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 3, 6, 7, 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: with respect to claim 3, the limitations, “further a plurality of pump”, construed as a typo that need to be --further comprising a plurality of pumps---.
Claim 6, lines 2-3 need to be--the plurality of the support braces---
Claims 7 and 10, the same correction needed as claim 6.
Claim 17, missing a period. Appropriate corrections are 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 1-7 and 9 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 1 recites the limitation "the length of ramp" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, the claim recites “supply water from the pump to the ramp”. Claim 9 dependent from claim 8, whereas claim 8 defines a plurality of pumps (line 7). Further clarification is require to which “the pump” claim 9 referred to.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmit US 2019/0001228 (“Schmit”) in view of Phillips US 7,309,302 (“Phillips”) and Northam US 2008/0293506 (“Northam”).
As per claim 1, Schmit discloses a water system (water feature 100) for water devices (e.g., mat or flotation device, inflatable tube, raft, or other slippery and buoyant device)(the embodiment of Figs. 1-8 in conjunction to paragraphs [0060]-[0107]), said water launch system comprising:
a floating dock (float 104)(Figs. 1-3; [0063],[0065] and [0066]);
a ramp supported by the floating dock and inclined at an angle relative to the floating dock (ramp 112)(Figs. 1-4; [0060], [0061], [0064], [0068], [0072]-[0078]);
a plurality of slide tubes extending along the ramp (construed as a plurality of flumes 114 upon ramp 112)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0061] and [0072]-[0079]).
With respect to the device as “a water launch system for water vehicles” as recites in the preamble, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Schmit is not specific regarding wherein the slide tubes are positioned inside said ramp to allow said water vehicles to traverse above said slide tubes.
Schmit is not specific regarding said ramp including a plurality of water ports disposed along the length of ramp; a plurality of hoses, wherein each hose is configured to supply corresponding water ports with water.
Schmit is not specific said slide tubes configured to guide the water vehicle up the ramp and wherein the water supplied by the plurality of hoses allows acceleration of the water vehicles upward along the length of the ramp.
With respect to wherein the slide tubes are positioned inside said ramp to allow said water vehicles to traverse above said slide tubes, Phillips discloses sliding tubes inside ramp for guidance (rails 73 within ramp 71)(Fig. 4; 6:48-53).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s wherein the slide tubes are positioned inside said ramp to allow said water vehicles to traverse above said slide tubes as taught by Phillips for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Phillips’ suggestions to use such rails for guidance upon the ramp. Such rails would have been much desired within the device of Schmit. Within Schmit, water devices are configure to be used, slide, upon the ramp (e.g., e.g., mat, inflatable tube, raft, or other slippery and buoyant device; [0075]) and such rails to establish lanes (as taught by Phillips) would insure that such devices would have safely ride upon the ramp within the lane/s.
With respect to the plurality of water ports and corresponding plurality of hoses, in a similar field of water systems, Northam discloses a ramp (surface 40) with a plurality of water ports (nozzles 47) and corresponding a plurality of hoses (supply lines 48)(in at least Figs. 1A, 3, 4, and 9B; and at least paragraphs [0113]-[0114], and [0117]).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s ramp including a plurality of water ports disposed along the length of ramp; a plurality of hoses, wherein each hose is configured to supply corresponding water ports with water as taught by Northam for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Northam’s suggestions that such water means (e.g., a liquid environment) enhance the use of the ramp device to allow recreational as well “extreme maneuvers” ([0019]).
With respect to “said slide tubes configured to guide the water vehicle up the ramp and wherein the water supplied by the plurality of hoses allows acceleration of the water vehicles upward along the length of the ramp”, it is noted that it has been held that manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does within the modified device (see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The examiner takes the position that since the prior art includes all the structural limitations as claimed it is fully capable to perform as claimed.
As per claim 5, with respect to further comprising a plurality of support braces disposed along the length of the ramp, wherein each support brace extends across the width of the ramp, note Schmit’s Figs. 2-4 and [0061], [0070], [0072] and [0084]-[0087] regarding slide foundation 300 that includes a series of braces 302 along ramp 112, that extending the width of the ramp.
As per claim 6, with respect to further comprising a plurality of vertical support poles extending from the floating dock and extending to the plurality support brace, note Figs. 1-4 in conjunction to [0070] and [0087]-[0090]) regarding support assembly 406 made up from beams 408 (e.g., Fig. 4), of Schmit.
As per claim 7, with respect to further comprising an angled support pole extending from each corresponding vertical support pole and extending to the plurality of support braces, note Schmit’s Figs. 1-3 as some of the beams 408 are angled with respect to braces 302; also in [0088]” In other embodiments, one or more of the beams 408 may be oriented at an angle with respect to the floating platform 102 that is not perpendicular.”
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmit, Phillips, and Northam as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tinkler US 4,662,781 (“Tinkler”) .
As per claim 2,with respect to further comprising dock cleats located on the floating dock, note Schmit’s Fig. 1 as marked hereinafter
PNG
media_image1.png
597
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schmit is not specific regarding wherein the floating dock is anchored via weights attached to said dock cleats.
However, Tinkler discloses further comprising dock cleats located on a floating dock, wherein the floating dock is anchored via weights attached to said dock cleats (floating ramp 32 anchored via weight/ballast 40)(Fig. 8; 4:38-62).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s dock cleats located on the floating dock, wherein the floating dock is anchored via weights attached to said dock cleats as taught by Tinkler for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Schmit’s suggestion to include anchoring means to his water system ([0059]).
As per claim 3, with respect to further a plurality of pumps configured to supply the water to the plurality of hoses, note Northam’s Fig. 1A and [0098] regarding plurality of pumps 81 configure to supply water to the ramp surface (via the hoses, lines, as discussed above). Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s with a plurality of pumps as taught by Northam as using known mechanical means (water pumps) to supply water from body of water to the ramp system as needed.
With respect to wherein each pump is attached to a corresponding dock cleat, although the prior art is not specific regarding such, it is noted that it has been held that claims which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the elements were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the elements would not have modified the operation of the device; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Therefore, 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 to form the modified Schmit’s plurality of pumps at such locations as claimed for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated merely as a matter of obvious engineering choice, without changing the nature of the pumps nor the overall operation of the water system.
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein each pump of the plurality of pumps are configured to supply a set of two water ports with the water, note Northam’s Figs. 3, 4 and 9B in conjunction to [0113]-[0114] and [0117] regarding a plurality of nozzles 47-lines 48 (i.e., at least a set of two); note [0098], [0101], [0102] as the pumps 81 to supply liquid 5/water to the rump/surface 40.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmit in view of Hemperly et al US 5,213,443 (“Hemperly”), Phillips, Northam and Tinkler.
As per claim 8, Schmit discloses a ramp system configured to float on a body of water (water feature 100) (the embodiment of Figs. 1-8 in conjunction to paragraphs [0057]-[0107]) comprising:
a ramp (ramp 112)(Figs. 1-4; [0060], [0061], [0064], [0068], [0072]-[0078]), wherein said ramp is configured to rest on a plurality of support braces (ramp rest upon slide foundation 300 that is including series of braces 302 along ramp 112)(Figs. 2-4 and [0061], [0070], [0072] and [0084]-[0087]); wherein each brace of the plurality of support braces (300/302) is fastened onto a pair of vertical support poles (fastened with support assembly 406, that is made up from beams 408 (e.g., Fig. 4))( Figs. 1-4 in conjunction to [0070] and [0087]-[0090]); said each support pole (400/408) are attached to a floating dock (attached with float 104/deck 106)(Figs. 1-3; [0063],[0065] and [0066]); wherein said floating dock includes dock cleats (Fig. 1; as marked)
PNG
media_image2.png
581
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of slide tubes extending along the ramp (construed as a plurality of flumes 114 upon ramp 112)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0061] and [0072]-[0079]); and a pump attached to corresponding dock (pump 140 attached to float 104/dock 106)(Fig. 1; [0079]-[0081]).
Schmit is not specific regarding wherein said ramp extends past below the floating dock and into the body of water.
Schmit is not specific regarding and wherein said slide tubes are disposed narrower than a width of the ramp and lower than a height of the ramp.
Schmit is not specific regarding wherein said floating dock includes dock cleats and at least one or more weighted anchors attached to said dock cleats.
Schmit is not specific regarding a plurality of pumps attached to corresponding dock cleats.
With respect to wherein said ramp extends past below the floating dock and into the body of water, Hemperly discloses ramp 7 extend into body of water 25 (Figs. 1a and 5a-5c). Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s ramp extends past below the floating dock and into the body of water as taught by Hemperly in a logical manner to insure a safety of a user upon the ramp as a vehicle, device slide up and/or down the ramp.
With respect to wherein said slide tubes are disposed narrower than a width of the ramp and lower than a height of the ramp, Phillips discloses sliding tubes inside ramp for guidance, i.e., narrower than a width of the ramp (rails 73 within ramp 71)(Fig. 4; 6:48-53).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s slide tubes are disposed narrower than a width of the ramp and lower than a height of the ramp as taught by Phillips for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to wherein said floating dock includes dock cleats and at least one or more weighted anchors attached to said dock cleats, Tinkler discloses a floating dock includes dock cleats and at least one or more weighted anchors attached to said dock cleats (floating ramp 32 anchored via weight/ballast 40 via cleats upon the float )(Fig. 8; 4:38-62).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s floating dock includes dock cleats and at least one or more weighted anchors attached to said dock cleats as taught by Tinkler for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Schmit’s suggestion to include anchoring means to his water system ([0059]).
With respect to the plurality of pumps, Northam discloses plurality of pumps (Fig. 1A and [0098] regarding plurality of pumps 81 configure to supply water to the ramp surface).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s with a plurality of pumps as taught by Northam as using known mechanical means (water pumps) to supply water from body of water to the ramp system as needed. In addition, the use of a plurality of pump, would have been nothing more than a duplication of parts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that are not altering the function of Schmit’s ramp system. Schmit clearly show that a single pump is sufficient to pump water thereto the ramp system. In that regard, the Court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to the plurality of pumps attached to corresponding dock cleat, note the examiner discussion above with respect to claim 3. The examiner maintains his position that such position would have been obvious as set forth above.
As per claim 9, Schmit is nots specific regarding further comprising a plurality of hoses, configured to supply water from the pump to the ramp.
However, Northam discloses a ramp (surface 40) with a plurality of water ports (nozzles 47) and corresponding a plurality of hoses (supply lines 48)(in at least Figs. 1A, 3, 4, and 9B; and at least paragraphs [0113]-[0114], and [0117]).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s further comprising a plurality of hoses, configured to supply water from the pump to the ramp as taught by Northam for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 10, with respect to further comprising an angled support pole extending from each corresponding vertical support pole and extending to plurality of support braces, note Schmit’s Figs. 1-3 as some of the beams 408 are angled with respect to braces 302; also in [0088]” In other embodiments, one or more of the beams 408 may be oriented at an angle with respect to the floating platform 102 that is not perpendicular.”
As per claim 11, with respect to further comprising slide tubes extending along a length of the ramp (construed as plurality of flumes 114 upon ramp 112)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0061] and [0072]-[0079], of Schmit. Also, note Phillips’ Fig. 4
As per claim 13, with respect to wherein the slide tubes extend past the length of the ramp, such would have been merely user’s preference or design choice, based upon configuration or shape which would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art absent any evidence that such particular configuration claimed is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.03)
As per claim 14, Schmit discloses wherein the ramp is configured to rest directly on at one end of the floating dock (ramp 112 directly rest on the deck at one end) (Figs. 1 and 4; at least [0060]-[0064)).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmit, Hemperly, Phillips, Northam and Tinkler as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Foss US 2,841,396 (“Foss”).
As per claim 12, Schmit is not specific regarding further comprising a plurality of spacers located between the slide tubes and the ramp, wherein the slide tubes are fastened onto at least one spacer of the plurality of spacers, the ramp, and at least one support brace of the plurality of support braces via a fastener.
However, Foss discloses a plurality of spacers located between a slide tube and a ramp, wherein the slide tube is fastened onto at least one spacer of the plurality of spacers (slide tube, bedway 30 fastened to ramp, frame 12, via a plurality of spacers, guide rails 32)(Figs. 1-3; 2:8-38).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s with a plurality of spacers located between the slide tube and the ramp, wherein the slide tube are fastened onto at least one spacer of the plurality of spacers as taught by Foss for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Schmit’s suggestions to use any known fastening means between the ramp and the slide tube (i.e. flume) in at least [0086]. Within the modified Schmit, there are plurality of slide tubes connected to the ramp, and utilizing such spacers (as taught by Foss) to be connected with the ramp. With respect to “fastened onto at least one spacer of the plurality of spacers, the ramp, and at least one support brace of the plurality of support braces via a fastener.”, note Schmit in [0095] “In some embodiments, all or a majority of the floating water feature 100 or the waterslide assembly 112 is constructed in a modular fashion using bolts or other reusable couplers 304 (e.g. removable fasteners, etc.)”. Accordingly, within the modified Schmit by at least the teachings of Foss (regarding the spacers), as the ramp-slide tubes are connected with the support brace (e.g. 300/302 as taught by Schmit), it would have been obvious to use a fastener for such attachment, as suggested by Schmit, to insure firm and safe connection, yet allow removal therefrom, for maintenance and alike.
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmit in view of Hemperly and Northam.
As per claim 15, Schmit discloses a water system (water feature 100) for water devices (e.g., mat or flotation device, inflatable tube, raft, or other slippery and buoyant device)(the embodiment of Figs. 1-8 in conjunction to paragraphs [0060]-[0107]), said water launch system comprising:
a floating dock (float 104)(Figs. 1-3; [0063],[0065] and [0066]);
a ramp supported by the floating dock and inclined at an angle relative to the floating dock (ramp 112)(Figs. 1-4; [0060], [0061], [0064], [0068], [0072]-[0078]);
a pump attached to corresponding dock (pump 140 attached to float 104/dock 106)(Fig. 1; [0079]-[0081]);
and a power supply configured to supply power to the pump ([0081]).
With respect to the device as “a water launch system for water vehicles” as recites in the preamble, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Schmit is not specific regarding and wherein the ramp extends below the floating dock.
Schmit is not specific regarding said ramp including a plurality of water ports disposed along the length of ramp; a plurality of hoses, wherein each hose is configured to supply corresponding water ports with water; and a plurality of pumps configured to supply the water to the plurality of hoses.
With respect to the ramp extend below the floating dock, Hemperly discloses ramp 7 extend into body of water 25, i.e., below a floating dock (Figs. 1a and 5a-5c). Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s ramp extends past below the floating dock and into the body of water as taught by Hemperly in a logical manner to insure a safety of a user upon the ramp as a vehicle, device slide up and/or down the ramp.
With respect to the plurality of water ports and corresponding plurality of hoses, in a similar field of water systems, Northam discloses a ramp (surface 40) with a plurality of water ports (nozzles 47) and corresponding a plurality of hoses (supply lines 48)(in at least Figs. 1A, 3, 4, and 9B; and at least paragraphs [0113]-[0114], and [0117]).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s ramp including a plurality of water ports disposed along the length of ramp and a plurality of hoses, wherein each hose is configured to supply corresponding water ports with water as taught by Northam for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to the plurality of pumps, note Northam’s Fig. 1A and [0098] regarding plurality of pumps 81 configure to supply water to the ramp surface (via the hoses, lines, as discussed above).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s with a plurality of pumps as taught by Northam for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
With respect to the functionality of the device “such that the ramp fills with the water with a depth that allows the water vehicles to accelerate up the ramp upwards”, as discussed above (e.g. claim 1), as it has been held an apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does within the modified device, since the prior art includes all the structural limitations as claimed, the examiner takes the position that the prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed.
Within the modified Schmit, the power source (as taught by Schmit) would have configure to supply power to the plurality of pumps (as taught by Northam) to fill the ramp with sufficient amount of water to allow a water vehicle (as taught by Schmit and/or Hemperly) to perform as such.
As per claim 16, with respect to wherein the plurality of pumps are located below the floating dock, note Schmit’s [0080] as the pump may be located under the main deck, and within the modified Schmit, the plurality of pumps (as taught by Northam) would have been located below the floating dock; with respect to dock cleat, note the examiner’s markings hereinafter, in conjunction to Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
597
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to “and plurality of pumps are configured to be attached to dock cleats disposed on the floating dock” such 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 to insure that the pumps are firmly and securely attached with the water system.
As per claim 20, with respect to wherein the power supply is configured to be placed on top of the floating dock, note Schmit’s [0081] ”The pump 140 may be powered from an array of rechargeable batteries, power delivered from on-shore, solar panels coupled to the floating water feature, and/or gas or propane generator(s).” Note also [0082].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmit, Hemperly and Northam as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tinkler.
As per claim 17, Schmit is not specific regarding further comprising anchored weights attached to the dock cleats.
However, Tinkler discloses a floating dock includes dock cleats and at least one or more weighted anchors attached to said dock cleats (floating ramp 32 anchored via weight/ballast 40 via cleats upon the float )(Fig. 8; 4:38-62).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit’s further comprising anchored weights attached to the dock cleats as taught by Tinkler for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Schmit’s suggestion to include anchoring means to his water system ([0059] ).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmit, Hemperly and Northam as applied to claim15 above, and further in view of Forton US 5,478,281 (“Forton”).
As per claim 18, Schmit is not specific regarding further comprising an attachment plate adjacent to each water port, wherein each attachment plate is connected to an elbow pipe fitting, and each elbow pipe fitting is attached to a corresponding hose.
However, in a similar field of water systems, Forton discloses further comprising an attachment plate adjacent to each water port, wherein each attachment plate is connected to an elbow pipe fitting, and each elbow pipe fitting is attached to a corresponding hose (flow fitting 28, including an attachment plate, member 30 and an elbow 34 connected with feed pipe 36)(Figs.2 and 3 and 2:26-44).
Therefore, 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 to form Schmit- Northam’s further comprising an attachment plate adjacent to each water port, wherein each attachment plate is connected to an elbow pipe fitting, and each elbow pipe fitting is attached to a corresponding hose as taught by Foss for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use of a known technique to firmly secure a water port and a hose to a ramp while the hose-to-port suitable to deliver water thereto.
As per claim 19, with respect to wherein the attachment plate is fastened via one or more bolts secured by a nut, such construed as admitted prior art. Since applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice to the common knowledge or well-known in the art as using bolts-nut, it is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03 C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are partially not persuasive and are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regard to the rejection under 35 USC 112b
Applicant’s amendments remedy some of the previous deficiencies, but not all, as set forth above.
In regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103
Claim 1
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitations “wherein the slide tubes are positioned inside said ramp to allow said water vehicles to traverse above said slide tubes”, are moot as such new limitations are taught by the refence to Phillips, as set forth above.
With respect to “and wherein the water supplied by the plurality of hoses allows acceleration of the water vehicle upwards along the length of the ramp”, as argued above, it has been held that manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art as set forth above, “an apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does within the modified device”. The modified device of Schmit would have the ramp with a plurality of water ports and corresponding a plurality of hoses as well as plurality of slide tubes, the examiner once again asserts that the prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed.
Claim 8
Applicant’s arguments with respect to wherein said slide tubes are “disposed narrower than a width of the ramp and lower than a height of the ramp”, such new limitations are taught by the newly cited reference to Phillips (sliding tubes inside ramp for guidance, i.e., narrower than a width of the ramp) (rails 73 within ramp 71)(Fig. 4; 6:48-53). Thus, applicant’s arguments to such limitations are moot.
Claim 15
With respect to the functionality of the device “such that the ramp fills with the water with a depth that allows the water vehicles to accelerate up the ramp upwards”, as discussed above (e.g. claim 1), as it has been held an apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does within the modified device. Therefore, since the prior art includes all the structural limitations as claimed, the examiner maintains his position that the prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed. Within the modified Schmit, the power source (as taught by Schmit) would have configure to supply power to the plurality of pumps (as taught by Northam) to fill the ramp with sufficient amount of water to allow a water vehicle (as taught by Schmit ) to perform as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 9/24/2025 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711