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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faber US 3,157,150 in view of Stainbrook US 3,280,784 and Weis US 5,685,542.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Faber Figure 3
Regarding claim 1, Faber teaches a dock line management device comprising:
a base having a mount 9, the mount configured to be connected to and stationary with respect to a fixed structure 6; and
a tube 15, having a distal end and a hollow interior disposed to receive a dock line, pivotally connected to mount, allowing substantially vertical movement of the distal end of the tube relative to the mount.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2- Stainbrook Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image2.png
484
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Faber does not teach a rotating member being rotatable with respect to the mount, allowing rotation of the tube relative to the mount about a substantially vertical axis. Stainbrook teaches a dock line management device comprising a base 11 having a mount 12 and a rotating member 13, the mount configured to be connected to and stationary with respect to a fixed structure 10, and the rotating member being rotatable with respect to the mount, allowing rotation of the tube 23 relative to the mount about a substantially vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a rotating member of the base mounting as taught by Stainbrook in order to enable the device to rotate in the horizontal plane, and therefore be useful with a wider range of craft and scenarios. Note that as modified, the tube is configured to be movable about the substantially vertical axis and the distal end is movable substantially vertically at the same time during use.
Faber does not teach a strut connected to the tube and connected to the base, for dampening the vertical movement of the tube. Weis teaches a swing arm device which comprises a base 16, a tube 46 pivotally connected to the base, and a strut 14 connected to the tube and connected to the base, for dampening the vertical movement of the tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
PNG
media_image3.png
400
294
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Weis Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Faber (and Stainbrook and Weis) also teaches a mounting cleat 8 for connection of the tube to the base and (as modified) for connection of the strut to the base. Alternatively, Weis also teaches that the strut 14 is connected via a mounting cleat 124. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut and mounting cleat as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Faber (and Stainbrook and Weis) also teaches that the mounting cleat 8 has a raised flap 10 with an aperture therein for attachment to the strut (as modified). Alternatively, Weis also teaches that the mounting cleat 124 has a raised flap 122 with an aperture therein for attachment to the strut 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut and mounting cleat as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Faber also teaches that the tube 15 has an outer tube and an inner tube which are fixedly attached to each other (column 2, lines 42-48).
Regarding claim 5, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Faber also teaches that the tube 15 has an outer tube and an inner tube which are telescopically connected to each other (column 2, lines 42-48).
Regarding claim 6, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Stainbrook also teaches that the base 11 further includes a rotating dowel 16 for connection of the rotating member 13 to the mount 12.
Regarding claim 7, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weis also teaches a slip collar 190 disposed about the tube 46 and movable relative thereto, and connected to the strut. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut and slip collar as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
Regarding claim 8, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 3. Claim 8 recites the same limitations disclosed in claims 1-3 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Stainbrook also teaches a rotating dowel 6 connected to the rotating member 13 and in engagement with the mounting plate 12.
Regarding claim 10, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Claim 10 recites the same limitations disclosed in claim 4 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 11, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Claim 11 recites the same limitations disclosed in claim 7 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, Faber teaches a dock line management device comprising:
a base having a mount 9, the mount configured to be connected to and stationary with respect to a fixed structure 6; and
a tube 15, having a distal end and a hollow interior disposed to receive a dock line, pivotally connected to mount at a pivot point, allowing substantially vertical movement of the distal end of the tube relative to the mount.
Faber does not teach a rotating member being rotatable with respect to the mount, allowing rotation of the tube relative to the mount about a substantially vertical axis. Stainbrook teaches a dock line management device comprising a base 11 having a mount 12 and a rotating member 13, the mount configured to be connected to and stationary with respect to a fixed structure 10, and the rotating member being rotatable with respect to the mount, allowing rotation of the tube 23 relative to the mount about a substantially vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a rotating member of the base mounting as taught by Stainbrook in order to enable the device to rotate in the horizontal plane, and therefore be useful with a wider range of craft and scenarios. Note that as modified, the tube is configured to be movable about the substantially vertical axis and the distal end is movable substantially vertically at the same time during use.
Faber does not teach a strut connected to the tube and connected to the base, for dampening the vertical movement of the tube, or a slip collar connected to the strut in engagement with the tube, the slip collar being movable with respect to the tube when the tube is moved about the pivot point. Weis teaches a swing arm device which comprises a base 16, a tube 46 pivotally connected to the base, and a strut 14 connected to the tube and connected to the base, for dampening the vertical movement of the tube, a slip collar 190 connected to the strut in engagement with the tube, the slip collar being movable with respect to the tube when the tube is moved about the pivot point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Faber (and Stainbrook and Weis) also teaches a mounting cleat 8 for connection of the tube to the base and (as modified) for connection of the strut to the base, the mounting cleat 8 having a raised flap 10 with an aperture therein for attachment to the strut (as modified). Alternatively, Weis also teaches that the mounting cleat 124 has a raised flap 122 with an aperture therein for attachment to the strut 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut and mounting cleat as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Faber also teaches that the tube 15 has an outer tube and an inner tube which are telescopically connected to each other (column 2, lines 42-48).
Regarding claim 15, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Stainbrook also teaches that the base 11 further includes a rotating dowel 16 for connection of the rotating member 13 to the mount 12.
Regarding claim 16, Faber, Stainbrook and Weis teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. As modified, the tube 15 is configured to be movable about the substantially vertical axis and movable substantially vertically at the same time during use.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faber US 3,157,150 in view of Stainbrook US 3,280,784 and Knutsen US 10,723,416.
Regarding claim 1, Faber teaches a dock line management device comprising:
a base having a mount 9, the mount configured to be connected to and stationary with respect to a fixed structure 6; and
a tube 15, having a distal end and a hollow interior disposed to receive a dock line, pivotally connected to mount, allowing substantially vertical movement of the distal end of the tube relative to the mount.
Faber does not teach a rotating member being rotatable with respect to the mount, allowing rotation of the tube relative to the mount about a substantially vertical axis. Stainbrook teaches a dock line management device comprising a base 11 having a mount 12 and a rotating member 13, the mount configured to be connected to and stationary with respect to a fixed structure 10, and the rotating member being rotatable with respect to the mount, allowing rotation of the tube 23 relative to the mount about a substantially vertical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a rotating member of the base mounting as taught by Stainbrook in order to enable the device to rotate in the horizontal plane, and therefore be useful with a wider range of craft and scenarios. Note that as modified, the tube is configured to be movable about the substantially vertical axis and the distal end is movable substantially vertically at the same time during use.
Faber does not teach a strut connected to the tube and connected to the base, for dampening the vertical movement of the tube. Knutsen teaches a mooring arm for a watercraft which comprises a base 31, a tube 46 pivotally connected to the base, and a strut 36 connected to the tube and connected to the base, for dampening the vertical movement of the tube. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut as taught by Knutsen in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
PNG
media_image4.png
208
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Knutsen Figure 5
Regarding claim 2, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Faber (and Stainbrook) also teaches a mounting cleat 8 for connection of the tube to the base and (as modified) for connection of the strut to the base. Alternatively, Weis also teaches that the strut 14 is connected via a mounting cleat 124. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut and mounting cleat as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Faber (and Stainbrook) also teaches that the mounting cleat 8 has a raised flap 10 with an aperture therein for attachment to the strut (as modified). Alternatively, Weis also teaches that the mounting cleat 124 has a raised flap 122 with an aperture therein for attachment to the strut 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the line management device of Faber with a damper strut and mounting cleat as taught by Weis in order to stabilize the pivoting tube, making operation safer and more predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Faber also teaches that the tube 15 has an outer tube and an inner tube which are fixedly attached to each other (column 2, lines 42-48).
Regarding claim 5, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Faber also teaches that the tube 15 has an outer tube and an inner tube which are telescopically connected to each other (column 2, lines 42-48).
Regarding claim 6, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Stainbrook also teaches that the base 11 further includes a rotating dowel 16 for connection of the rotating member 13 to the mount 12.
Regarding claim 8, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 3. Claim 8 recites the same limitations disclosed in claims 1-3 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Stainbrook also teaches a rotating dowel 6 connected to the rotating member 13 and in engagement with the mounting plate 12.
Regarding claim 10, Faber, Stainbrook and Knutsen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Claim 10 recites the same limitations disclosed in claim 4 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Weis is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Faber and Wies teach an arm affixed pivotally coupled to a base at one end while the other end remains unrestricted, with a resilient member connecting the base and the arm for biasing the arm into a desired position. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would concluded that the configuration taught by Weis is reasonably pertinent to the devices of Faber and the current invention.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the applicant argues that none of the references teach movement of a tube about a substantially vertical axis and at the same time having a distal end being able to move substantially vertically. First, please note that this is possible with the device of Stainbrook- while the pivotal motion of the arm 23 can optionally be locked by bolt 26, the distal end moving vertically while the base is rotated about the vertical axis is possible when the bolt is not locked. But more importantly, there is nothing about the device as taught that would prevent this simultaneous motion. The tube of Faber is free to move vertically while the base of Stainbrook is free to rotate about the vertical axis.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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 (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615