DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed October 14, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Species A, Species Y, Species ii and Species D in the reply filed on December 8, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 9 is withdrawn by applicant.
Claim 4, directed to unelected species III from election 1 is withdrawn from consideration as claim 4 includes language regarding forward flex causing tension, which is what Species III, Fig. 8 relates to.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on December 8, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are aligned with one another and that the claimed apparatus cannot be used for a different purpose. This is not found persuasive because the product as claimed can still be used in a materially different process of using that product. For example, that the adjustable damper is configured to control flex while the ski boot is in use does not change that the ski boot need not be worn at all and thus no characteristics of the ski boot need to be changed. See 35 USC §112(b) rejection below detailing that the examiner is interpreting claim 1 as an apparatus claim as compared to claim 13.
It is noted that if applicant amends the method claims throughout prosecution and includes the allowable subject matter of the apparatus claim, the Examiner can rejoin the claims prior to allowance.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-12 are present for consideration while claims 4, 9, and 13-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract includes the term “means” which is legal phraseology.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. (p. 2, getcarv, ridefox).
The use of the term Nature, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. It should be capitalized wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology. Each letter of the mark should be capitalized. MPEP 608.01(v).
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,082,650. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application would be anticipated by that of the ‘650 patent as detailed in the chart below.
18/824,160
12,082,650
1. A ski boot configured to control and adjust a forward flex and a rearward rebound movement of the ski boot while the ski boot is in-use, the ski boot comprising:
a shell configured to receive and retain a foot of a skier;
a cuff configured to secure to a lower leg of the skier;
an adjustable damper coupled to the shell and the cuff, wherein the
adjustable damper is configured to control the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot while the ski boot is in-use;
a sensor measuring sensed data comprising forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot about at least one pivot axis;
a processor that receives the sensed data and analyzes said sensed data while the ski boot is in-use communicated from the sensor; and
a receiver that receives a signal communicated from the processor and wherein the signal is used to adjust the adjustable damper to alter the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot, wherein the skier is configured to ski using the ski boot.
1. A ski boot configured to control and adjust a forward flex and a rearward rebound movement of the ski boot while the ski boot is in-use, the ski boot comprising:
a shell configured to receive and retain a foot of a skier;
a cuff configured to secure to a lower leg of the skier;
an adjustable damper coupled to the shell and the cuff, wherein the
adjustable damper is configured to control the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot;
a sensor measuring sensed data comprising forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot about at least one pivot axis,
wherein the sensor is located on or about the at least one pivot axis, or located on the cuff, or is part of the cuff; and
means to adjust the adjustable damper in response to the sensed data provided by the sensor and in response to a signal communicated to a receiver (receiver that receives a signal from the processor which adjusts the forward and rearward rebound movement) that is configured to adjust the adjustable damper, to alter the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot, wherein said signal is configured to be communicated via a processor (processor that receives sensed data) that receives and analyzes said sensed data from said sensor prior to communicating said signal to enable adjustment of the adjustable damper; wherein the sensed data about the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement is measured by sensing one or more of a range of motion (ROM), a speed of motion, an acceleration forward and aft of the cuff relative to the shell;
wherein the adjustable damper controls the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement by controlling characteristics selected from one or more of an extent of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement; a speed of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement; an acceleration of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement.
2. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the cuff and the shell are coupled to one another to move about a first pivot axis,
said first pivot axis configured to be located through an ankle joint of the foot of the skier when the foot of the skier is fitted to the ski boot, wherein the first pivot axis is configured so that the cuff and the shell rotate relative to each other about the first pivot axis via a first pivot bearing;
the cuff and the adjustable damper are coupled to one another via a second pivot bearing to permit rotation about a second pivot axis; and the adjustable damper and the shell are coupled to one another via a third pivot bearing to permit rotation about a third pivot axis.
2. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cuff and the shell are coupled to one another to move about a first pivot axis,
said first pivot axis configured to be located through an ankle joint of the foot of the skier when the foot of the skier is fitted to the ski boot, wherein the first pivot axis is configured so that the cuff and the shell rotate relative to each other about the first pivot axis via the first pivot bearing;
the cuff and the adjustable damper are coupled to one another via a second pivot bearing to permit rotation about a second pivot axis; and the adjustable damper and the shell are coupled to one another via a third pivot bearing to permit rotation about a third pivot axis.
3. The ski boot as claimed in claim 2, wherein, the forward flex causes rotation of the cuff forwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes a distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to reduce and hence cause a compression force on the adjustable damper; and the rearward rebound movement causes rotation of the cuff rearwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes the distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to increase and hence cause a tension force on the adjustable damper.
3. The ski boot as claimed in claim 2, wherein the forward flex causes rotation of the cuff forwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes a distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to reduce and hence cause a compression force on the adjustable damper; and the rearward rebound movement causes rotation of the cuff rearwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes the distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to increase and hence cause a tension force on the adjustable damper.
4. The ski boot as claimed in claim 2, wherein, the forward flex causes rotation of the cuff forwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes a distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to increase and hence cause a tension force on the adjustable damper; and the rearward rebound movement causes rotation of the cuff rearwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes the distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to decrease and hence cause a compression force on the adjustable damper.
4. The ski boot as claimed in claim 2, wherein the forward flex causes rotation of the cuff forwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes a distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to increase and hence cause a tension force on the adjustable damper; and the rearward rebound movement causes rotation of the cuff rearwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes the distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to decrease and hence cause a compression force on the adjustable damper.
5. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensed data is measured by sensing one or more of: a range of motion (ROM), a speed of motion, an acceleration forward and aft of the cuff relative to the shell.
(from claim 1) wherein the sensed data about the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement is measured by sensing one or more of a range of motion (ROM), a speed of motion, an acceleration forward and aft of the cuff relative to the shell;
6. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustable damper controls the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement by controlling characteristics selected from one or more of. an extent of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement; a speed of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement; an acceleration of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement.
(from claim 1) wherein the adjustable damper controls the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement by controlling characteristics selected from one or more of an extent of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement; a speed of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement; an acceleration of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement.
7. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein adjustment of the adjustable damper is completed using: mechanical servos, magnetic valves, by manually adding air via a shock pump, by screwing open or closing valves that effect dampening.
(from claim 1) means to adjust the adjustable damper (this means-plus-function language corresponds to mechanical servos, magnetic valves, by manually adding air via a shock pump, by screwing open or closing valves that effect dampening, col. 9, ll. 6-10)
8. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustable damper is adjusted manually.
9. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustable damper is adjusted manually.
10. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensor is a rotational sensor.
11. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensor is a rotational sensor.
11. The ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sensor
is located on or about the at least one pivot axis,
is located on the cuff,
or is part of the cuff.
(from claim 1) wherein the sensor is located on or about the at least one pivot axis, or located on the cuff, or is part of the cuff; and
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a sensor measuring sensed data” in line 8. The claim is for an apparatus and not a method. It is therefore unclear when infringement would occur. Does the sensor need to be actively measuring data or must it be configured to measure sensed data? The examiner is interpreting the claim as an apparatus claim and thus that the sensor is configured to measure sensed data.
Claim 1 recites “a processor that receives sensed data and analyzes said sensed data” in line 10. The claim is for an apparatus and not a method. It is therefore unclear when infringement would occur. Does the processor need to be actively receive data or must it be configured to do so? The examiner is interpreting the claim as an apparatus claim and thus that processor is configured to do so.
Claim 1 recites “a receiver that receives a signal from the processor” in line 12. The claim is for an apparatus and not a method. It is therefore unclear when infringement would occur. Does the receiver need to be actively receiving a signal or must it be configured to do so? The examiner is interpreting the claim as an apparatus claim and thus that the receiver is configured to do so.
The dependent claims inherit(s) the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornung (US 3686778) in view of Gleeson (WO2010092414).
Regarding claim 1, Hornung describes a ski boot configured to control and adjust a forward flex and a rearward rebound movement of the ski boot while the ski boot is in-use, the ski boot comprising:
a shell (foot portion 2) configured to receive and retain a foot of a skier;
a cuff (neck portion 3) configured to secure to a lower leg of the skier;
an adjustable damper (piston and cylinder arrangement 11) coupled to the shell and the cuff (see Fig. 1), wherein the adjustable damper is configured to control the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot while the ski boot is in-use (piston is guided in cylinder 23, throttling the amount of liquid which correspond to the frictional engagement of the piston 12 in the embodiment of Fig. 2, which describes that the friction amount is adjustable thereby changing the amount of pressure required to move the damper, see col. 3, ll. 30-35).
Hornung does not explicitly describe
a sensor measuring sensed data comprising forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot about at least one pivot axis;
a processor that receives the sensed data and analyzes said sensed data while the ski boot is in-use communicated from the sensor; and
a receiver that receives a signal communicated from the processor and wherein the signal is used to adjust the adjustable damper to alter the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot, wherein the skier is configured to ski using the ski boot.
In related art for ski boots, Gleeson describes
a sensor measuring sensed data comprising forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot about at least one pivot axis (detects forces exerted on the ski boot, p. 2, ll. 8-10, switch, load cells, solenoids, electro-magnetic devices, p. 2, ll. 5-15);
a processor that receives the sensed data and analyzes said sensed data while the ski boot is in-use communicated from the sensor (system senses, records or analyzes forces, p. 2, ll. 3-5 and thus includes a processor); and
a receiver (remote signaling device 11) that receives a signal communicated from the processor and wherein the signal is used to adjust the adjustable damper to alter the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement of the ski boot, wherein the skier is configured to ski using the ski boot.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the boot of Hornung to include the sensors of Gleeson in order to permit the user to adjust their posture (Gleeson, p. 1, l. 10). The user may then adjust the damper of Hornung in according with the information received from the sensor (information sent to the user, p. 2, ll. 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, Hornung as modified describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein, the cuff and the shell are coupled to one another to move about a first pivot axis, said first pivot axis configured to be located through an ankle joint of the foot of the skier when the foot of the skier is fitted to the ski boot (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein the first pivot axis is configured so that the cuff and the shell rotate relative to each other about the first pivot axis via a first pivot bearing (pivotable, col. 2, ll. 50-55, can also be a hinge);
the cuff and the adjustable damper are coupled to one another via a second pivot bearing to permit rotation about a second pivot axis; and the adjustable damper and the shell are coupled to one another via a third pivot bearing to permit rotation about a third pivot axis (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hornung as modified describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustable damper controls the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement by controlling characteristics selected from one or more of: an extent of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement;
a speed of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement;
an acceleration of the forward flex and the rearward rebound movement (adjusts the friction level and thus affects the acceleration of the cuff).
Regarding claim 7, Hornung as modified describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein adjustment of the adjustable damper is completed using: mechanical servos, magnetic valves, by manually adding air via a shock pump, by screwing open or closing valves that effect dampening (adjusting valve stem 25 provides more or less fluid which affects the dampening, col. 4, ll. 28-34).
Regarding claim 8, Hornung as modified describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustable damper is adjusted manually (adjusted by adjusting nut 29, col. 4, ll. 24-26).
Regarding claim 12, Hornung as modified describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 1, wherein a compression force and a rebound speed of the adjustable damper does not change if a neutral forward lean angle of the ski boot is increased or decreased (in the same manner as described in the present application if alternative shell or cuff shock mounts are utilized, the distance between the damper mounts in the neutral position may remain the same, thus the compression and tension forces would remain the same).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornung (US 3686778) in view of Gleeson (WO2010092414) and Aldinio et al. (US 4476640).
Regarding claim 3, Hornung describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 2, but does not explicitly describe wherein, the forward flex causes rotation of the cuff forwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes a distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to reduce and hence cause a compression force on the adjustable damper; and the rearward rebound movement causes rotation of the cuff rearwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes the distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to increase and hence cause a tension force on the adjustable damper.
Hornung does describe that the piston and cylinder arrangement could be included not at the rear side of the boot but at the outer side or forwardly (col. 6, ll. 5-9).
In related art, Aldinio describes wherein, the forward flex causes rotation of the cuff forwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes a distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to reduce and hence cause a compression force on the adjustable damper (forward movement would cause compression); and
the rearward rebound movement causes rotation of the cuff rearwards about the first pivot axis relative to the shell which, in turn causes the distance between the second pivot axis and the third pivot axis to increase and hence cause a tension force on the adjustable damper (rearward movement would cause tension).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the location of the damper to be on the front of the boot as such a modification is a simple substitution of one known element (rear damper) for another (front damper) with practicable results. That is, Hornung explicitly recites that the damper can be located in the rear or “forwardly” and Aldinio explicitly recites that the damper can be located in the front or rear portion of the boot and cuff (col. 2, ll. 40-49) and thus one having ordinary skill would obtain predictable results by including one damper over the other.
PNG
media_image2.png
312
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornung (US 3686778) in view of Gleeson (WO2010092414) and Liverance et al. (US 5437289).
Regarding claim 5, Hornung as modified describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the sensed data is measured by sensing one or more of: a range of motion (ROM), a speed of motion, an acceleration forward and aft of the cuff relative to the shell.
In related art for ski boots, Liverance describes a similar boot in which the sensed data is measured by sensing one or more of: a range of motion (ROM) (cam 118 rotates with cuff 111/112, when a particular lean is achieved, which requires rotating the cuff and thus a range of motion, an alarm alerts the skier that the correct positioning has been achieved, col. 9, ll. 1-21), a speed of motion, an acceleration forward and aft of the cuff relative to the shell.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the boot of Hornung to include the range of motion sensor in order to permit a user to know when the correct posture has been achieved (Liverance, col. 9, ll. 19-21).
Regarding claim 10, Hornung as modified describes the ski boot as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the sensor is a rotational sensor.
In related art for ski boots, Liverance describes a similar boot in which sensor is a rotational sensor (cam 118 rotates with cuff 111/112, when a particular lean is achieved, which requires rotating the cuff and thus a rotational sensor, an alarm alerts the skier that the correct positioning has been achieved, col. 9, ll. 1-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the boot of Hornung to include the rotational sensor in order to permit a user to know when the correct posture has been achieved (Liverance, col. 9, ll. 19-21).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hornung (US 3686778) in view of Gleeson (WO2010092414) and Joutras et al. (US 5980435).
Regarding claim 11, Hornung as modified ski boot as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the sensor is located on or about the at least one pivot axis, is located on the cuff or is part of the cuff.
In related art for ski boots, Joutras describes wherein the sensor is located on or about the at least one pivot axis, is located on the cuff or is part of the cuff (sensor 30A, Fig. 59).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing the instant application to modify the boot of Hornung as modified to include the sensor on the cuff in order to assist in determining movement of the hinges or other device in the ankle of the ski boot (Gleeson, p. 2, ll. 15-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references are cited that include various dampening mechanisms as well as sensors associated with footwear.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, Alt F: 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Clint Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732