DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dobner (US 2011/0225772).
In re claim 1, Dobner discloses a ski pole strap for transfer of power from a skier's hand to a ski pole when a pole stroke is performed in cross-country skiing (par. 2, intended use), the ski pole strap comprising: an attachment portion configured to attach the ski pole strap to the ski pole (see, e.g, figs, 2, 6); and a hand support portion (3) for supporting the hand of the skier, the hand support portion comprising a layer of thermoplastic material (par. 35) the layer of thermoplastic material being arranged at least in a region of the hand support portion configured to surround an ulnar border of the skier's hand (clear from figs. 4-7), when the ski pole strap is in use, the thermoplastic material being plastically shapeable at a temperature below 100° C (par. 35).
Dobner differs in that it does not explicitly teach the layer of thermoplastic material is at least 0.03 g/cm2 or has a flexural modulus of at least 50 MPa at 20° C. Nonetheless the examiner notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 2, Dobner differs in that it does not explicitly teach the layer of thermoplastic material is arranged in at least 50% of a total surface area of the hand support portion. Nonetheless the examiner again notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 3, Dobner differs in that it does not explicitly teach the layer of thermoplastic material is arranged in at least 70% of the total surface area of the hand support portion. Nonetheless the examiner again notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 4, Dobner further teaches the hand support portion being configured to at least partly wrap around the hand of the skier between a first end of the hand support portion and a second end of the hand support portion (figs. 4-7).
In re claim 5, Dobner differs in that it does not explicitly teach the layer of thermoplastic material being arranged along at least 60% of a distance between the first end and the second end of the hand support portion. Nonetheless the examiner again notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 6, Dobner differs in that it does not explicitly teach the layer of thermoplastic material being arranged along at least 80% of a distance between the first end and the second end of the hand support portion. Nonetheless the examiner again notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 7, Dobner further teaches the ski pole strap being configured in such a way that the first end of the hand support portion and the second end of the hand support portion are located on a dorsal side of the hand when the ski pole strap is in use (figs. 4, 7).
In re claim 8, Dobner differs in that it does not explicitly teach the hand support portion comprising in the range of 0.03-0.5 g/cm2 of the thermoplastic material across at least 30% of a total surface area of the hand support portion. Nonetheless the examiner again notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 12, Dobner differs in that it does not teach the thermoplastic material having a flexural modulus of at least 100 MPa at 20° C. Nonetheless the examiner again notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 13, Dobner differs in that it does not teach the thermoplastic material exhibiting a ratio between its flexural modulus and its Young's modulus in the range of 0.5 to 1.5. Nonetheless the examiner again notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re claim 14, Dobner further notes that the invention can be used with a ski pole (par. 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EREZ GURARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/EREZ GURARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights