Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/720,605

SNOWSHOE BINDING AND SNOWSHOE COMPRISING A BINDING

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Examiner
PRANGE, SHARON M
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Rottefella AS
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
473 granted / 884 resolved
-16.5% vs TC avg
Strong +47% interview lift
Without
With
+47.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
944
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
43.3%
+3.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 884 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This is in response to Applicant’s amendment in which claims 1 and 4-12 have been amended, claims 2 and 3 have been canceled, and claims 1 and 4-12 remain pending. 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 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, 5, 7-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiniry et al. (US 2005/0183291), herein Kiniry. Regarding claim 1, Kiniry discloses a snowshoe binding arranged for securing a boot to a snowshoe, the binding comprising - a base part (14) which comprises; a first part (20) which is arranged to be mounted onto the snowshoe, a second part which is arranged to receive a boot toe portion (26, 28) and, a third part (22, 24) which is arranged to receive a flexible heel strap, a flexible heel strap (30) with a first portion, a second portion and an intermediate portion which extends between the first portion and the second portion (Fig. 7), wherein the first portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (apertures through which rivets 32 extend) and the second portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (apertures through which rivets 36 extend), 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 (22) for releasable attachment of the second portion of the flexible heel strap or a buckle arrangement, and wherein the first attachment portion comprises at least two first attachment portion protrusions (rivets 32) to which one of the apertures of the first portion is coupled and the second attachment portion comprises at least two second attachment portion protrusions (rivets 36) to which one of the apertures of the second portion is coupled (paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0037-0039; Fig. 7). Regarding claim 5, Kiniry discloses 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. 7). Regarding claim 7, Kiniry discloses that the flexible heel strap includes a buckle arrangement (34) for releasable attachment of the flexible heel strap to the second attachment portion (paragraph 0038-0039; Fig. 7). Regarding claim 8, Kiniry discloses that the intermediate portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (38a) for engagement to at least on protrusion of a buckle arrangement (paragraph 0039; Fig. 7). Regarding claim 9, Kiniry 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 (paragraph 0039; Fig. 7). Regarding claim 10, Kiniry discloses that the base part comprises a third attachment portion (16) and a fourth attachment portion (18) arranged for releasable attachment of a flexible top strap (50) (paragraphs 0033, 0051-0053; Fig. 7). Regarding claim 12, Kiniry discloses a snowshoe with the snowshoe binding according to claim 1 (Fig. 1). Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howe (US 3,060,600). Regarding claim 1, Howe discloses a snowshoe binding arranged for securing a boot to a snowshoe, the binding comprising - a base part (12, 14) which comprises; a first part (base portion of 12, 14) which is arranged to be mounted onto the snowshoe, a second part (upstanding bracket of 12, 14) which is arranged to receive a boot toe portion and, a third part (10d, 10e) which is arranged to receive a flexible heel strap, a flexible heel strap with a first portion (10a), a second portion (10c) and an intermediate portion (10b) which extends between the first portion and the second portion, wherein the first portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (h) and the second portion of the flexible heel strap comprises a plurality of apertures (h), wherein the third part of the base part comprises a first attachment portion (10d) for releasable attachment of the first portion of the flexible heel strap and a second attachment portion (10e) for releasable attachment of the second portion of the flexible heel strap or a buckle arrangement, and wherein the first attachment portion comprises at least two first attachment portion protrusions (t) to which one of the apertures of the first portion is coupled and the second attachment portion comprises at least two second attachment portion protrusions (t) to which one of the apertures of the second portion is coupled (column 3, lines 20-54; Fig. 5). Regarding claim 5, Howe discloses 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. 5). Regarding claim 6, Howe discloses that the first attachment portion comprises a first channel (h) for receiving the first portion of the flexible heel strap, and the second attachment portion comprises a second channel for receiving the second portion of the flexible heel strap (wherein at least a portion of the heel strap may be received within the channels h; Fig. 5). Regarding claim 11, Howe discloses that the flexible heel strap is arranged to be attached and detached without tools (wherein thumb screws t may be manually tightened and loosened). Regarding claim 12, Howe discloses a snowshoe with the snowshoe binding according to claim 1 (Fig. 1). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiniry, as applied to claim 1. Regarding claim 4, Kiniry does not disclose at least three attachment portion protrusions to which one of the apertures of the first portion is coupled to, and at least three attachment portion protrusions to which one of the apertures of the second portion is coupled to. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third attachment portion protrusion (rivet) at each of the first and second attachment portions in order to provide a stronger connection between the attachment portions and strap. 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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-12 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 Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 10, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588737
FOOTWEAR SOLE AND RELATED METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569029
SOLE AND SHOE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564246
SHOE HAVING RESILIENT HEEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12550981
ARTICLE OF FOOTWEAR WITH A PULLEY SYSTEM HAVING A GUIDE PORTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550969
GOLF SHOES HAVING MULTI-SURFACE TRACTION OUTSOLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+47.3%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 884 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month