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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended, claim 11 has been canceled, claims 13-16 have been added, and claims 1, 4-10, and 12-16 remain pending in this application.
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 15-16 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a second channel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there is no previously recited first channel. For purposes of examination it appears that claim 15 should depend from claim 13.
Claim 16 depends from rejected claim 15.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallay (EP 2 213 342 A1) in view of Shields (US 6,293,577).
Regarding claim 1, Gallay discloses a snowshoe binding (5) arranged for securing a boot to a snowshoe, the binding comprising: a base part which comprises: a first part (151) which is arranged to mounted onto the snowshoe, a second part (10) which is arranged to receive a boot toe portion, and a third part (22’) which is arranged to receive a flexible heel strap, a flexible heel strap (23’) with a first portion (23’a), a second portion (23’b) and an intermediate portion which extends between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (26) and the second portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (26); wherein the third part of the base part comprises a first attachment portion (24) for releasable attachment of the first portion of the flexible heel strap and a second attachment portion (24) for releasable attachment of the second portion of the flexible heel strap; wherein the first attachment portion comprises at least one first attachment portion protrusion (29) to which one of the apertures of the first portion is coupled and the second attachment portion comprises at least one second attachment portion protrusion (29) to which one of the apertures of the second portion is coupled, and wherein the flexible heel strap is arranged to be attached and detached from the first and second attachment portions without tools. (paragraphs 0027, 0045-0051; Fig. 1, 12-13).
Gallay does not disclose at least two first and second attachment portion protrusions. Shields teaches an adjustable strap having at least two protrusions which are coupled to a plurality of apertures (column 7, lines 20-30; Fig. 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least two protrusions to each of the first and second attachment portions in order to provide a more secure attachment between the two elements which can maintain coupling in case of failure of one of the protrusions. Such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of 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.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gallay and Shields does not disclose at least three first and second attachment portion protrusions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least three protrusions to each of the first and second attachment portions in order to provide a more secure attachment between the two elements which can maintain coupling in case of failure of some of the protrusions. Such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of 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.
Regarding claim 5, Shields teaches that the at least two first attachment portion protrusions intersect a first common plane and the at least two second attachment portion protrusions intersect a second common plane (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Gallay discloses that the first attachment portion comprises a first channel (27) for receiving the first portion of the flexible heel strap, and wherein the second attachment portion comprises a second channel (27) for receiving the second portion of the flexible heel strap (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 7, Gallay discloses that the flexible heel strap includes a buckle arrangement (24, 26, 27) for releasable attachment of the flexible heel strap to the second attachment portion (Fig. 12, 13).
Regarding claim 8, Gallay discloses that the intermediate portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (rearmost holes 26) for engagement to the first or second attachment portion (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 9, Gallay discloses that the plurality of apertures of the intermediate portion are indicative of a respective boot size, for enabling pre-adjustment of the snowshoe binding (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 10, Gallay discloses that the base part comprises a third attachment portion and a fourth attachment portion arranged for releasable attachment of a flexible top strap (13) (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Gallay discloses a snowshoe with the snowshoe binding according to claim 1 (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Gallay discloses that the first attachment portion comprises a first channel (beneath 27) extending along a longitudinal direction of the first attachment portion for receiving the first portion of the flexible heel strap, and the second attachment portion comprises a second channel (beneath 27) extending along a longitudinal direction of the second attachment portion for receiving the second portion of the flexible heel strap (Fig. 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-10, and 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (571) 272-4888. 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights