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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0047, lines 1-2, it appears that the phrase “heel locking assembly 116” should read --heel locking assembly 115- to maintain consistent reference characters.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the free end” in line 7, which lacks antecedent basis. It appears that the limitation should read --a free end--.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “said first end or portion” in line 2, which lacks antecedent basis. It appears that claim 10 should depend from claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: manually-operated closing means in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 8-10 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 8 recites the limitation “it additionally comprises” in line 1. This limitation is vague and indefinite because it is not clear which element the term ‘it’ is referring to.
Claims 9-10 depend from rejected claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frappier (US 2021/0154563).
Regarding claim 1, Frappier discloses a tightening strap (112) for ski boots adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff of a ski boot to tighten said cuff on the user's leg (wherein the strap is capable of being wound around a cuff); the tightening strap comprising an oblong flexible element, which is adapted to be wound around the cuff and includes at least one elastic member with auxetic behaviour (interior region with auxetic pattern) able to stretch and, at the same time, also to widen in elastic manner when the tightening strap is subjected to traction; the tightening strap wherein said elastic member with auxetic behaviour comprises an oblong plate-like body, which has a monolithic structure and is divided into a plurality of contiguous flat sectors (connecting portions between apertures 146; Fig. 1), each of which has a macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behaviour, which is capable of stretching and, at the same time, also of widening in elastic manner when the oblong plate-like body is subjected to traction, and also differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors (wherein the size of the apertures, and therefore the size of the connecting portions varies across the interior region: paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1). (paragraphs 0026, 0029-0031, 0034-0035, 0039-0040; Fig. 1-4)
Regarding claim 2, Frappier discloses that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behaviour of said flat sectors is a two-dimensional reticular structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Frappier discloses that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behaviour of each flat sector differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors in shape and/or dimensions (paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Frappier discloses that said oblong flexible element is longitudinally divided into at least a first segment (perimeter end portions) with substantially inextensible structure, and into at least a second segment (interior region) incorporating said oblong plate-like body (paragraph 0040; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Frappier discloses that the second segment of said oblong flexible element comprises an oblong and flexible plate-like element, which is made of plastic material (paragraph 0030) and is longitudinally divided into a central section (central portion of interior region) incorporating said oblong plate-like body, and into two opposite lateral sections (side portions of interior region) that seamlessly join to said central section, on opposite sides thereof (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Frappier discloses that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element are structured so as to channel the tensile stresses in a series of prefixed and limited points of the central section of the same oblong plate-like element (paragraph 0035, 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Frappier discloses that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element have a sunburst-like structure (apertures 146 at side portions) converging towards the free end of the oblong plate-like element (Fig. 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fougere (US 6,026,594) in view of Frappier (US 2021/0154563).
Regarding claim 1, Fougere teaches a tightening strap (28) for ski boots adapted to be wound in a loop around the cuff of a ski boot to tighten the cuff on the user's leg; the tightening strap comprising an oblong flexible element, which is adapted to be wound around the cuff and includes at least one elastic member (2) (column 4, line 48-column 5, line 30; Fig. 1-8).
Fougere does not disclose that the elastic member has auxetic behavior. Frappier teaches a tightening strap (112) for ski boots which includes at least one elastic member with auxetic behaviour (interior region with auxetic pattern) able to stretch and, at the same time, also to widen in elastic manner when the tightening strap is subjected to traction; the tightening strap wherein the elastic member with auxetic behaviour comprises an oblong plate-like body, which has a monolithic structure and is divided into a plurality of contiguous flat sectors (connecting portions between apertures 146; Fig. 1), each of which has a macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behaviour, which is capable of stretching and, at the same time, also of widening in elastic manner when the oblong plate-like body is subjected to traction, and also differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors (wherein the size of the apertures, and therefore the size of the connecting portions varies across the interior region: paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1) (paragraphs 0026, 0029-0031, 0034-0035, 0039-0040; Fig. 1-4). The auxetic structure allows the strap to flex while supplying enough structural support to secure a boot, and to form to the shape of the boot, providing a better connection (paragraphs 0030, 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an elastic member with auxetic behavior, as taught by Frappier, to the elastic member of the strap of Fougere, in order to allow the strap to flex while supplying enough structural support to secure a boot, and to form to the shape of the boot, providing a better connection.
Regarding claim 2, Frappier teaches that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behaviour of the flat sectors is a two-dimensional reticular structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Frappier teaches that the macroscopic reticular structure with auxetic behaviour of each flat sector differs from that of the adjacent flat sectors in shape and/or dimensions (paragraphs 0035, 0039; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fougere discloses that the oblong flexible element is longitudinally divided into at least a first segment (1, 1A) with substantially inextensible structure, and into at least a second segment (2) incorporating the oblong plate-like body.
Regarding claim 5, Frappier teaches that the second segment of the oblong flexible element comprises an oblong and flexible plate-like element, which is made of plastic material (paragraph 0030) and is longitudinally divided into a central section (central portion of interior region) incorporating the oblong plate-like body, and into two opposite lateral sections (side portions of interior region) that seamlessly join to the central section, on opposite sides thereof (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Frappier teaches that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element are structured so as to channel the tensile stresses in a series of prefixed and limited points of the central section of the same oblong plate-like element (paragraph 0035, 0039).
Regarding claim 7, Frappier teaches that one or both of the opposite lateral sections of the oblong plate-like element have a sunburst-like structure (apertures 146 at side portions) converging towards the free end of the oblong plate-like element (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Fougere discloses that the tightening strap additionally comprises a manually-operated fastening device (4), which is adapted to connect the opposite ends or end portions of the oblong flexible element one to the other in a stable, though releasable manner (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 9, Fougere discloses that the fastening device is stably placed at a first end or end portion of the oblong flexible element, and is structured so as to connect in a stable, though releasable manner, to a second end or end portion of the same oblong flexible element, opposite to the first end (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 10, Fougere discloses that the fastening device is fixed to the first end or end portion of the oblong flexible element in a manually adjustable manner (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
Regarding claim 11, Fougere discloses a ski boot comprising: a substantially rigid foot-case (21), which is adapted to accommodate the user's foot; a substantially rigid cuff (22), which is adapted to surround the lower part of the user's leg, and is hinged on the foot-case so as to swing about a first rotation axis (A) substantially perpendicular to the ski-boot midplane; a protective inner-boot (23), which is placed inside the foot-case and is shaped/structured so as to accommodate and protect at least the user's foot; and manually-operated closing means that are structured so as to selectively tighten the foot-case and/or cuff, respectively, on the user's foot and leg; the closing means comprising a tightening strap (28), that surrounds the cuff so as to selectively close/tighten the cuff on the user's leg (column 4, lines 48-64; Fig. 1-4).
Fougere and Frappier discloses that the tightening strap is realized according to Claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claim 12, Fougere discloses that the tightening strap is fitted/fixed on the cuff in a removable manner (column 5, lines 20-30, 54-60; Fig. 2, 6).
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