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
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-133559 filed on 8/18/21.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on (2/14/24 3/27/24) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 5 and 11 – 13 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.
Claims 5 and 11 – 13 are each directed to a sliding method for performing sliding on the sliding objection using the sliding apparatus according to claims 1 – 4. However, these claims merely recites a use without any active steps, delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Thus, claims 5 and 11 – 13 are indefinite.
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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraft et al. (US 5,725,237).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Kraft discloses a sliding apparatus (Kraft, FIG 4) for sliding on a sliding object, the sliding object being a snow surface or an ice surface, the sliding apparatus comprising: a sliding surface contacting the sliding object (Kraft, FIG 4), the sliding surface being divided into a plurality of regions different in a surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra (Kraft is exemplary and claim 2 teaches plural roughness values), and the plurality of regions being arranged in order along a longitudinal direction (Kraft, FIG 4), wherein a surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra of a front region which is a region first contacting the sliding object in sliding among the plurality of regions is smaller than a surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra of a rear region positioned rearward with respect to the front region (Kraft is exemplary and claim 2 teaches plural roughness values where the front is lower than the rear portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
816
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Kraft discloses the sliding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the front region is 0.30 μm or less and the surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the rear region is 0.40 μm or more (As recited in the claim 1 rejection, Kraft recites differing front and rear roughness values in an exemplary fashion contemplating improved ride performance and utility of a ski and can modify roughness as desired).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Kraft discloses the sliding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the front region having the surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra smaller than the surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the rear region has a maximum length in the longitudinal direction of 1 mm or more (As recited in the claim 1 rejection, Kraft recites differing front and rear roughness values contemplating improved ride performance and utility of a ski and length can be altered as desired to improve sliding and traction).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Kraft discloses the sliding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the front region is coated with a coating of a paraffin liquid wax or a glass coating material (Kraft, paragraph [0064] discloses multiple coatings including wax and glass).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Kraft discloses a sliding method for performing sliding on the sliding object using the sliding apparatus according to claim 1 (Any desired riding style can be employed on the ski of Kraft).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Kraft discloses a method for manufacturing the sliding apparatus according to claim 1, comprising: polishing the front region using a slurry polishing composition containing abrasives (Kraft paragraph [0008] discloses polishing).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Kraft discloses a method for manufacturing the sliding apparatus according to claim 4, comprising: polishing the front region using a slurry polishing composition containing abrasives (Kraft paragraph [0008] discloses polishing and can include abrasive applications); and after the polishing, coating the front region with a coating of a paraffin liquid wax or a glass coating material (Kraft, paragraph [0064] discloses multiple coatings including wax and glass which can be done after polishing).
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Kraft discloses the sliding apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the front region having the surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra smaller than the surface arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the rear region (Kraft is exemplary and claim 2 teaches plural roughness values where the front is lower than the rear portion) has a maximum length in the longitudinal direction of 1 mm or more (As recited in the claim 1 rejection, Kraft recites differing front and rear roughness values contemplating improved ride performance and utility of a ski and desired length can be altered as desired to improve sliding and traction).
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Kraft discloses the sliding apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the front region is coated with a coating of a paraffin liquid wax or a glass coating material (Kraft, paragraph [0064] discloses multiple coatings including wax and glass).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Kraft discloses the sliding apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the front region is coated with a coating of a paraffin liquid wax or a glass coating material (Kraft, paragraph [0064] discloses multiple coatings including wax and glass).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Kraft discloses a sliding method for performing sliding on the sliding object using the sliding apparatus according to claim 2 (Kraft discloses a sliding ski and any desired riding style can be employed on the ski of Kraft).
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Kraft discloses a sliding method for performing sliding on the sliding object using the sliding apparatus according to claim 3 (Kraft discloses a ski for sliding).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Kraft discloses a sliding method for performing sliding on the sliding object using the sliding apparatus according to claim 4 (Kraft discloses a ski for sliding).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Kraft discloses a method for manufacturing the sliding apparatus according to claim 2, comprising: polishing the front region using a slurry polishing composition containing abrasives (Kraft paragraph [0008] discloses polishing and can use known abrasives or slurry).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Kraft discloses a method for manufacturing the sliding apparatus according to claim 3, comprising: polishing the front region using a slurry polishing composition containing abrasives (Kraft paragraph [0008] discloses polishing and can use known abrasives or slurry).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614