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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-16 and Species II (claim 12) in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11, 13, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species or Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10, 12, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “A skateboard deck according to claim...” which should be changed to “The skateboard deck according to claim…” as they ultimately depend from independent claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6, 8, and 12 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 4 recites the core comprise two uniform full size non-wood layers and that one of these comprises a weight reduction member arranged in a space in the center area of “a uniform full size non-wood layer” and it is unclear if the center area is of the previously recited uniform full size non-wood layers or if the center area is of a different uniform full size non-wood layer.
For sake of further examination, the center area will be viewed as being in the center area of the at least one uniform full size non-wood layer which comprise the weight reduction member.
Similarly, claim 5 recites “the center area of a wood layer” and it is unclear if the center area is of the previously recited wood layers or of different wood layers.
For sake of further examination, the center area will be viewed as being in the center area of the at least one wood layer which comprises the weight reduction member.
Claim 6 recites “any other weight reducing material used in the composite technology”. First, “the composite technology” lacks antecedent basis. Secondly, “any other weight reducing material” is an indefinite term which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to the scope of what would be considered materials falling within the scope “any other weight reducing material”. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a fiber layer is a non-full size layer” it is unclear if claim 8 is intending to further limit the first and/or second fiber layers in claim 1 or if “a fiber layer” is reciting the deck comprising a third fiber layer and that is the layer which is non-full size.
For sake of further examination, “a fiber layer” in claim 8 will be viewed as an additional third fiber layer.
Claim 12 “the uniform full size non-wood layer” and “fiber layers” which lack antecedent basis.
For sake of further examination “the uniform full size non-wood layer” will be viewed as referring to “the at least one uniform full size plastic layer” and the “fiber layers” will be viewed as referring the first fiber layer and/or the second uniform fiber layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hanson (US 6,386,561).
Regarding claims 1 and 15-16, Hanson discloses a skateboard deck (column 2, lines 49-50) comprising a first layer of fiberglass (104), a racing base (114) of non-wood material (column 3, lines 33-35), and a core stack there between (Fig. 1). The core comprising a protective edge layer (116) formed of plastic (column 3, lines 45-50), a wood core (106) with side walls (118; instant tip fills) and a second/ additional layer of fiberglass (e.g., 108 or 110).
The protective edge layer is a full size layer i.e., a layer which extends from tip to tip and edge to edge of the skateboard deck (Fig. 1, 3 and column 5, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 2, Hanson teaches the core comprising a second uniform full size non-wood layer (e.g., fiberglass layer 108).
Regarding claim 3, Hanson teaches the wood core may be a laminate of plural layers of hard wood (column 3, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 8, Hanson teaches the skateboard deck comprising a third non-full size fiber layer (e.g., fiberglass layer 110).
Regarding claim 9, Hanson teaches the racing base (114) made of plastic (column 3, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 10, Hanson teaches the side walls being plastic (column 3, lines 35-40) and having the same thickness as the wood core (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.
Claims 4-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isaacson et al. (US 2011/0059826).
Regarding claim 4, Hanson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Hanson fails to disclose the core comprising two uniform full size non-wood layers wherein at least one of the two uniform full size non-wood layers comprises a weight reduction member arranged in a space of the center area of a uniform full size non-wood layer.
Isaacson, in the analogous field of composite boards for athletic equipment (0002), discloses a diving board comprising upper and lower composite laminates (25, 29) and a central core (21). The core arranged in a space of the center area of at least one of the laminate layers and the laminate layers are uniform full size non-wood layers (0034, 0044, 0052, Fig. 5, 8) . The material of the central core providing geometry, mass and structural stability without contributing excessive weight (0024).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the core of Hanson to include upper and lower composite laminates comprising a weight reduction member (21) as taught by Isaacson, to provide further strength and stability (0020 and 0024).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Hanson teaches the wood core may be a laminate of plural layers of hard wood (column 3, lines 30-35). Hanson does not teach wherein at least one of the two or more wood layers comprises a weight reduction member arranged in a space of the center area of the wood layer.
Isaacson, in the analogous field of composite boards for athletic equipment (0002), discloses a diving board comprising upper and lower composite laminates (25, 29) and a central core (21). The core arranged in a space of the center area of at least one of the laminate layers. The material of the central core providing geometry, mass and structural stability without contributing excessive weight (0024) and includes a foam material (0025)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the wood laminate of Hanson to include a space in the center area comprising a foam material as taught by Isaacson, to provide strength and stability to the core without the addition of weight (0024).
Regarding claim 7, Hanson does not expressly teach the fiberglass layers being a composite.
Isaacson, in the analogous field of composite boards for athletic equipment (0002), discloses a diving board comprising upper and lower composite laminates (25, 29) and a central core (21). The composite laminates comprising fibrous material embedded in a resin matrix (0043).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the fiberglass layers of Hanson to be embedded in resin, as taught by Isaacson, providing structural stability and contributing to improved board performance (0043).
Regarding claim 12, Hanson does not disclose thicknesses for the laminate layers.
Isaacson, in the analogous field of composite boards for athletic equipment (0002), discloses a diving board comprising upper and lower composite laminates (25, 29) and a central core (21). Isaacson teaches that layer thickness can vary considerably depending on various factors such as how the board is made, what materials are available as well as most economical (0042).
A person of ordinary skill based on the disclosure of Isaacson, would have found it obvious to have adjusted the individual layer thicknesses, including such that the plastic layer is of equal thickness to the wood or fiber layers. As there is no evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. 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 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Docter et al. (US 2017/0259160).
Regarding claim 14, Hanson discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Hanson teaches a top layer (102) however does not teach the material.
Docter, in the analogous field of composite sports boards (0001) teaches a board comprising a composite reinforcement panel (10) which is a top layer of the boards (Fig. 2B, 0021-0022). The composite reinforcement panel formed of wood (0021).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the board of Hanson to include a top layer made of wood as taught by Docter, providing a surface which can support a rider and resist bending (0002).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights