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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: spacing on Page 2, Line 30: Replacing “on the centre of rotation (7)being” with “on the centre of rotation (7) being” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 2. Replacing “at least one an arm” with “at least one arm” is suggested.
wording in Line 4. Replacing “axel” with “axle” is suggested.
wording in Lines 8-10. Replacing “a stretchable and compressive material strip arranged in between surfaces of the first and second member, characterized by a surface of the material strip facing towards a surface of the first member is partly covering the surface of the first member leaving an uncovered surface running parallel to a longitudinal direction of the first member on both sides of the surface of the first member.” with “at least one material strip, being stretchable and compressible, and arranged between a surface of the first member and a surface of the second member, wherein a surface of the at least one material strip faces towards the surface of the first member, partly covers the surface of the first member, and leaves an uncovered surface running of the surface of the first member parallel to a longitudinal direction of the first member.” is suggested.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: Lines 1-2 wording. Replacing “wherein the cut-out leaves two protruding parts on each side of the cut-out” with “wherein the cut-out comprises two sides and two protruding parts, each protruding part being on one side of the two sides” is suggested.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-3. Replacing “The roller ski of claim 3, wherein a respective one of the arm is arranged inside each protruding parts, wherein one of the two shock absorber arms is a mirrored version of the other one” with “The roller ski of claim 3, wherein the at least one arm comprises two arms, wherein one arm of the two arms is arranged inside one protruding part of the two protruding parts, and wherein one arm of the two arms is a mirrored version of the other arm.” is suggested.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-3. Replacing “The roller ski of claim 1, wherein a specific material property of the material strip is defined by the material composition controlling a softness property of the material of the material strip.” with “The roller ski of claim 1, wherein a specific material property of the at least one material strip includes a material composition defining a softness of the at least one material strip.” is suggested.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-4. Replacing “The roller ski of claim 5, wherein the material strip of the respective arms are dimensioned such that an upper side edge and a lower side edge of the material strip is in contact with a top and respective bottom surface of the respective protruding cut-out parts.” with “The roller ski of claim 5, wherein the at least one material strip is dimensioned such that an upper side edge and a lower side edge of the at least one material strip is in contact with a respective top and a bottom surface of at least one of the two protruding parts.” is suggested.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Lines 1-2. Replacing “the respective bolts or screws are adapted in length to a thickness of the second member” with “each bolt or screw is adapted to a thickness of the second member.” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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)(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, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bozinovic (WO 2019017802 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Bozinovic teaches a roller ski arranged with a shock absorber device, the shock absorber device comprises at least one an arm [Bozinovic Fig. 1, wherein the arm is comprised of the elements represented by Reference Characters 1-3; Bozinovic “Field of Invention” Paragraph 1: “Invention belongs to the class of sporting goods and features the shock absorber for the roller ski”] including: a first member arranged with a through-hole in one end of the first member arranged to support an axel of a roller ski wheel [Bozinovic Fig. 1, through-hole in element represented by Reference Character 1]; a second member attachable to an inner wall of a hollow backend part of a roller ski body [Bozinovic Fig. 1, element represented by Reference Character 3]; a stretchable and compressive material strip arranged in between surfaces of the first and second member [Bozinovic Fig. 1, element represented by Reference Character 2; Bozinovic “Detail Description” Paragraph 4: “The side rotation of ends of the wheel carriers (1) causes the rubber stripes (2) to constantly stretch the front section of the rubber stripe (2) stretches more than its rear end while at the center of rotation (7) the rubber stripe (2) tends to twist.”; Bozinovic Claim 2: the rubber strip (2) is attached to both the wheel carrier (1) and the shock absorber carrier (3) by the process of vulcanization.”]; and a surface of the material strip facing towards a surface of the first member is partly covering the surface of the first member leaving an uncovered surface running parallel to a longitudinal direction of the first member on both sides of the surface of the first member [Bozinovic Fig. 1, elements represented by Reference Characters 1 and 2].
Regarding Claim 6, Bozinovic teaches the roller ski of claim 1, wherein a specific material property of the material strip is defined by the material composition controlling a softness property of the material of the material strip [Bozinovic Fig. 2, Reference Character 2; Bozinovic “Summary of the Invention” Paragraph 1, Lines 6-11: “It is the lack of vibrations and the said lowered center of gravity that create a sensation of the snow feel. The roller ski shock absorber construction eliminates any friction between its metal parts what drastically increases its usability. Vibration dampening is a result of the fact that the wheel carrier and the shock absorber carrier are bound together by the rubber stripe preventing the transfer of vibrations from the wheel carrier to the ski body.”; Bozinovic “Detail Description of the Invention” Paragraph 4, Lines 10-13: “the wheel carriers (1) constantly rotate in a limited way around center of rotation (7). The side rotation of ends of the wheel carriers (1) causes the rubber stripes (2) to constantly stretch the front section of the rubber stripe (2) stretches more than its rear end while at the center of rotation (7) the rubber stripe (2) tends to twist.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Bozinovic teaches the roller ski of claim 1, wherein the uncovered surface of the first member is running in parallel with the longitudinal direction of the first member on only one side of the first member [Bozinovic Figs. 1 and 2, wherein the uncovered surface is the innermost portion of the first member, represented by Reference Character 1].
Regarding Claim 9, Bozinovic teaches the roller ski of claim 1, wherein the second member is attachable to the inner wall of the hollow backend of the roller ski body with bolts or screws adapted to fit into at least two threaded holes on a side surface of the second member [Bozinovic Figs. 1-3, wherein the threaded holes are shown penetrating the innermost portion of the element represented by Reference Character 3, and the ends of bolts or screws are visible in the innermost area of the element represented by Reference Character 4].
Regarding Claim 10, Bozinovic teaches the roller ski of claim 9, wherein a length of the respective bolts or screws are adapted in length to a thickness of the second member [Bozinovic Figs. 3 and 4, wherein the second member is represented by Reference Character 3].
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 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozinovic (WO 2019017802 A1) in view of Bozinovic (RS 20120334 A1) (hereinafter “RS 344”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 2, Bozinovic teaches a roller ski but does not teach a cut-out. RS 344 teaches the roller ski of claim 1, wherein a cut-out is arranged in a backend part of the roller ski body [RS 344 Fig. 3, wherein Reference Character 1 represents the backend part of the roller ski body, and wherein the unnumbered space forward of the wheel represents the forwardmost portion of the cut-out]. 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 roller ski of Bozinovic to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cut-out in view of RS344. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bozinovic and RS 344 because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a shock absorber that reduces vibration level and eliminates rear wheel jumping, as recognized by RS344 [RS 344 “Statement of the Essence of the Invention” Paragraph 1: “contributes to the vibration level being significantly lower and the jumping of the rear wheel at every step is completely eliminated which makes the ski completely stable and manageable.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Bozinovic teaches a roller ski but does not teach a cut-out. RS 344 teaches the roller ski of claim 2, wherein the cut-out leaves two protruding parts on each side of the cut-out running in a direction of the longitudinal direction of the roller ski body [RS 344 Fig. 3, wherein Reference Character 1 represents the backend part of the roller ski body, and wherein the two protruding parts extend rearward; RS 344 “Detailed Description of the Invention” Paragraph 1: “fork (1) has a U-shaped channel (2) on the underside”]. 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 roller ski of Bozinovic to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cut-out comprising two protruding parts in view of RS344. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bozinovic and RS 344 because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a shock absorber that reduces vibration level and eliminates rear wheel jumping, as recognized by RS344 [RS 344 “Statement of the Essence of the Invention” Paragraph 1: “contributes to the vibration level being significantly lower and the jumping of the rear wheel at every step is completely eliminated which makes the ski completely stable and manageable.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Bozinovic teaches a roller ski but does not teach a cut-out. RS 334 teaches the roller ski of claim 2, wherein the cut-out is dimensioned to support a roller ski wheel [RS 334 Fig. 3, wherein Reference Character 1 represents the backend part of the roller ski body, and wherein Reference Character 8 represents the roller ski wheel]. 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 roller ski of Bozinovic to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a cut-out dimensioned to support a wheel in view of RS344. It should be noted that while RS 334 does not provide an explicit motivation for supporting a roller ski wheel, the implementation of a cut-out that is dimensioned to support a roller ski wheel is a fundamental, necessary, and inherent feature present in all roller skis. It should be further noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Note further that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 5, Bozinovic teaches a roller ski including at least one arm but does not teach the at least one arm being arranged inside each protruding part. RS 344 teaches the roller ski of claim 3, wherein a respective one of the arm is arranged inside each protruding parts, wherein one of the two shock absorber arms is a mirrored version of the other one [RS 344 Fig. 3, wherein Reference Character 1 represents the backend part of the roller ski body, and wherein Reference Character 3 (typ) represents the arm]. 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 roller ski of Bozinovic to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, an arm arranged in each protruding part in view of RS344. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Bozinovic and RS 344 because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling the use of a shock absorber that reduces vibration level and eliminates rear wheel jumping, as recognized by RS344 [RS 344 “Statement of the Essence of the Invention” Paragraph 1: “contributes to the vibration level being significantly lower and the jumping of the rear wheel at every step is completely eliminated which makes the ski completely stable and manageable.”].
Regarding Claim 7, Bozinovic teaches the roller ski of claim 5, wherein the material strip of the respective arms are dimensioned such that an upper side edge and a lower side edge of the material strip is in contact with a top and respective bottom surface of the respective protruding cut-out parts [Bozinovic Fig. 3, wherein the material strip represented by Reference Character 2 (typ) contacts both the top and bottom of the cut-out part represented by Reference Character 4].
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
Prosecution Insights