ski disclosed by Burger to incorporate for the drum and rollers to include annular cavities for sliding said central rib as taught by Randolph in order to get a tight fit of the belt with the drum and rollers, e.g., see col 22 lns 44-col 3 ln 12, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger in view of DE 102018119561 A1 to Soflow.
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 1, Burger further discloses wherein said lift group (13, 17, 18, 94) comprises said battery (19) connected to the ski (2) (Fig. 10 depicts the battery is connected to the ski and the lift group via a wire).
Burger does not appear to disclose a quick connecting means to connect said battery to the ski; and wherein the above-mentioned quick connection means comprises a cradle-like support and an overlying pair of tapes made of Velcro.
Soflow teaches that it was old and well known in the art of outdoor sports equipment, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a quick connecting means (7) to connect said battery (4) to the [skateboard]; and wherein the above-mentioned quick connection means (7) comprises a cradle-like support and an overlying pair of tapes (6,8) made of Velcro (Fig. 1b & [0020] teaches a compartment is a cradle like support for the battery that is held in place with hook and loop fasteners).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of outdoor sports equipment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric ski system disclosed by Burger to incorporate a quick connecting means to connect said battery to the ski; and wherein the above-mentioned quick connection means comprises a cradle-like support and an overlying pair of tapes made of Velcro as taught by Soflow in order to securely hold a battery on the skateboard, e.g., see Soflow [0020], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger.
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, wherein the above-mentioned drum (50) at the ends has two radial series of teeth (54) suitable to engage with respective series of holes (62) implemented at the longitudinal edges of the belt (13) (Figs. 5 & 16 and [0090]-[0091] and [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked snow vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drum 50 of the embodiment of Fig. 5 including orifices 62 at the external edges of the belt and the groove 65 in the center to include teeth 54 of the embodiment of Fig. 16 to provide teeth that co-operate with the eyelets, [0137], thereby decreasing slippage of the belt with the drum, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger in view of JP 2000288152 A to Hosoda.
Regarding claim 14, depending on claim 1, Burger does not appear to disclose wherein said lift group (13, 17, 18,94) comprises a unidirectional clutch shaped so as to allow the rotation of the drum (50) from a direction and to prevent it from the other direction (Burger Annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 1).
Hosoda teaches that it was old and well known in the art of tracked snow vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the lift group (23) to include a unidirectional clutch (35) shaped so as to allow the rotation of the drum (21) from a direction and to prevent it from the other direction (Fig. 1,5, 6, & [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tracked snow vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lift group disclosed by Burger to incorporate the unidirectional clutch as taught by Hosoda in order to prevent slip and enable one way transmission of power, e.g., see Hosoda [0024], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611