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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 8/5/26 is acknowledged. No claims are withdrawn as the claims 1-20 read on the elected species.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "internally fixed" in line 1. It is unclear what Applicant is trying to claim. The specification fails to define what type of attachment is encompassed by the phrase “internally fixed” and the also drawing fail to clearly show this distinction. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as the first and second leaf being fixed between the structural layers of the respective first and second leaf.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halliday et al. (US 2022/0062727), hereinafter: “Halliday”.
In Regard to Claim 1
Halliday teaches:
A plyo-board, comprising:
a structural layer formed of a first material(metal, wood; P[0089]);
an impact layer coupled to the structural layer and formed of a second material different from the first material(polypropylene; P[0090]), wherein the second material comprises a low-wear material(polypropylene is a low-wear material);
the impact layer and structural layer define at least an upper panel rotatably coupled to a lower panel(panels 104,106,108 are coupled to one another; Fig 1-10);
a latch coupled to the upper panel(P[0074]);
a folding ratio defined as a ratio of an area of the plyo-board in a deployed configuration, in which the upper and lower panels are substantially planar, to an area of the plyo-board in a transport configuration, in which the upper panel overlays the lower panel; and the folding ratio is at least two(as shown in Fig 4-5, a folding ratio as defined by Applicant must be greater than 2 since 108 overlaps 104 when folded; furthermore P[0053], P[0080] disclose specific dimensions – 36”x60” when extended and the center panel has a 20.8859” width which gives a fold ratio of 2.87)
In Regard to Claim 3
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second material is selected from a group of materials consisting of rubber, Styrofoam, Polyvinyl Chloride, or Thermoplastic Elastomer(polypropylene is a thermoplastic elastomer; P[0090]).
In Regard to Claim 4
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 3(see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the first material is selected from a group of materials consisting of wood, metal, carbon fiber, or fiberglass(metal, wood; P[0089]).
In Regard to Claim 7
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the plyo-board weighs less than 50 pounds(P[0053]).
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rupaka et al. (US 20220296958), hereinafter: “Rupaka”.
In Regard to Claim 16
Rupaka teaches:
A plyo-board(10) comprising:
a structural layer(12,14) formed of a first material(P[0019]);
an impact layer(32) coupled to the structural layer and formed of a second material different from the first material(P[0027]), wherein the second material comprises a low-wear material(PVC, PTE, rubber are examples of low-wear materials);
the impact layer and structural layer define an upper panel(14’,32), an upper middle panel(14’,32), a lower middle panel(14’,32), and a lower panel(14’,32; P[0030]), wherein:
the upper panel, the upper middle panel, the lower middle panel, and the lower panel are substantially planar(Fig 4; P[0030]-[0032]);
the upper panel and upper middle panel are rotatably coupled by an upper hinge system(36; Fig 4; P[0031]), the upper middle panel and lower middle panel are rotatably coupled by a middle hinge system(36; Fig 4; P[0031]), and the lower middle panel and lower panel are rotatably coupled by a lower hinge system(36; Fig 4; P[0031]);
the upper hinge system comprises at least one hinge, the middle hinge system comprises at least one hinge, and the lower hinge system comprises at least one hinge(each hinge system comprising two hinges as shown in Fig 4; P[0031]); and
the middle hinge system opposes the upper hinge system and lower hinge system(P[0032]);
a first latch(26,42) coupled to the upper panel and configured for insertion into a first slit(24) formed in the upper middle panel when the plyo-board is in a transport configuration(Fig 6-9, 12, and 13; P[0039]);
a second latch(26,42) coupled to the upper panel and configured for insertion into a second slit(24) formed in the upper middle panel when the plyo-board is in the transport configuration(Fig 6-9, 12, and 13; P[0039]); and
the upper panel and upper middle panel substantially overlay each other(Fig 6; P[0032]), the upper middle panel and lower middle panel substantially overlay each other(Fig 6; P[0032]), and the lower middle panel and lower panel substantially overlay each other(Fig 6; P[0032]) in the transport configuration so the surface area of the plyo-board in the transport configuration is approximately one-fourth the surface area of the plyo-board in the deployed configuration(visually apparent in Fig 5-6, and 12, the surface area in the transport configuration is approximately one-sixth, however, in P[0030] Rupaka explicitly teaches any number of panels between two and ten, as such, Rupaka explicitly teaches when there are four panels, in the transport configuration the surface area would be approximately one-fourth of the deployed configuration).
In Regard to Claim 18
Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the upper hinge system, the middle hinge system, and the lower hinge system each comprise at least two hinges(each hinge system comprising two hinges as shown in Fig 4; P[0031).
In Regard to Claim 19
Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), further comprising a first intermediary attachment(58,60; P[0044]) coupled to the first latch(via each panel), and a second intermediary attachment(58,60; P[0044]) coupled to the second latch(via each panel).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halliday in view of Rupaka.
In Regard to Claim 2
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above),
Halliday fails to teach:
at least one slit sized and located to receive the latch in the transport configuration.
Rupaka teaches:
An analogous folding board(10) having at least one slit(24) sized and located to receive a latch(26,42) in the transport configuration(Fig 6-9, 12, and 13; P[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halliday to incorporate the teachings of Rupaka to add a slit sized and located to receive a latch retaining mechanism to help retain the board in the transport configuration(P[0037]-P[0041]).
In Regard to Claim 5
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above)
Halliday fails to teach:
wherein the latch is fixed to the upper half of the upper panel
Rupaka teaches:
An analogous folding board(10) having a latch(26,42) fixed to an upper half and a lower half of all panels in the transport configuration(Fig 6-9, 12, and 13; P[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halliday to incorporate the teachings of Rupaka add a latch retaining mechanism to the upper and lower halves of the upper panel to help retain the board in the transport configuration(P[0037]-P[0041]).
In Regard to Claim 6
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the folding ratio is 2.87(as shown in Fig 4-5, a folding ratio as defined by Applicant must be greater than 2 since 108 overlaps 104 when folded; furthermore P[0053], P[0080] disclose specific dimensions – 36”x60” when extended and the center panel has a 20.8859” width which gives a fold ratio of 2.87)
Regarding the limitation requiring wherein the folding ratio is at least 3, it is noted that Halliday discloses that the value is 2.87. However, under Titanium Metals, values can be made obvious when they do not overlap, but are simply close (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Here, in par. [0023]-[0024] of their specification, applicant has no criticality for the range of "at least 3" and a PHOSITA would understand that any value close to the value of "3" would have the “same properties"; completely consistent with the holding in Titanium Metals. As such, based on applicant's own disclosure, a PHOSITA would understand a value of 2.87 and 3 to yield the same properties, the range of "at least 3" is obvious under the holding in Titanium Metals.
In Regard to Claim 8
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the plyo-board has an area equal to 15 square feet in the deployed configuration(3’x5’; P[0080])
Regarding the limitation requiring wherein the area is less than or equal to 12 square feet, it is noted that Halliday discloses that the value is 15. However, under Titanium Metals, values can be made obvious when they do not overlap, but are simply close (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Here, in par. [0052] of their specification, applicant has no criticality for the range of "less than or equal to 12 square feet" and a PHOSITA would understand that any value close to the value of "12" would have the "same properties"; completely consistent with the holding in Titanium Metals. As such, based on applicant's own disclosure, a PHOSITA would understand a value of 15 and 12 to yield the same properties, the range of "less than or equal to 12" is obvious under the holding in Titanium Metals.
To further evidence a lack of criticality in the specification, P[0052] recites dimensions of “approximately 4 feet” and “approximately 3 feet”, which includes dimension larger than 4 and 3 feet, respectively. As such, a PHOSITA would understand values of 4.49 feet and 3.49 feet would be encompassed by the reading of “approximately”. Therein, 4.49 feet x 3.49 feet = 15.67 square feet, which encompasses the value of 15 square feet explicitly disclosed by Halliday.
In Regard to Claim 9
Halliday teaches:
A plyo-board comprising:
a structural layer formed of a first material(metal, wood; P[0089]);
an impact layer coupled to the structural layer and formed of a second material different from the first material(polypropylene; P[0090]), wherein the second material comprises a low-wear material(polypropylene is a low-wear material);
the impact layer and structural layer define at least an upper panel and a lower panel coupled by at least one hinge(112-114, 116-118; P[0053], P[0074]);
a folding ratio defined as a ratio of an area of the plyo-board in a deployed configuration, in which the upper and lower panels are substantially planar, to an area of the plyo-board in a transport configuration, in which the upper panel overlays the lower panel; and the folding ratio is at least two(as shown in Fig 4-5, a folding ratio as defined by Applicant must be greater than 2 since 108 overlaps 104 when folded; furthermore P[0053], P[0080] disclose specific dimensions – 36”x60” when extended and the center panel has a 20.8859” width which gives a fold ratio of 2.87);
Halliday fails to teach:
a first latch removably coupled to the upper panel and configured for insertion into a first slit formed in the lower panel when the plyo-board is in the transport configuration; and
a second latch removably coupled to the upper panel and configured for insertion into a second slit formed in the lower panel when the plyo-board is in the transport configuration.
Rupaka teaches:
An analogous folding board(10) having a first latch(26,42) removably coupled to an upper panel(14’) and configured for insertion into a first slit(24) formed in a lower panel(14’) when the plyo-board is in the transport configuration(Fig 6-9, 12, and 13; P[0039]); and
a second latch(26,42) removably coupled to the upper panel(14’) and configured for insertion into a second slit(24) formed in the lower panel(14’) when the plyo-board is in the transport configuration(Fig 6-9, 12, and 13; P[0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halliday to incorporate the teachings of Rupaka add a latch retaining mechanism to each of the upper and lower panels to help retain the board in the transport configuration(P[0037]-P[0041]).
In Regard to Claim 10
Halliday in view of Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above), further comprising a longitudinal axis extending through a geometric center of the plyo-board, wherein the plyo-board is approximately symmetrical about the longitudinal axis(visually apparent in Fig 1-17 of Halliday and also visually apparent in Fig 4 of Rupaka; there exists a longitudinal axis that extends through a geometric center of the board, wherein the board is approximately symmetrical about the longitudinal axis).
In Regard to Claim 11
Halliday in view of Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the first slit and second slit are defined by a shape selected from a group of shapes consisting of a circle, a semi-circle, an oval, a parallelogram, a trapezoid, or a hexagon(24 is at least partially defined by a circle, semi-circle or oval shape; Fig 1-3; P[0023]-P[0024], P[0028]) .
In Regard to Claim 12
Halliday in view of Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 9(see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the hinge comprises a first leaf engaging the upper panel and a second leaf engaging the lower panel(both Halliday and Rupaka each teach hinges having a first leaf engaging an upper panel and a second leaf engaging a lower panel; see Fig 1-6 of Halliday and Fig 4-6 of Rupaka).
In Regard to Claim 13
Halliday in view of Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the first leaf and second leaf are internally fixed to the structural layer(the first and second leaf being fixed between the structural layers of the respective upper and lower panels).
In Regard to Claim 14
Halliday in view of Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the first leaf and second leaf are fixed between the structural layer and the impact layer(the first and second leaf are fixed between the structural and impact layers of each respective upper and lower panel).
In Regard to Claim 15
Halliday in view of Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 12(see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the first leaf and second leaf are fixed to an outer surface of the impact layer(the first and second leaf are fixed the an outer surface of the impact layer of each respective panel).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupaka in view of case law.
In Regard to Claim 17
Halliday teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the retaining mechanism 42 “can take any of a wide variety of forms and shapes other than the tabs 28/opening extensions 44, such as press-fit or interference fits, claps, spring-biased latches, brackets, ramps/tabs, bayonet-style couplings, etc.”(P[0039])
Halliday fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the latch is selected from the group consisting of an eye-ring, an eye-bolt, an L-bracket, or a hook.
Examiner notes that press-fit or interference fits, claps, spring-biased latches, brackets, ramps/tabs, bayonet-style couplings, eye-rings, eye-bolt, L-brackets and hook are commonly known retaining devices/means in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halliday to replace the retaining mechanism with a eye-ring, eye-bolt, L-bracket or a hook to enable a secure connection between the panels. It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, press-fit or interference fits, claps, spring-biased latches, brackets, ramps/tabs, bayonet-style couplings) for another (in this case, eye-ring, an eye-bolt, an L-bracket, or a hook) to obtain predictable results (in this case, providing a secure connection between two components) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rupaka in view of Official Notice.
In Regard to Claim 20
Rupaka teaches:
The plyo-board of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the plyo-board inherently weighs an amount that can be easily carried by a user(P[0044])
Rupaka fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the plyo-board weighs less than 45 lbs
Official Notice is taken that a weight of less than 45 lbs equating to a weight that is “easily carried by a user” is old and well established in the business of sporting equipment and training devices and is asserted to be a well-known expedient or common knowledge by those of skill in sporting equipment art for their use in ensuring the equipment is easily transportable via a user. Further, use of which is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known so as to defy dispute as demonstrated by the art of record. MPEP 2144. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a ply-board weighing less than 45 lbs for the purposes of making the board easy to transport.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090062040 A1
Gayed; Afifi Botros
US 20220001231 A1
Fiducia; Camille et al.
US 20220289089 A1
Morgan; Robert et al.
US 20240316432 A1
BERK; Kevin J. et al.
US 20150273311 A1
Dodds; Peter A.
US 6189889 B1
Yip; Sam
US D1028131 S
Conrad; Scott Ryan
US D1065376 S
Helms; Karen E.
US 7468009 B1
Ball; Alan F.
US 6991566 B1
McKinney, Sr.; Arnold
The above references are cited for teaching foldable boards used for various sport activities with features similar to that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights