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/Restriction
Claims 1, 2, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 25, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: wording in Lines 2 and 3. Replacing “ski” with “snowboard” in each occurrence is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018131923 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Topolkareav et al. (US 20160108194 A1) (hereinafter “Topolkareav”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches a snowboard [Annotated Kim Fig. 1, below; Kim “Technical Field” Paragraph 1: “The present invention relates to a sports board, and more particularly to a sports board, such as skiing and snowboarding”] comprising: a snowboard body having a bottom layer defining a bottom surface of the ski, a top layer defining a top surface of the ski, and a middle layer disposed between the bottom layer and the top layer [Annotated Kim Fig. 1, below; Kim Abstract: “A sports board comprises: an upper board and a lower board disposed to be spaced apart from each other; and a core attached between the upper board and the lower board.”], but does not teach the middle layer’s Poisson’s ratio.
Topolkareav teaches that the middle layer comprises a negative Poisson's ratio (NPR) foam material having a Poisson's ratio of between 0 and -1 [Topolkareav Paragraph 0088: “the Poisson coefficient of the material can be approximately 0 or even negative.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the middle layer of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a negative Poisson’s ratio in view of Topolkareav. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and Topolkareav because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving energy absorption, as recognized by Topolkareav [Topolkareav Paragraph 0088: “can result in increased energy absorption in the cross direction”]. It should be noted that while Topolkareav does not explicitly specify particular range of values, the range of values in the claimed invention lies with the domain claimed by Topolkareav. It should be further noted that, as the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, “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 MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches a middle layer but does not teach NPR foam material. Topolkareav teaches that the NPR foam material comprises an NPR polymer foam or an NPR metal foam [Topolkareav Paragraph 0088: “the Poisson coefficient of the material can be approximately 0 or even negative.”; Topolkareav Paragraph 0096: “the energy absorbing member may include the polymeric material as one layer or component and one or more additional layers or components of material for a variety of purposes, such as for additional energy absorption, insulation, barrier properties, or as a covering. The additional material(s) may include other conventional types of materials, such as polymeric foams, films or sheets, nonwoven webs, fiberglass materials, cellulosic materials, scrims, foils, etc.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the snowboard having an NPR foam middle layer of Kim to provide a polymer foam as taught by Topolkareav. Doing so would provide “increased energy absorption” as recognized by Topolkareav [Topolkareav Paragraph 0088]. It should be noted that while Topolkareav’s invention indicates applicability to “Various examples of protective gear that may include the energy absorbing member of the present invention may include…ski boots, snowboarding boots” (Topolkareav Paragraph 0099) without explicitly indicating applicability to skis, the use of NPR in the claimed invention would provide the same “energy absorbing” capability, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, F.).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches a snowboard having a middle layer but does not teach NPR foam material. Topolkareav teaches the snowboard of claim 4, in which the NPR foam material comprises an NPR thermoplastic polymer foam, an NPR viscoelastic foam, or an NPR rubber foam [Topolkareav Abstract: “An energy absorbing member that contains a porous polymeric material is provided. The polymeric material is formed from a thermoplastic composition”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the snowboard having NPR foam middle layer of Kim to provide a thermoplastic polymer foam as taught by Topolkareav. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and Topolkareav because this would have achieved the desirable result of achieving desired properties without significantly affecting base properties, as recognized by Topolkareav [Topolkareav Paragraph 0051: “achieve the desired properties without significantly impacting the base properties of the composition.”].
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches a snowboard having a middle layer but does not teach a Poisson’s ratio between 0 and -0.8. Topolkareav teaches the snowboard of claim 3, in which the NPR foam material has a Poisson's ratio of between 0 and -0.8. [Topolkareav Paragraph 0088: “the Poisson coefficient of the material can be approximately 0 or even negative.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the middle layer of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a negative Poisson’s ratio in view of Topolkareav. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and Topolkareav because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving energy absorption, as recognized by Topolkareav [Topolkareav Paragraph 0088: “can result in increased energy absorption in the cross direction”]. It should be noted that while Topolkareav does not explicitly specify particular range of values, the range of values in the claimed invention lies with the domain claimed by Topolkareav. It should be further noted that, as the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, “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 MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches a snowboard having a middle layer but does not teach an NPR foam characteristic dimension. Topolkareav teaches the snowboard of claim 3, in which the NPR foam material is composed of a cellular structure having a characteristic dimension of between 0.1 μm and 3 mm [Topolkareav Paragraph 0004: “a porous network is defined in the material that includes a plurality of nanopores having an average cross-sectional dimension of about 800 nanometers or less.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the middle layer of Kim to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cellular structure characteristic dimensions of the order of magnitude taught by Topolkareav. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim and Topolkareav because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving melt strength and stability, as recognized by Topolkareav [Topolkareav Paragraph 0054: “help improve the melt strength and stability”]. It should be noted that while Topolkareav does not explicitly specify particular range of values, Topolkareav’s characteristic dimension lies within the claimed range. It should be further noted that, as the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the recited range, “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 MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches the snowboard of claim 3, in which the middle layer of the snowboard body comprises a composite material comprising the NPR foam material and a positive Poisson's ratio (PPR) material [Kim “Mode for Invention” Paragraph 17: “the core includes a…buffer formed of a structure of a negative Poisson's ratio. In addition, the core may include a non-ogetic buffer having a positive Poisson's ratio structure.”; “Tech Solution” Paragraph 21: “The optical buffer unit may be formed of a plurality of unit structures that are continuously disposed in a horizontal direction.”].
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018131923 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Topolkareav et al. (US 20160108194 A1) (hereinafter “Topolkareav”) and further in view of Frappier (US 11123628 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches a snowboard with an NPR foam middle layer but does not teach bindings. Frappier teaches the snowboard of claim 3, comprising two bindings disposed on the top surface of the snowboard body and attached to the snowboard body, in which each binding comprises an NPR foam material [Frappier Paragraph 0006: “a snowboard binding includes a highback configured to form an inward curve to define a cavity for a boot. The binding also includes at least one strap configured to secure the boot within the cavity. Either the highback or the at least one strap includes an auxetic pattern.”; Frappier Paragraph 22: “Auxetic patterns are defined by a plurality of apertures, or holes, through the surrounding structural supporting material. The auxetic pattern in the material created by the apertures results in a negative Poisson's for the material as a whole, or for the particular area which has the auxetic pattern.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the snowboard having an NPR foam middle layer of Kim to provide a binding as taught by Frappier. As such, “the auxetic pattern allows the corresponding area (e.g. interior area of the straps) to flex while still supplying enough structural support to secure the boot within the binding.” [Frappier Paragraph 22] as recognized by Frappier.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches a snowboard with an NPR foam middle but does not teach a composite binding. Frappier teaches the snowboard of claim 9, in which each binding comprises a composite material comprising the NPR foam material and a positive Poisson's ratio material. [Frappier Paragraph 20: “the highback is a relatively rigid material, such as a stiff plastic, which supports the rider's boot when the straps fasten the boot within the binding…The highback can also be a compressed or forged composite with post processes to add mounting and/or assembly holes to affix to the other binding chassis components. In some cases, a highback with a composite glass fiber Polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified lamination upper portion and an overmolded nylon lower portion has been found to be effective.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the snowboard having an NPR foam middle layer of Kim to feature composite material as taught by Frappier. As such, “An auxetic pattern can then be included on the upper portion to allow for targeted flex.” [Frappier Paragraph 20] as recognized by Frappier.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018131923 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Topolkareav et al. (US 20160108194 A1) (hereinafter “Topolkareav”) and further in view of Bullock et al. (JP 2019011039) (hereinafter “Bullock”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kim and Topolkareav teaches a snowboard body but does not teach edges that comprise an NPR metal foam. Bullock teaches the snowboard of claim 3, in which the snowboard body comprises edges disposed along a length of the snowboard body on each side of the snowboard body, in which each edge comprises an NPR metal foam material [Bullock Paragraph 0096: “the foam panel may include a metal foam having a neutral or negative Poisson's ratio”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the snowboard having an NPR middle layer of the combination of Kim and Topolkareav to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, NPR metal foam edges in view of Bullock. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim, Topolkareav, and Bullock because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing hydrophobicity which would prevent ice build-up on the edges of the snowboard, as recognized by Bullock [Bullock Paragraph 0096: “By having a neutral or negative Poisson's ratio, the adhesion and specific absorption characteristics of the foam panel can be enhanced. Another advantage of the present disclosure is that the combination of coating layer and foam layer can be made hydrophobic. The hydrophobic nature of the device can prevent icing on the surface of the device, thereby preventing icing on surfaces exposed to bad weather.”]. It should be noted that Bullock’s invention is regarded as being analogous art to the instant application given that both involve claims directed to the use of NPR metal foam in structural elements used in cold environments. It should be further noted that known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, F.). In the present case, design incentives and market forces include the desire to have mechanical energy absorption capability, the need for resistance to degradation, and the need for resistance to environmental impacts [Bullock Paragraph 0096: “As another advantage, the device can exhibit a non-linear mechanical absorption capability that can serve as a metal barrier or low grade ballistic armor. Several other advantages can also be realized by using a fluoroelastomer material deposited in the foam layer. For example, fluorinated elastomers can be highly resistant to degradation and other environmental impacts.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613