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 1 – 15 have been examined.
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.
(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 – 11 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fask et al. (6,761,363), cited by Applicant. In regard to claim 1, Fask discloses a skate blade comprising a steel frame (Fig. 2, item 12), wherein the steel frame comprises at least one stability element (Fig. 2, portions of 18a between items 34) and at least one recess formed by the at least one stability element (Fig. 2, items 34), at least one insert element arranged in the at least one recess (Figs. 1 and 8, item 14), and blade holder elements (Fig. 2, items 30), wherein the steel frame extends over a blade length horizontally along a longitudinal axis between a first end and a second end, and wherein the blade length includes a front section, a midsection and a rear section (Fig. 2), wherein the steel frame has a first side surface and a second side surface, the first and second side surfaces opposing each other and defining a blade thickness extending therebetween (Fig. 2), wherein the steel frame has a blade height which extends vertically along a vertical axis over a bottom chord and an upper chord, and wherein the bottom chord comprises a steel frame bottom side and the upper chord comprises a steel frame upper side (Fig. 2), wherein the at least one recess formed by the at least one stability element is located between the bottom chord and the upper chord (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 2, Fask discloses wherein the stability element comprises at least one of a partition wall and struts (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 3, Fask discloses wherein the partition wall is a plane-parallel partition wall (Figs. 2 and 4).
In regard to claim 4, Fask discloses wherein the first side surface and the second side surface of the steel frame are arranged parallel to each other and each define a first side plane and a second side plane, wherein the partition wall is arranged parallel between the first and the second side plane, and the at least one recess formed by the partition wall is located in each case between the first and/or second side plane and the partition wall, wherein the respective distance between the first side plane and the partition wall and/or the second side plane and the partition wall defines the transverse depth of the at least one recess, wherein the transverse depth is preferably an equidistant transverse depth (Figs. 2 and 5).
In regard to claim 5, Fask discloses wherein the at least one recesses of the first and second side planes are mutually symmetrical (Fig. 3, wherein recesses 34 are symmetrical about the centerline 5-5).
In regard to claim 6, Fask discloses wherein one strut is arranged between the front section and the midsection and another strut is arranged between the midsection and the rear section (Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 7, Fask discloses wherein recess form-fitting means are arranged on the steel frame (Figs. 6 and 8, outer circumference of items 34).
In regard to claim 8, Fask discloses wherein the at least one insert element completely fills the at least one recess (Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 9, Fask discloses wherein the at least one insert element is aligned in a plane with the first side plane and/or the second side plane (Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 10, Fask discloses wherein the at least one insert elements comprises insert form-fitting means and corresponds positively with the recess form fitting means (Fig. 8, surface of item 14 in contact with the outer circumference of items 34).
In regard to claim 11, Fask discloses wherein the steel frame includes cut-outs on the steel frame upper side (Fig. 2, item 30).
In regard to claim 13, Fask discloses providing a steel frame which has a blade length, a blade thickness, and a blade height, at least one recess formed by the stability element being located between the bottom chord and the upper chord of the steel frame (Fig. 2, item 12), attaching at least one of the recess form-fitting means to the at least one recess and the cut-outs to the steel frame upper side (Fig. 8), and inserting insert elements into the recesses (Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 14, Fask discloses wherein the insert elements are inserted into the recess under pressure using an injection molding process (column 7, lines 53 – 67).
In regard to claim 15, Fask discloses wherein the insert elements are inserted into the recesses in an adhesive bonding manner using an adhesive process and/or are pressed into the recesses in a force-fit manner (column 7, lines 53 – 67, wherein an injection molding process uses molten polymeric material, which would adhesively bond to the steel frame and an injection molding process is done under pressure, i.e. pressed by force).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fask et al. (6,761,363) as applied to claims 1 – 11 and 13 – 15 above. Fask does not disclose the recesses occupying between 20% and 80% of the total area of the skate blade. In regard to claim 12, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide recesses totaling between 20% and 80% of the skate blade area, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, “Fask does not teach or suggest such a circumferential steel frame. The ice hockey runner disclosed in Fask (ice hockey runner 10) merely comprises a lower blade portion (insert blade 12) formed from a metallic material that is partially surrounded by a high-strength polymeric portion (polymeric portion 14), see Fig. 1 of Fask below. As disclosed in Fask, the ice hockey runner may be formed by insert injection molding a polymeric material about the insert blade such that the insert blade is at least partially encased in a high strength polymeric material. Accordingly, the skate blade required in Claim 1 of the subject invention differs structurally from the ice hockey runner disclosed in Fask in that Fask does not disclose a circumferential steel frame extending between an upper and a lower flange and defining a recess for receiving an insert element. For this reason, the runner disclosed in Fask cannot correspond to the claimed invention. Applicant urges that Claim 1-15 are novel over Fask.”
First, Applicant is arguing limitations not found within the claims. The current claim language does not include a “circumferential steel frame” nor “an upper and a lower flange.” Second, the previous and current rejections include each recited limitation and the component to which they map in the currently cited prior art. Applicant has not specifically addressed any of these components or stated specifically why these components fail to match the current claim language.
For these reasons, the rejections stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights