DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
As noted in the Petition Decision mailed June 18, 2026, the petition to accept the unintentionally delayed priority claim has been granted.
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 2, 4, 5, 10, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubuque (U.S. Patent No. 6,234,514).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5 and 12, Dubuque teaches a free heel ski binding (overall configuration, figure 1), which includes an open ended cylinder (19) with first and second ends (18, 25) forming a cassette cylinder, a piston including a head portion (28) and a shaft portion (22), at least one spring (26) received within the cylinder and configured to be compressed by the piston head (e.g., as the piston head moves towards cylinder end 25, figure 3), a cassette cylinder nut or cassette cylinder cap (16, 17) configured to attach to the cylinder at a first end (proximate 18), the use of the nut or cap in conjunction with the threaded portion (14) of one connecting portion operative to (a) adjust the compression applied to the spring (threading the nut further along portion 14 shortens the length of the bail structure overall, and compresses the spring in the use configuration illustrated in figure 1), (b) enabling modified binding stiffness (higher compression in the spring provides a stiffer and more responsive operation than lower compression due to the tighter connection and grips the boot portion 13 tighter), (c) enabling a modification of binding range of motion and amount of free-heel extension (with the degree of compression and shortening of the bail overall length reducing the amount of remaining motion e.g., before the spring is bottomed out or cannot be further compressed, and resultantly the amount of remaining travel allowed of the piston to its end position); the cylinder cap having an external surface (figures 1, 2, 3) capable of receiving a tool interface; the cap equipped to receive a tool including at least a hex tool or a wrench tool.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Dubuque further discloses wherein the cylinder cassette cap (16, 17) has a portion of female threading configured to attach to a portion of male threading included along a portion of an exterior surface of the cylinder (19) (Fig. 3; Column 2, lines 5 – 10).
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.
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.
Claims 3, 8, 13 – 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubuque (U.S. Patent No. 6,234,514).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Dubuque discloses the cylinder connected to a binding heel connector (29) via a first connecting portion (21) and to one of a binding heel piece, ski, ski plate or toe piece (at reference numeral 10) via a second connecting portion (15), the connecting portions taught to be rods.
Dubuque discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first and second connecting portions may be provided by one or more of a latch, tubing, solid-core wire, stranded wire, braided wire, cable, cord, and chain.
The choice of a material is well held to be within the skill level of an ordinary practitioner to make, and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Resultantly, it 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 to provide the rods as expressly taught by Dubuque as having been made from a wire material, for example a metallic wire, for the purpose of using a material which may readily be bent to a desired shape and provided with threading so as to form the bail portions taught by Dubuque from a robust yet machinable and workable material which will adequately perform the task required of the bail structure of Dubuque.
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Dubuque discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one spring device comprises a nested spring, composed of two or more springs, one set inside of another.
Regarding the duplication or multiplication of already taught parts, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Resultantly, it 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 to provide instead of a single spring, a plurality of springs (such as two or more) for the purpose of providing a greater overall possible spring force than can be had from a single spring (for example if a single spring being used does not deliver a desired force level on its own). As regards nesting, to the extent that the cylinder cassette element taught by Dubuque is of circular cross section and approximately sized to accommodate a spring, but not wide enough to accommodate a second spring laterally of the first, it 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 to nest the second spring inside the first one, for the purpose of achieving the desired increased spring force within the same sized cylinder cassette envelope.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Dubuque further discloses the cylinder cap having an external surface (figures 1, 2, 3) capable of receiving a tool interface; the cap equipped to receive a tool including at least a hex tool or a wrench tool.
Claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubuque as applied to claims 2 and 13 above and further in view of Strizl et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,333,892).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 16 and 17, Dubuque discloses the claimed invention except for a preset gauge viewing panel which implements at least one of a window, ruled graphical measures and color coded indicators of relative position of the spring device, which indicates a corresponding stiffness, binding range of motion and amount of free heel extension which is enabled.
Strizl et al. teaches a well-known binding spring adjustment structure which includes a spring (6) the tension of which is adjustable via a bolt assembly (5, 7) which includes a position registering feature (5c, 9) and which is viewable through a transparent window (3), having ruled graphical measures (3b) which are provided on the window. It 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 to provide the cassette cylinder as initially taught by Dubuque with a registering feature co-operable with the spring tensioning structure taught by Dubuque (which does not initially provide visual feedback of the spring compression, resulting stiffness, resulting remaining range of motion and thus the amount of extension which may be had), such feature as taught by Strizl et al. so as to enable a user to have visual confirmation of the spring compression (and resulting stiffness, resulting remaining range of motion and resulting amount of extension which may be had), which constitutes an improvement over a system lacking a visual confirmation, and obviates the user making trial-and-error adjustments.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed October 4, 2025 with respect to the drawing objections, the 112a and 112b rejections, the double patenting rejection, and the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections of claims 2 – 8 and 12 – 18, the applicant did not address those rejections in the arguments and amendments filed October 4, 2025. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 2 – 8 and 12 – 18 are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 9, 11, 19 and 21 are 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the prior art fails to disclose, either alone or in combination, wherein the springs have one or more of different parameters and different spring constants, configured to produce a graduated or graded, staged stiffness and response action of the binding mechanism.
Regarding claims 11 and 21, the prior art fails to disclose, either alone or in combination, wherein the at least one spring device comprises a variable pitch spring, composed of a spring having one or more of a variable average distance between the active coils, a variable average coil diameter and a variable average spring gauge or thickness.
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 JASON D SHANSKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5985. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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.
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.
/JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights