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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 15 have been examined.
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 6 and 8 – 10 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 6 recites the limitation "the first through-opening" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the center" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second through-opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third through-opening" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second through-opening" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the third through-opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the side portions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the side portions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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 – 8 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Glass et al. (2011/0316243). In regard to claim 1, Glass discloses a shoe fastening system comprising a shoe part (Fig. 1, item 120), a rail (Fig. 1, item 102), and an insertable intermediate adapter for compensating a distance between the rail and the shoe part (Fig. 1, items 110).
In regard to claim 2, Glass discloses wherein the shoe part has a flat underside (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 3, Glass discloses wherein the rail has a surface in the heel area which is raised relative to a ball area (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 4, Glass discloses wherein the shoe part comprises at least one displaceable mounting plate for screwing in a fastening screw for the intermediate adapter (Fig. 2B, item 125).
In regard to claim 5, Glass discloses an intermediate adapter comprising three through-openings for inserting a fastening screw (Fig. 3, items 111 and 112).
In regard to claim 6, Glass discloses wherein the first through-opening is arranged in the center of the intermediate adapter, the second through-opening is arranged on one side of the intermediate adapter and the third through-opening is arranged on the other side of the intermediate adapter (Fig. 3, item 112 and forward and rearward instances of item 111).
In regard to claim 7, Glass discloses wherein at least one of the through-openings has a slot shape for displacing the fastening screw (Fig. 3, item 112).
In regard to claim 8, Glass discloses wherein the second through-opening on one side of the intermediate adapter is offset rearwardly relative to the third through-opening on the other side of the intermediate adapter (Fig. 3).
In regard to claim 13, Glass discloses wherein the intermediate adapter is formed of plastic (paragraph 32).
In regard to claim 14, Glass discloses wherein the intermediate adapter is formed with an inner cavity (Figs. 2B and 3, item 113).
In regard to claim 15, Glass discloses wherein the inner cavity comprises a support structure (Figs. 2B and 3, unnumbered horizontal surface within item 113).
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byoung (KR 200353330), cited by Applicant. In regard to claim 5, Byoung discloses an intermediate adapter comprising three through-openings for inserting a fastening screw (Fig. 4, items 200a, 230, 240, and 250).
In regard to claim 11, Byoung discloses wherein at least one through-channel of one of the through-openings protrudes from the intermediate adapter in the direction of a shoe part (Fig 4, item 230).
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 9 – 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass et al. (2011/0316243) as applied to claims 1 – 8 and 13 – 15 above, and further in view of Post et al. (5,961,129). Glass does not disclose recess for a rail. In regard to claim 9, Post discloses an intermediate adapter comprising wherein the intermediate adapter comprises a central portion (Fig. 1, item 22) which is recessed relative to the side portions for inserting a rail (Fig. 1, items 30 and 34).
In regard to claim 10, Post discloses wherein the intermediate adapter comprises a central portion which is raised relative to the side portions (Fig. 1, items 22D, 30 and 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rail recess of Post, to the adapter of Glass, in order to provide a redundant connection means. This would increase the security of the connection between the shoe and the rail, thereby increasing the safety of the user.
Glass in view of Post does not disclose beveled edges. In regard to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide beveled lateral surfaces, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wrike (5,803,466) discloses a toe plate with dual flanges for an in-line skate frame;
Van Egeraat (6,837,500) discloses a roller skate frame assembly;
Knoll (10,524,533) discloses a roller skate system having a rail and a boot;
McMillan et al. (CA2900102) disclose a performance monitoring system for ice skates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, Allen Shriver 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights