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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the free ends of the two arms/prongs of the tensioning lever” in line 2, which lacks antecedent basis. The two arms/prongs and the free ends have not been previously recited, and should not be preceded by “the” within the claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the housing” in line 1. It appears that this limitation should read --the at least one housing seat-- to maintain consistent claim language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the same tensioning lever” in lines 3-4. It appears that this limitation should read --the tensioning lever--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the first lateral side of the cuff, the outer lateral side of the cuff” in lines 1-2. It appears that this limitation should read --the first lateral side of the cuff is the outer lateral side of the cuff--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 11, and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the retaining lever is butt-hinged to said tensioning lever” in lines 1-2. However, claim 7 previously recites that ‘the retaining lever is butt-hinged to said support base.’ It is not clear how the retaining lever can be hinged to both the tensioning lever and the support base. The specification (see paragraph 0090) presents these as alternative embodiments. For purposes of examination it appears that claim 8 should depend from claim 6.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a transversal rectilinear groove that extends … advantageously for the entire width” in lines 1-3. This limitation is indefinite because the term ‘advantageously’ makes it unclear if the following limitation is required or not. For purposes of examination it appears that the limitation following ‘advantageously’ is positively recited and included within the claim.
Claim 12 depends from rejected claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 5,570,522), herein Olson, in view of Bonaventure et al. (US 6,371,494), herein Bonaventure.
Regarding claim 1, Olson discloses a ski boot (12) comprising: a substantially rigid foot-casing (24, made of molded plastic), which is adapted to accommodate the user's foot; a substantially rigid cuff (26), which is adapted to enclose the lower leg of the user; a protective innerboot (30), which is placed within the foot-casing and is adapted to accommodate and to protect at least the user's foot; a manually-operated foot-casing closing assembly, which is capable of tightening the foot-casing on the user's foot (wherein there may be a separate buckle on each of the instep and cuff portions: column 3, lines 64-67); and a manually-operated cuff closing assembly, which is adapted to tighten the cuff on the user's leg; the cuff closing assembly comprising: a manually-operated tensioning device (64), which is rigidly fixed on a first lateral side of the cuff; a flexible transversal band (40), which is rigidly fixed to a second lateral side of the cuff opposite to the first lateral side, and extends grazing to the front part of the cuff up to reach the tensioning device and a coupling member (62), which is located on the transversal band and is structured so as to couple in releasable manner to the tensioning device (column 3, lines 9-13); wherein the transversal band comprises a flexible ribbon (flexible strap; Fig. 8), which has its two ends (42, 44) rigidly fixed to the second lateral side of the cuff (at 46, 50) and extends grazing the front part of the cuff up to reach the tensioning device (Fig. 4, 8); and wherein the coupling member is fitted in free slidable manner (through opening 74; column 3, lines 14-17) on the flexible ribbon (column 2, line 18-column 3, line 67; Fig. 1-8).
Olson does not disclose that the cuff is hinged to the foot-casing so as to be able to swing about a first rotation axis substantially perpendicular to the midplane of the ski boot. Bonaventure teaches a sports boot (2) having a foot casing (5, 6) and a cuff (8) hinged (at pivot 38) to the foot casing so as to be able to swing about a first rotational axis substantially perpendicular to the midplane of the boot (column 3, lines 46-52; Fig. 1, 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hinge, as taught by Bonaventure, between the foot-casing and cuff of Olson, in order to allow improved mobility and comfort of the foot and ankle within the boot.
Regarding claim 2, Olson discloses that the flexible ribbon is bent in a substantially V shape and has the two ends fixed on the second lateral side of the cuff, one spaced above the other; the coupling member being placed on the bend of the flexible ribbon (Fig. 1, 4, 8).
Regarding claim 3, Olson discloses that one of the two ends of the flexible ribbon is fixed to the cuff in a manually adjustable manner (at buckle 50: column 2, lines 53-64; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Olson discloses that the first end of the flexible ribbon is fixed to the cuff via a mechanical self-locking member (50) that, in turn, is rigidly fixed to the second lateral side of the cuff (at buckle 50: column 2, lines 53-64; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Olson discloses that the first lateral side of the cuff is the outer lateral side of the cuff, and the second lateral side of the cuff is the inner lateral side of the cuff (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson and Bonaventure, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bruckl (US 3,295,177).
Regarding claim 5, Olson discloses that the tensioning device comprises a support base (64), but does not disclose a manually-operated tensioning lever. Bruckl teaches a closing assembly comprising a tensioning device and a coupling member. The tensioning device comprises: a support base (16), which is rigidly fixed to a cuff; and a manually-operated tensioning lever (6), which is butt-hinged (at 40) to the support base so as to be able to freely rotate about a second rotation axis, and is provided with at least one housing seat (7) adapted to be engaged in removable manner by the coupling member (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 75; column 5, line 51-column 6, line 5; Fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a closing assembly with a manually-operated tensioning lever, as taught by Bruckl, to the cuff and flexible band of Olson and Bonaventure, as this would be a simple substitution of one type of buckle closing assembly for another, with the predictable result of providing a buckle which is easily adjustable at the buckle side, allowing for improved fine-tune adjustment of the fit of the cuff.
PNG
media_image1.png
395
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Bruckl teaches that the tensioning device additionally comprises: a manually-operated retention lever (8), which is butt-hinged (at 14, 15) to the tensioning lever so as to freely rotate from or towards a closing position (Fig. 6, 7), in which it is substantially skimmed over the side of the tensioning lever where the housing seat is located, so as to prevent the exit of the coupling member from the housing seat (Fig. 4); and an elastic member (13), which is adapted to bring and to maintain, in an elastic manner, the retention lever in the closing position (column 4, lines 2-13, 64-70; Fig. 1-7, 15-17).
Regarding claim 8, Bruckl teaches that the retaining lever is butt-hinged to the tensioning lever so as to freely rotate about a third rotation axis parallel to the second rotation axis.
Regarding claim 9, Bruckl teaches that the tensioning lever is substantially U-shaped (see Fig. 15), and the free ends of the two arms/prongs of the tensioning lever are fitted in rotatable manner onto a transversal pin (40) fixed to the support base (wherein the pin 40 rotates within the tooth 38).
Regarding claim 10, Bruckl teaches that the proximal end of the retaining lever is fitted in freely rotatable manner on the transversal pin, between the free ends of the two arms/prongs of the U-shaped tensioning lever (Fig. 15, 16).
Regarding claim 11, Bruckl teaches that the housing includes a transversal rectilinear groove that extends on the central segment of the tensioning lever parallel to the second rotation axis, advantageously for the entire width of the same tensioning lever (Fig. 15-17).
Regarding claim 12, Bruckl teaches that the transversal rectilinear groove has a profile shaped substantially like an overturned-T or like a dovetail (wherein the shape is narrow at the bottom and widens out at the top, substantially like a T or dovetail; Fig. 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach or suggest a ski boot having the combination of features claimed that includes the retaining lever being butt-hinged to the support base so as to freely rotate about the second rotation axis.
Bruckl, the closest prior art, teaches a tensioning device having a tensioning lever and a retention lever, as discussed regarding claims 5 and 6 above. Bruckl does not teach that the retaining lever is butt-hinged to the support base. To modify Bruckl such that the retaining lever is butt-hinged to the support base would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of Applicant’s invention without any disclosure, teaching or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M PRANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (571) 272-4888. 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.
/SHARON M PRANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732