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 § 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 6 and 8 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 6, the phrase “locked securely” “but weak enough to allow most normal individuals to exert sufficient finger pressure “in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms ““locked securely” “but weak enough to allow most normal individuals to exert sufficient finger pressure “ 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. (When a fin is secure enough to surf with is not particularly clear, as Examiner has lost many fins. Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot readily ascertain the force more normal individuals produce. Together the two limitations don’t provide a reasonable description for the spring strength to tell which products are infringing, especially after issue when the plain meaning, rather than BRI, is used.)
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(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, 2, 4-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by English (US 20060035543 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, English discloses a board for use in water sports comprising: a fin (Element 16) and a deck (Element 14), the fin being removably secured to the deck by a fin mount secured within a cavity in the deck (Element 60); the fin mount being configured to receive the base part of the fin in a releasably secure fit (See Fig. 1.); a butt end of the base of the fin engaging with the mount in a releasable and rotatable fit (at Element 24, it rotates before it’s final position); the distal end part (Element 42) of the fin engaging with a cam (Element 46) that forms part of the mount, the cam having a contact area (Entire top side in Fig. 10) for application of downward finger pressure; the fin, when its butt end part is engaged rotatably in the mount, being rotatable to a position where the distal end part engages with the cam to lock the fin in the mount; and the cam including a pivoting member (pivots around element 40) biased by a biasing member (biased by the interference fit between 50 and 46) to a position to engage with the distal end of the fin, as the fin is rotated to a position within the mount, to lock the distal end of the fin to the pivoting member to secure the fin to the mount and where downward finger pressure applied to the contact area of the cam disengages the pivoting member from the distal end of the fin so that the fin can be removed from the mount. (See Fig. 9 below. It is a capability of this apparatus. See MPEP 2114.)
PNG
media_image1.png
238
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the pivoting member pivots between two positions, a first locking position and a second unlocking position and the pivoting member is driven to the locking position by the force of a biasing member. (paragraph 46 “the lever interferes slightly with the wall of the central slot” is descriptive of bias created by Element 46’s interference fit.)
Regarding Claim 4, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the force of the biasing member holding the pivoting member in the locked position is overcome by downward finger pressure on the pivoting member to move the pivoting member to the unlocked position. (See annotated diagram of Fig 9 above.)
Regarding Claim 5, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the pivoting member pivots on a pin to move between the two positions. (Element 40 is slender and elongated like a pin)
Regarding Claim 6, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the strength of the biasing member is sufficient to carry out its function of ensuring the fin is locked securely to the mount when the pivoting member is in the locking position but weak enough to allow most normal individuals to exert sufficient finger pressure on the pivoting member to move the pivoting member into the unlocking position. (It would take some effort, but it is possible. See MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations of an apparatus.)
Regarding Claim 7, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the fin is manually rotatable about its butt end connection to the mount so that the distal end portion of the base of the fin moves toward the cam and rides over a shaped end portion of a downwardly depending portion of the pivotable member such that the shaped end portion engages with a complementary shape in the distal end of the fin and is held there by the biasing member to lock the pivoting member to the fin. (See Fig. 8, 9)
Regarding Claim 8, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the pivoting member has a shaped portion such as a lug at its distal end which engages with a complementary recess in the distal end of the fin. (Element 50, See Fig. 9.)
Regarding Claim 9, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the lug and recess are shaped to permit the bottom portion of the distal end of the fin to ride smoothly over the end of the lug to allow the lug to engage with the recess and to lock together to securely hold the fin in the mount in the locked position while allowing the lug to disengage from the recess when the lug moves under finger pressure applied to the pivoting member and allow the fin to be removable from the mount. (See Fig. 8, 9 and rejection of Claim 1 above.)
Regarding Claim 11, English discloses the board of claim 1 wherein the fin mount is secured in a cavity in the deck of the board manufactured and sold separately from any fins. (A fin mount and a board manufactured in a separate process results in the same product. See MPEP 2173.05 for product by process.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (Applicant may want to consider using the drawings for a more specific geometric description of Applicant’s invention.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watson (US 20170158294 A1) and Kelley (US 20030087564 A1) disclose fins that can be installed with a finger press.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 10 Jan 2026