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
Claims 5-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 July 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Item 500, appearing in Figure 5A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the braking device engaged in Figure 5B as described in Paragraph 0013 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Specifically, the claim is confusing as to the scope of that being claimed, the preamble is directed to a method of engaging a braking apparatus, which appears indicative of a desire to pursue coverage for the subcombination of a method of using a braking apparatus, however in the body of the claim a snowboard is positively claimed which implies a desire to pursue the combination of a method of using a braking apparatus on a snowboard.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann (US 2015/0021880) in view of Ma (WO 2017/130177).
With regards to claim 1, Mann discloses a method of engaging a braking apparatus, comprising: sending an instruction to a braking apparatus (32) on the snowboard to engage a brake, the brake comprising a housing (40) and a stop (57), the stop being housed at least partially within the housing when the braking apparatus is disengaged (Figure 4); and in response to receiving the instruction, extending the stop away from the housing (Figure 3) to contact a ground surface beneath the snowboard, while Mann discloses a system using a handheld controller used by the user to engage the brake on the snowboard (Paragraph 0064), Mann does not disclose, however Ma teaches receiving a signal from at least one first sensor (Ma, 6) associated with a user that a second sensor (Ma, 4) associated with a snowboard is at least a threshold distance away (Ma, 130) from the first sensor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Ma into the invention of Mann in order to provide an easy hands-free way of limiting travel of a snowboard away from a user when the user and snowboard are separated by a threshold distance.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Mann and Ma teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: causing, by the contact of the stop against the ground surface, a speed of the snowboard to slow.
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Mann and Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stop comprises a pin (57), the pin being housed at least partially within the housing when the braking apparatus is disengaged (Mann, Figure 4).
With regards to claim 4, the combination Mann and Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first sensor is a proximity sensor (Ma, Paragraph 0048, the distance between the motor control unit and the sensor is being measured, as such this distance measurement is a proximity sensor).
Alternative rejection:
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann (US 2015/0021880) in view of Ma (WO 2017/130177) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humphrey (US 4,986,561).
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Mann and Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the stop (57) is housed at least partially within the housing when the braking apparatus is disengaged (Mann, Figure 4), however the combination of Mann and Ma refer to their stop as a blade, and while the definition of the term “pin” is ambiguous enough to read on this blade in the dictionary and in light of Applicant’s specification as currently written, it appears from the drawings that the intent is something similar to a cylindrical rod, such being the case the Examiner provides Humphrey as a teaching of a cylindrical control or drag portion (58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant application was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Humphrey into the invention of Mann as a simple art recognized equivalent as well as if one wanted to reduce the rate at which the braking apparatus would slow the vehicle as well as reduce the load placed on the stop assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner should be directed to JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2706. The Supervisory Patent Examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am - 4:00pm.
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 Supervisory Patent Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Supervisory Patent Examiner’s supervisor, TC Director Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
JOHN R. OLSZEWSKI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights