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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on March 24, 2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim of 371 of international Application No. PCT/US2022/020629 filed March 16, 2022 which claims benefit of Provisional US Patent Application No. 63/164818 filed March 23, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 24, 2023 was considered by the examiner. However, one piece of listed prior art, Pruden (US 6890200 A), was not found when searched (inventor and patent number) and therefore is not considered. The prior art of Pruden is from year 1901 where the numbering of the listed U.S. patent number is too high for that timeframe.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Figs. 1E, 2C and 3C all place straps (120, 122 and 124) in locations inconsistent with the disclosure and the other figures. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets these straps to be consistent with the disclosure and other figs as shown in Examiner marked up Fig. 2C below.
PNG
media_image1.png
693
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3C shows reference character “L” with a length. The spec. does not disclose “L” and therefore should be removed. The Examiner did see some references to “length” in the spec though it was not clear if this was “L” here in the figure.
The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wyman (US 20080236467 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
597
889
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Wyman discloses A system (modular watercraft assembly; See at least: Abstract) for coupling a plurality of watercrafts (pontoons 38; See at least fig. 2), the system comprising:
a forward connector rod (substantially rigid cross members 34; See at least fig. 2; para. [0037] which defines font/bow and rear/stern directions where fig. 2 is font/bow is left of the image where end cap 11 is shown, See modified fig. 2 above) comprising a first forward strap (compression strap 26; See at least fig. 2) connectable to a first portion (See at least fig. 2) thereof and a second forward strap (compression strap 26; See at least fig. 2) connectable to a second portion (See at least fig. 2) thereof; and
an aft connector rod (substantially rigid cross members 34; See at least fig. 2) comprising a first aft strap (compression strap 26; See at least fig. 2) connectable to a first portion (See at least fig. 2) thereof and a second aft strap (compression strap 26; See at least fig. 2) connectable to a second portion (See at least fig. 2) thereof;
wherein the forward connector rod is coupled to a forward portion (See at least fig. 2) of a first watercraft (See at least fig. 2) via the first forward strap and a forward portion (See at least fig. 2) of a second watercraft (See at least fig. 2) via the second forward strap, and
wherein the aft connector rod is coupled to an aft portion (See at least fig. 2) of the first watercraft via the first aft strap and an aft portion (See at least fig. 2) of the second watercraft via the second aft strap, the first and second watercrafts are coupled.
Regarding claim 4, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Wyman discloses wherein the first forward strap, the second forward strap, the first aft strap, the second aft strap, or any combination thereof, is adjustable (See at least: Fig. 3 and para. [0042] "…illustrated in FIG. 3, cross member fasteners 36 comprise a ratchet assembly 25 attached to a respective distal end of a cross member that adjusts the tension on a compression strap 26”).
Regarding claim 5, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Wyman discloses the system further comprising a rod cushion (curved support pads 22) that is configured to encompass an area (See at least fig. 2) of the forward connector rod or an area (See at least fig. 2) of the aft connector rod.
Regarding claim 6, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 5 as noted above. Additionally, Wyman discloses wherein the area is positioned between
the forward connector rod and the first watercraft, (See at least fig. 2)
the forward connector rod and the second watercraft, (See at least fig. 2)
the aft connector rod and the first watercraft, (See at least fig. 2)
or the aft connector rod and the second watercraft (See at least fig. 2; where all locations are shown; para. [0041] “…cross members 34 are disposed transversely between the pontoons and include curved support pads 22 through which force is transmitted…”).
Regarding claim 7, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Wyman discloses the system further comprising
a net (See at least fig. 8A and para. [0047] “illustrates a sailing catamaran configuration” where a person of ordinary skill in the art when viewing the image would interpret the structure shown as a net, mesh or fabric on catamarans) that is couplable to the forward connector rod and the aft connector rod and spans a space (See at least fig. 8A) between the first watercraft and the second watercraft when the first watercraft and the second watercraft are coupled by the system (See at least fig. 8A; included below).
PNG
media_image3.png
876
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Additionally, Wyman discloses wherein the net is couplable to the first forward strap, the second forward strap, the first aft strap, the second aft strap, or any combination thereof (See at least: fig. 8A. above; where a person of ordinary skill in the art when viewing the image would interpret the net coupled to the compression straps 26 of fig. 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyman (US 20080236467 A1) in view of Wright (US 20160167746 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Wyman does not disclose the system further comprising a first stabilization strap… (See at least: fig. 8G depicting a fishing boat, where additional structure is shown)
Wright in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the system further comprising a first stabilization strap (tension straps 23 and tensioning members 24; See at least fig. 2) that is securable to the forward connector rod (elongate spacing members 12; See at least fig. 2) and the aft connector rod (elongate spacing members 12; See at least fig. 2) to occupy a first segment (See at least fig. 2) between the forward connector rod and the aft connector rod, and a second stabilization strap (tension straps 23 and tensioning members 24; See at least fig. 2) that is securable to the forward connector rod and the aft connector rod to occupy a second segment (See at least fig. 2) between the forward connector rod and the aft connector rod (See at least: para. [0041]-[0042] which discusses the tension system 22)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular watercraft assembly of Wyman with the tension system 22 of Wright with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing an adjustable tension force between the two substantially rigid cross members 34 of Wyman (See at least: Wright para. [0041] first sentence “The tension system 22 provides an adjustable tension force between the two spacing members 12…”).
Regarding claim 3, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Wright teaches wherein the first stabilization strap, the second stabilization strap, or both, is adjustable (See at least; para. [0041]-[0042] where both are adjustable “provides an adjustable tension force” and “The tensioning members 24 can selectively adjust the tension”).
Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Wright teaches wherein the first and second segments are non- perpendicular (See at least: fig. 2 {below}) to the forward and aft connector rods and are configured as a cross-type arrangement (See at least: fig. 2 {below}).
PNG
media_image4.png
586
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim language of claim 15 is similar to the structure of claims 1 and 2 with minor differences of “to span” vs “to occupy” and therefore for this similar structure Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as noted above. The additional claim 15 language is discussed below.
However, Wyman does not disclose the first stabilization strap… (See at least Fig. 2 of Wyman Modified by the Examiner to show the combination with Wright to assist in the directions of the remaining claim language).
PNG
media_image5.png
591
889
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wright in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first stabilization strap is secured to the forward connector rod at a first forward position (See at least fig. 2 of Wright and the above Examiner combination) and is secured to the aft connector rod at a first aft position (See at least fig. 2 of Wright and the above Examiner combination) and the second stabilization strap is secured to the forward connector rod at a second forward position (See at least fig. 2 of Wright and the above Examiner combination) and is secured to the aft connector rod at a second aft position (See at least fig. 2 of Wright and the above Examiner combination), the first and second watercrafts are stably coupled (See at least: para. [0016] “The tension system generates a tensioning force that contributes towards maintaining the position of the at least two spacing members relative to each other”).
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding claim 19, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Wright in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first and second segments are non-perpendicular (See at least fig. 2 of Wright and the above Examiner combination) to the forward and aft connector rods. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 20, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as noted above. Wright in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first and second segments are configured as a cross-type arrangement(See at least fig. 2 of Wright and the above Examiner combination). Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 19 above.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyman (US 20080236467 A1) in view of Hansen et al. (US 20090272309 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. However, Wyman does not disclose wherein the net includes a storage compartment.
Hansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the net (See at least; para [0017] “…a fabric or canvas covering…”) includes a storage compartment (See at least; para [0017] “…actual pockets within the fabric to hold… materials…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified catamaran of Wyman with pockets within the fabric to hold materials of Hansen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a surface for placement of items such as cup holders, fishing tackle gear or other materials used when on a catamaran (See at least: Hansen et al. para [0017]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyman (US 20080236467 A1) in view of Bagley (US 10321673 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Wyman does not disclose wherein a size or a shape of the net is adjustable.
Bagley in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a size or a shape of the net (mesh net 100; See at least figs. 1-6) is adjustable (See at least: col. 7 lines 28-33 “…the mesh net 100 attached to the textile or plastic strip 301 is able to move relative to the integrated flexible cordage, which allows the invention to be adjusted to the span lengths required for the specific vessel it is being installed on…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the catamaran of Wyman with adjustable mesh net of Bagley with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a net that will fit many different spans and sizes that will work well with a modular catamaran (See at least Bagley col. 7 lines 28-33).
Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyman (US 20080236467 A1) in view of Wright (US 20160167746 A1) and further in view of. Hansen et al. (US 20090272309 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. However, Wright does not teach wherein the first and second segments are perpendicular to the forward and aft connector rods.
Hansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first and second segments (parallel tubes 24a, 24b and tensioning pull-cords 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d; See at least fig. 1) are perpendicular to the forward and aft connector rods (perpendicular tubes 22a, 22b; See at least fig. 1 and para. [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modular watercraft assembly of Wyman with the tension system 22 of Wright in the perpendicular arrangement of Hansen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of creating a stable and convenient dual-hulled watercraft without any deviation of the basic watercraft shape and structure. (See at least Hansen et al. para [0019] “…it creates a stable and convenient dual-hulled watercraft without any deviation of the basic watercraft shape and structure. The instant invention has been shown and described in what is considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiments. It is recognized, however, that departures may be made there from within the scope of the invention and that obvious modifications will occur to a person skilled in the art...”).
Regarding claim 12, Wyman in view of Wright and further in view of Hansen et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Hansen et al. teaches wherein the first segment is adjacent to a port side (See at least: Examiner modified fig. 1 for claims 12 and 17 {below}) of the first watercraft, and wherein the second segment is adjacent to a starboard side (See at least: Examiner modified fig. 1 for claims 12 and 17 {below}) of the second watercraft. {The Examiner notes: that the labeling of which is the first and second, watercraft or segment, does not change the invention as shown in the images.}.
PNG
media_image6.png
371
903
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, Wyman discloses all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Hansen et al. teaches wherein the first segment is adjacent to a starboard side (See at least: Examiner modified fig. 1 for claims 13 and 18 {above}) of the first watercraft, and wherein the second segment is adjacent to a port side (See at least: Examiner modified fig. 1 for claims 13 and 18 {above}) of the second watercraft.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 16, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Hansen et al. teaches segment limitations of claim 11 noted above.
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claims 15 and claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, Hansen et al. teaches segment and watercraft locations limitations of claim 12 noted above.
Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claims 16 and claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 18, Wyman in view of Wright teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, Hansen et al. teaches segment and watercraft locations limitations of claim 13 noted above.
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claims 16 and claim 13 above.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Wittkamp (US 3473502 A) teaches a sailboat that uses clamps (12) to hold supporting members to the pontoons (10) (See at least: fig. 1).
Mackro (US 9555860 B1) teaches a kit to attach two or more boats together either at shore or while in deep water without exiting either boat so that the two watercraft function as one (See at least: figs. 1 and 4).
Johnson (US 20190084656 A1) teaches a canoe and platform combination assembly where ridged structure is placed in between two canoes. (See at least: fig. 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571) 272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615