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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: figure label in Paragraph 0062, Line 11. Replacing “5b” with “6b” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 3. Replacing “one of more” with “one or more” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: punctuation in Line 2. Replacing “15%, 30% or 50%” with “15%, 30%, or 50%” is suggested (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informality: punctuation in Line 4. Replacing “piezoelectric damper, an electronically actuated damper and an elastomeric damper” with “piezoelectric damper, an electronically actuated damper, and an elastomeric damper” is suggested (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-3, 16-18, 25, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Longoni et al. (US 6113113 A) (hereinafter “Longoni”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Longoni teaches a ski [Longoni Paragraph 7: “The present invention is directed to skis and ski type devices which are used in a wide range of recreational and profession athletic endeavors, such as snow skiing”], comprising: an upwardly rising front tip; a rear tail; and a midsection extending along a longitudinal axis of the ski between the front tip and the rear tail [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, below; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 4: “rounded, upwardly curved front end 120”], the midsection including: a waist section adapted for mounting a binding thereon [Longoni Fig. 10], and at least one stabilizing section located between the front tip and the waist section or between the waist section and the rear tail, the at least one stabilizing section being offset from the longitudinal axis of the ski toward a first side of the ski [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, Reference Character 170A, below; Longoni Abstract: “A sliding apparatus includes one or more stiffening plates mounted to the top surface of the sliding apparatus. The plates serve to stiffen localized areas on the snowboard in order to change the flexion and torsion characteristics of the snowboard in that localized area.”; Longoni Paragraph 6: “the stiffening plates 170 are substantially shorter and narrower than the snowboard 100 and include holes or slots 175 for receiving fasteners 165 to secure the stiffening plates 170 to the top surface of the snowboard 100.”].
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Longoni Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 2, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 1, wherein the first side of the ski is an inside of the ski [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, above, wherein the first side of the ski represents the side portion "below" the centerline Reference Character 150].
Regarding Claim 3, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 1, wherein the first side of the ski is an outside of the ski [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, above, wherein the first side of the ski represents the side portion "above" the centerline Reference Character 150].
Regarding Claim 16, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 2, further comprising: an outer section adjacent to the at least one stabilizing section, the outer section being offset from the longitudinal axis of the ski toward an outside of the ski; wherein the outer section of the ski has first vibration absorption capability; and wherein the at least one stabilizing section has second vibration absorption capability greater than the first vibration absorption capability [Longoni Fig. 1, Reference Character 170a; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 3: “the snowboard is constructed of a vertically laminated wood core having the shape of an elongated board.”; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 6: “the stiffening plates 170 are constructed of a flat metal material such as steel or aluminum”; Longoni “Background/Summary” Paragraph 25: “The stiffening element can be constructed to include one or more components which damp vibration of the stiffening element during use.”].
Regarding Claim 17, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 16, wherein the at least one stabilizing section comprises a damper oriented at an angle from the longitudinal axis of the ski [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, above].
Regarding Claim 18, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 17, wherein the at least one stabilizing section comprises a damper selected from a tuned mass damper, a constrained layer damper, a layer of entangled crosslink fibers, a particle damper, a hydraulic damper, a magneto-rheological damper, a piezoelectric damper, an electronically actuated damper, and an elastomeric damper [Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 17: “the stiffening plates 570 can be provided with a layer of vibration damping material 574 positioned between the stiffening plate and top sheet. In one preferred embodiment of the invention, the entire stiffening plate 570 is coated with a thermoplastic elastomer material such as low density polyurethane, PVC, or natural rubber.”].
Regarding Claim 25, Longoni teaches a pair of skis, comprising: a first ski as defined in claim 1, the portion of the at least one stabilizing section on the first side of the first ski being on a right hand side of the longitudinal axis of the first ski, the first ski being configured for being worn on a left foot of the user; and a second ski as defined in claim 1, the portion of the at least one stabilizing section on the first side of the second ski being on a left hand side of the longitudinal axis of the second ski, the second ski being configured for being worn on a right foot of the user [Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 36: “it can be applied to new skis and snowboards as well as to older devices. Thus, existing skis and snowboards can be retrofitted to accept stiffening plates utilizing a kit in accordance with the present invention.”].
Regarding Claim 46, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 1, comprising a second stabilizing section located between the front tip and the waist section or between the waist section of the rear tail, the second stabilizing section being offset from the longitudinal axis of the ski towards a second side of the ski [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, Reference Character 170D, above].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni et al. (US 6113113 A) (hereinafter “Longoni”) in view of Sartor (EP 0168579 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 1, wherein the at least one stabilizing section has a center of mass offset from the longitudinal axis of the ski toward the first side of the ski [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, Reference Character 170A, above; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 3: “the snowboard is constructed of a vertically laminated wood core having the shape of an elongated board.”; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 6: “the stiffening plates 170 are constructed of a flat metal material such as steel or aluminum”]. It should be noted that while Longoni does not explicitly indicate the location of the center of mass of the stabilizing section, a steel or aluminum stabilizing section, as specified by Longoni, would have a significantly higher density than laminated wood core and would thus cause the center of mass of the ski, in the region of the stabilizing section, to deviate from the longitudinal centerline of the ski toward the stabilizing section. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 5, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 4, wherein: a composition of a portion of the at least one stabilizing section near a second side opposite from the first side of the ski shares a structure and composition of a major part of the midsection; and a composition of a portion of the at least one stabilizing section near the first side of the ski is denser than the composition of the major part of the midsection [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, above; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 3: “the snowboard is constructed of a vertically laminated wood core having the shape of an elongated board.”; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Longoni Paragraph 6: “the stiffening plates 170 are constructed of a flat metal material such as steel or aluminum”]. It should be noted that while Longoni does not explicitly indicate density values, a steel or aluminum stabilizing section would have a significantly higher density than laminated wood core. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 6, Longoni teaches a ski but does not teach ballast. Sartor teaches the ski of claim 5, wherein a ballast is inserted in the portion of the at least one stabilizing section near the first side of the ski [Sartor Page 2, Lines 17-18: “disks formed of a material having a high specific weight]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ski of Longoni to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, ballast in view of Sartor. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Longoni and Sartor because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing vibration-damping, as recognized by Sartor [Sartor Page 2, Line 30 to Page 3, Line 3: “the gravity forces, the centrifugal forces, and the inertia forces or momentum are exploited so as to contribute to the vibration-dampening effect.”].
Regarding Claim 7, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 4, wherein: a composition of a portion of the at least one stabilizing section near the first side of the ski shares a structure and composition of a major part of the midsection; and a composition of a portion of the at least one stabilizing section near a second side opposite from the first side of the ski is less dense than the composition of the major part of the midsection [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, above; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 3: “the snowboard is constructed of a vertically laminated wood core having the shape of an elongated board.”; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 6: “the stiffening plates 170 are constructed of a flat metal material such as steel or aluminum”]. It should be noted that while Longoni does not explicitly indicate density values, a steel or aluminum stabilizing section would have a significantly higher density than laminated wood core and would thus cause the center of mass of the ski, in the region of the stabilizing section, to deviate from the longitudinal centerline of the ski toward the stabilizing section. It should be further noted that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 8, Longoni teaches a ski but does not teach a receptacle. Sartor teaches the ski of claim 4, wherein the at least one stabilizing section comprises: a receptacle affixed on an upper face of the midsection; and a ballast insertable in the receptacle so that the ballast is located near the first side of the ski when inserted in the receptacle [Sartor Page 2, Lines 15-19: The Applicant has conducted experiments involving the utilization of a guiding rod, mounted substantially vertically in said chamber and including disks formed of a material having a high specific weight mounted slideably thereon and guided thereby along the rod”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ski of Longoni to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a receptacle in view of Sartor. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Longoni and Sartor because this would have achieved, in conjunction with the ballast, the desirable result of providing vibration-damping, as recognized by Sartor [Sartor Page 2, Line 30 to Page 3, Line 3: “the gravity forces, the centrifugal forces, and the inertia forces or momentum are exploited so as to contribute to the vibration-dampening effect.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 4, wherein the center of mass of each of the at least one stabilizing section is offset from the longitudinal axis of the ski toward a first side of the ski, but does not explicitly teach that the location of the center of mass of the stabilizing section is at least 15% of a width of the ski defined in the at least one stabilizing section. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, it should be noted that “…where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni et al. (US 6113113 A) (hereinafter “Longoni”) in view of Karlsen (AT 505588 A2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, Longoni teaches a ski but does not teach relative thicknesses of the first and second sides. Karlsen teaches the ski of claim 4, wherein: the portion of the at least one stabilizing section on a second side opposite from the first side of the ski has a first thickness; and the portion of the at least one stabilizing section on the first side of the ski has a second thickness greater than the first thickness [Karlsen Figs. 16 and 16A where Fig. 16A shows thickness of the first side (side comprising Reference Character 8) and the second side (side comprising Reference Character 7)]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ski of Longoni to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, multiple thicknesses in view of Karlsen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Longoni and Karlsen because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing the ability to adapt to different conditions and reliable transitions, as recognized by Karlsen [Karlsen Page 1, Paragraph 4: “provide a snowboard or ski that is better able to adapt to different conditions and the challenges that are thereby implied, as well has more reliable transitions when driving on harder surfaces.”].
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni et al. (US 6113113 A) (hereinafter “Longoni”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 2, further comprising: an outer section adjacent to the at least one stabilizing section, the outer section being offset from the longitudinal axis of the ski toward an outside of the ski; wherein the outer section of the ski has a first stiffness; and wherein the at least one stabilizing section has a second stiffness greater than the first stiffness [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1; Longoni “Background/Summary” Paragraph 24: “one or more stiffening elements are removably fastened to the elongated board at a first location along the length of the elongated board. The stiffening elements reinforce the elongated board at the first location and change the flexion and/or torsion characteristics of the elongated board in an area adjacent the first location.”]. It should be noted that while Longoni does not explicitly teach stiffness values for the outer section or the stabilizing section, Longoni’s designation of the stabilizing section as a “stiffening element” indicates that the stiffness of the stabilizing section is greater than the stiffness of the outer section.
Regarding Claim 14, Longoni teaches a ski with a second stiffness being greater than a first stiffness [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1; Longoni “Background/Summary” Paragraph 24: “one or more stiffening elements are removably fastened to the elongated board at a first location along the length of the elongated board. The stiffening elements reinforce the elongated board at the first location and change the flexion and/or torsion characteristics of the elongated board in an area adjacent the first location.”], but does not explicitly teach minimum relative stiffness values. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited ranges, it should be noted that “…where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 12 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni et al. (US 6113113 A) (hereinafter “Longoni”) in view of Rohrmoser (DE 4322300 C2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, Longoni teaches a ski but does not teach relative stiffnesses of the inside and outside edges. Rohrmoser teaches the ski of claim 11, further comprising a core which is stiffer along its inside edge than along its outside edge [Rohrmoser Fig. 14; Rohrmoser Paragraph 0082: “as shown in dashed lines in FIG. 14, in the area of the "outer" edge 88 of the ski 1 (in relation to driving with a pair of skis ) is greater than in the area of the "inner" edge 89, a greater flexibility of the ski 1 is achieved in the area of the outer edge 88”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ski of Longoni to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, multiple core stiffnesses in view of Rohrmoser. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Longoni and Rohrmoser because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing greater damping, as recognized by Rohrmoser [Rohrmoser Paragraph 0082: “a ski is obtained which easily forgives skiing errors, whereas in the area of the inner edge 89 the ski 1 is stiffer and this enables a more faithful guidance. (The inner edge 89 is the one with which the ski is usually guided, that is to say which faces the other ski of the pair of skis directly.) Apart from the small width of the ski core 6 , this measure makes the outer edge-side space 35 wider than the inner edge. side gap 34 , and there is achieved in connection with the elastic properties of the plastic foam, a greater damping and a lower torsional moment.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Longoni teaches the ski of claim 12, wherein the core further comprises one or more reinforcement components selected from carbon tubes and metal sheets within the at least one stabilizing section, the one of more reinforcement components being offset in relation to a longitudinal axis of the ski toward the inside edge of the ski [Annotated Longoni Fig. 1, above; Longoni “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments” Paragraph 6: “the stiffening plates 170 are constructed of a flat metal material such as steel or aluminum”].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longoni et al. (US 6113113 A) (hereinafter “Longoni”) in view of Kauffman et al. (DE 102011001628 A1) (hereinafter “Kaufmann”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, Longoni teaches a ski but does not teach unbalanced composite layup. Kaufmann teaches the ski of claim 1, wherein the at least one stabilizing section comprises an unbalanced composite laminate layup configured to couple a bending torsion strain behavior of the ski [Kaufmann Fig. 4; Kaufmann Paragraph 0031: “a schematic representation of a snowboard with spreading of its layers as a multilayer fiber composite system and showing the multi-field arrangement with a predetermined fiber orientation of reinforcing fibers in each of the fields”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ski of Longoni to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an unbalanced composite laminate layup in view of Kaufmann. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Longoni and Kaufmann because this would have achieved the desirable result of allowing force distribution which provides required strength, as recognized by Kaufmann [Kaufmann Paragraph 0048: “This results in overlapping areas, which allow a force flow between the individual areas A to D and the layers with each other and thus ensure the necessary strength for use.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613