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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species B in the reply filed on 18 August 2025 is acknowledged.
Status
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 13 January 2023 and 18 August 2025.
Claim(s) 1 are canceled.
Claim(s) 2-21 are new.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as follows:
(A) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “spacer” of claims 4 and 13, the “insertion point” of claims 5-6 and 14-15, the “flotation foam” of claims 9 and 19, the “fastener” of claim 12, the bottles of claims 11 and 21, the mesh of claims 11 and 21, and the hole sized and shaped for the bottle of claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of language which can be implied. Specifically, “embodiments for the invention provide” is suggested to be removed from line 1 and “in an embodiment of the invention” is suggested to be removed from line 2. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure-
(A) The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
(B) The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 21 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 8: “a portion of each bucket” is suggested to be: a portion of at least one bucket. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4988317 to Rubinsak (hereinafter “RUBINSAK”).
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
RUBINSAK discloses:
A dock flotation system (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a dock comprising one or more beam sections (defined by stringers 22 and 24 to form a rectangular platform, and see multiple units that form the dock in Figs. 5-7);
one or more buckets (30); and
wherein the one or more beam sections each define a hole (26) sized and shaped to fittingly receive and circumscribe a portion of each of the one or more buckets (see Fig. 2, wherein the bucket is aligned for engagement with the hole 26).
(B) Regarding Claim 3:
RUBINSAK further discloses:
a plurality of beam sections rafted together with a fastener (see Fig. 3).
(C) Regarding Claim 4:
RUBINSAK further discloses:
a spacer (23, Fig. 2) disposed between adjacent beam sections of the plurality of beam sections.
(D) Regarding Claim 5:
RUBINSAK further discloses:
each beam section includes a notch (defined by the plates 44, 46, Fig. 3) and an insertion point (defined by the edge 60).
(E) Regarding Claim 7:
RUBINSAK further discloses:
each bucket of the one or more buckets is a 5- gallon bucket having a first end and a second end, the diameter of each bucket tapering between the first end and second end (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 1, ll. 65-67).
(F) Regarding Claim 8:
RUBINSAK further discloses:
the second end of each bucket is received within the corresponding hole of the one or more beam sections (see Fig. 2, wherein the bucket is aligned for engagement with the hole 26).
(G) Regarding Claim 10:
RUBINSAK further discloses:
each bucket includes a lid (26, Fig. 2) that is affixed to the first end with pressure.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUBINSAK, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2518091 to Stopkevyc (hereinafter “STOPKEVYC”).
(A) Regarding Claim 6:
RUBINSAK teaches:
A dock flotation system with one or more beams (Figs. 1 and 5-7).
However, the difference between RUBINSAK and the claimed invention is that RUBINSAK does not explicitly teach the insertion point of a first beam section is configured to engage the notch of an adjacent second beam section to form a cam lock to connect the first and second beam sections together.
STOPKEVYC teaches:
A dock flotation system with one or more beams, wherein an insertion point of a first beam section is configured to engage a notch of an adjacent second beam section to form a cam lock to connect the first and second beam sections together (see Figs. 1 and 2, which shows the rotation of the insertion point to the notch).
Thus, both RUBINSAK and STOPKEVYC teach connecting sections of a floating deck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single-wall bolted connection of RUBINSAK for the top and bottom wall cam lock connection of HILL to achieve the predictable result of forming a supportive and secure connection between sections of the modular flotation deck (STOPKEVYC col. 1, ll. 12-23). See MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUBINSAK, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5129347 to Hill (hereinafter “HILL”).
(A) Regarding Claim 9:
RUBINSAK teaches:
A dock flotation system with one or more beams (Figs. 1 and 5-7).
However, the difference between RUBINSAK and the claimed invention is that RUBINSAK does not explicitly teach floatation foam in a space between adjacent buckets.
HILL teaches:
The beams are formed with cavities that include floatation foam (26, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the beams having cavities to which the buckets are attached, wherein the cavities are filled with flotation foam, as taught by HILL, in order to provide buoyancy and thereby achieve the predictable result of increasing the flotation of the deck (HILL col. 1, ll. 65-67).
Claim(s) 11-14, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUBINSAK and further in view of United States Patent No. 11072404 to Woodward (hereinafter “WOODWARD”).
(A) Regarding Claim 11:
RUBINSAK teaches:
A dock flotation system (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a dock comprising one or more beam sections (defined by stringers 22 and 24 to form a rectangular platform, and see multiple units that form the dock in Figs. 5-7);
one or more buckets (30); and
wherein the one or more beam sections each define a hole (26) sized and shaped to fittingly receive and circumscribe a portion of each of the one or more buckets (see Fig. 2, wherein the bucket is aligned for engagement with the hole 26).
However, the difference between RUBINSAK and the claimed invention is that RUBINSAK does not explicitly teach a plurality of bottles and a mesh sized and configured to hold the plurality of bottles in place underneath a portion of the dock.
WOODWARD teaches:
a plurality of bottles (60, Fig. 3) and a mesh (30) sized and configured to hold the plurality of bottles in place underneath a portion of the dock (20).
Thus, all of the claimed elements are known in RUBINSAK and WOODWARD. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the combination of the “old elements” into a single dock floatation system by modular arrangement. 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 a portion of the modular floatation dock formed with buckets fixed to the beam and a portion with bottles held to the beam by mesh, since, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the buckets can be used in combination with the bottles to achieve the predictable results of providing buoyancy to the floating modular dock (WOODWARD col. 1, ll. 14-30). See MPEP 2141(III).
(B) Regarding Claim 12:
Modified RUBINSAK further teaches:
the plurality of beam sections are rafted together with a fastener (RUBINSACK Fig. 3).
(C) Regarding Claim 13:
Modified RUBINSAK further teaches:
the plurality of beam sections includes a spacer (RUBINSAK 23, Fig. 2) between adjacent beam sections.
(D) Regarding Claim 14:
Modified RUBINSAK further teaches:
each beam section includes a notch (RUBINSAK defined by the plates 44, 46, Fig. 3) and an insertion point (defined by the edge 60).
(E) Regarding Claim 16:
Modified RUBINSAK further teaches:
each bucket of the one or more buckets is a 5- gallon bucket having a first end and a second end, the diameter of each bucket tapering between the first end and second end (see RUBINSAK Figs. 1-2 and col. 1, ll. 65-67)
(F) Regarding Claim 17:
Modified RUBINSAK further teaches:
the second end of each bucket is received within the corresponding hole of the one or more beam sections (see RUBINSAK Fig. 2, wherein the bucket is aligned for engagement with the hole 26)
(G) Regarding Claim 18:
Modified RUBINSAK further teaches:
each beam section is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of wood, prestressed concrete, and recycled plastic (RUBINSAK col. 2, ll. 36: wood).
(H) Regarding Claim 20:
Modified RUBINSAK further teaches:
each bucket includes a lid (RUBINSAK 26, Fig. 2) that is affixed to the first end with pressure.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUBINSAK, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of STOPKEVYC.
(A) Regarding Claim 15:
RUBINSAK teaches:
A dock flotation system with one or more beams (Figs. 1 and 5-7).
However, the difference between RUBINSAK and the claimed invention is that RUBINSAK does not explicitly teach the insertion point of a first beam section is configured to engage the notch of an adjacent second beam section to form a cam lock to connect the first and second beam sections together.
STOPKEVYC teaches:
A dock flotation system with one or more beams, wherein an insertion point of a first beam section is configured to engage a notch of an adjacent second beam section to form a cam lock to connect the first and second beam sections together (see Figs. 1 and 2, which shows the rotation of the insertion point to the notch).
Thus, both RUBINSAK and STOPKEVYC teach connecting sections of a floating deck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the single-wall bolted connection of RUBINSAK for the top and bottom wall cam lock connection of HILL to achieve the predictable result of forming a supportive and secure connection between sections of the modular flotation deck (STOPKEVYC col. 1, ll. 12-23). See MPEP 2141(III)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUBINSAK, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of HILL.
(A) Regarding Claim 19:
RUBINSAK teaches:
A dock flotation system with one or more beams (Figs. 1 and 5-7).
However, the difference between RUBINSAK and the claimed invention is that RUBINSAK does not explicitly teach floatation foam in a space between adjacent buckets.
HILL teaches:
The beams are formed with cavities that include floatation foam (26, Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the beams having cavities to which the buckets are attached, wherein the cavities are filled with flotation foam, as taught by HILL, in order to provide buoyancy and thereby achieve the predictable result of increasing the flotation of the deck (HILL col. 1, ll. 65-67).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUBINSAK in view of WOODWARD and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7156038 to Brown (hereinafter “BROWN”).
(A) Regarding Claim 21:
RUBINSAK teaches:
A dock flotation system (Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a dock comprising one or more beam sections (defined by stringers 22 and 24 to form a rectangular platform, and see multiple units that form the dock in Figs. 5-7);
one or more buckets (30); and
the plurality of beam sections defining at least one hole (26, Fig. 2) sized and shaped to securely receive a portion of each bucket of the plurality of buckets,
wherein the receipt of the buckets and the bottles by the at least one holes provides displacement of the dock such that it floats when positioned within a body of water (col. 1, ll. 52-53).
However, the difference between RUBINSAK and the claimed invention is that RUBINSAK does not explicitly teach a plurality of bottles and a mesh sized and configured to hold the plurality of bottles in place underneath a portion of the dock.
WOODWARD teaches:
a plurality of bottles (60, Fig. 3) and a mesh (30) sized and configured to hold the plurality of bottles in place underneath a portion of the dock (20).
Thus, all of the claimed elements are known in RUBINSAK and WOODWARD. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the combination of the “old elements” into a single dock floatation system by modular arrangement. 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 a portion of the modular floatation dock formed with buckets fixed to the beam and a portion with bottles held to the beam by mesh, since, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the buckets can be used in combination with the bottles to achieve the predictable results of providing buoyancy to the floating modular dock (WOODWARD col. 1, ll. 14-30). See MPEP 2141(III).
However, the difference between RUBINSAK and the claimed invention is that RUBINSAK does not explicitly teach the plurality of beams each defining at least one hole to receive a portion of at least one bottle.
BROWN teaches:
a plurality of bottles (2, Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of beams each defining at least one hole (3) to receive a portion of at least one bottle.
Thus, all of the claimed elements are known in RUBINSAK and BROWN. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the combination of the “old elements” into a single dock floatation system by receiving in a hole. 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 a beam section defining a hole for the buckets and a hole for the bottles, since, in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and the buckets can be used in combination with the bottles to achieve the predictable results of providing buoyancy to the floating modular dock (VARGA col. 1, ll. 35-37). See MPEP 2141(III)
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5235929 teaches a flotation dock with bottles and mesh support. US 5658178 teach a flotation dock with combination bottles and containers (e.g. cans). US 20150296753 and CN 105730640 teach flotation dock with bottles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM 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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745