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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amendments to correct the claim language added new 112 issues and did not correct many of the grammatical errors.
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 1-5 and 7-17 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.
In claim 1 applicant recites “stand up paddle boards”, “one rigid or inflatable paddle board”, “a board”, “said board”, “a board”, “each rented board”. It is unclear if this terminology refers to the same boards and creates issues with antecedent basis. The same terminology should be used when referring to the same element number.
In claim 1 applicant recites ‘a side cover’ twice, this creates an antecedent basis issue and should be corrected.
In claim 1 applicant recites “at least one door”. “the door”, “the door”, “a corresponding door”. It is unclear if this terminology refers to the same door/s and creates issues with antecedent basis.
In claim 2 line 2 “two board” is not grammatically correct nor does it seem to have proper antecedent basis.
In claim 5 lines 1-2, it is unclear if “a number of boards” refers to the previously introduced ‘boards’ in claim 1. Consistent terminology should be used when referring to the same elements.
In claim 8 line 2, it is unclear if “each board” refers to the previously introduced ‘boards’ in claim 1. Consistent terminology should be used when referring to the same elements.
In claim 10 line 3, “a Radio Frequency Identification” (RFID) reader” creates unclear antecedent basis as an element of the same name was introduced in claim 1.
Claim 11 is unclear, has antecedent basis issues, is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten. The claim could be rewritten as The device (100) according to claim 1, wherein the circular lower base (6) is shaped to easily collect and evacuate any residual water, sand, or gravel present on the returned board (1).
Claim 12 is replete with antecedent basis issues, repeated reciting “a board” it is unclear if “a board”, “the board”, “board” refer to one or more of the previously introduced ‘boards’ in claim 1. Consistent terminology should be used when referring to the same elements.
Claim 13 lines 1-2, “said dispensed complementary rented elements” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15, it is unclear if “a board” and “said board” refer to one or more of the previously introduced ‘boards’ in claim 1. Consistent terminology should be used when referring to the same elements.
Claim 16, it is unclear what is meant by “said photovoltaic panels (10) are swiveling” are the panels actively swiveling or are the capable of swiveling.
Claim 17, it is unclear if “a board” refers to one or more of the previously introduced ‘boards’ in claim 1. Consistent terminology should be used when referring to the same elements.
Claim 18 is written in a narrative manner, it is unclear as to what “everything rented” refers, “the corresponding material compartment” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what it refers to, “the material returned” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what it refers to. It is unclear if “the material compartment” is the same as “the corresponding material “ compartment.
All of the claims should be carefully reread and amended to conform to US practice.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record does not support and 102 or 103 rejection of Claims 1-5 and 7-17.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A device for dispensing a stand up paddle board comprising a circular lower base, at least one door, a drawer positioned below the door for dispensing complementary elements and a TAG Radio Frequency Identification imbedded on each rented board, to cause said RFID reader to automatically unlock and open a corresponding door for a returned board in combination with the remaining claim language is not taught or fairly suggested by the present prior art of record.
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 TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights