Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/113,335

WATERCRAFT RINSE SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 23, 2023
Examiner
WIEST, ANTHONY D
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rich Kroeze
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
635 granted / 896 resolved
+18.9% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
925
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 896 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . An amendment was received from the applicant on 8/5/2025. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-8 are pending in the current application. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Drawings The drawings filed 8/5/2025 are accepted. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 provides the watercraft rinsing system will be installed onto a structure configured for storing a watercraft and that Haggin and Bernardi individually or in combination do not teach such. Haggin clearly discloses the shelter is mounted on a dock which the examiner believes to be a structure configured for storing a watercraft. While the boat may remain in the water at a dock, numerous examples of boat houses built over a dock have means for lifting the boat from the water for storage. Applicant’s claim language does not preclude structures that allow in water storage. Even if the claim was amended to require out of water storage, boathouses built over docks with boat lifts would easily read on the claim. Applicant then argues against the references individually, reciting features which the examiner stated were not disclosed by Haggin. 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). Finally, applicant argues that neither reference teaches how to conserve water while effectively cleaning a watercraft. Such feature is not explicitly claimed by the applicant and any water pumping system that controls a sprinkler either by timed activation or water flow is conserving water. Sprinkling systems and controllers are widely known for such water conservation measures and surely would not be considered novel or inventive by one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior rejections stand with minor additions/explanations of obviousness. 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. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haggin, US 20140014019 in view of WO 2010103203. Regarding claims 1 and 2: Haggin discloses a watercraft rinsing system comprising: a plurality of conduits (tubes of varying diameters, abstract , paragraph [0062]) being arranged in a configuration; a plurality of fresh water outlets (jets 72) being arranged along the plurality of conduits; a plurality of fasteners (see paragraph [0064] which discloses multiple fastening means) being configured for mounting the plurality of conduits to a mounting surface of a dock structure configured for storing a watercraft; a controller (Haggin does not explicitly disclose a controller, however pump 76 would inherently have a means for controlling the pump) being configured for operating the system; and a water inlet being configured for connection with a water source (inherent). The examiner considers the pump to be a pressure booster having an inlet connected to the water source and an outlet. Haggin further discloses the tubes form a framework of vertical and horizontal members and jet locations may be on both the vertical and horizontal members which would form horizontal layers. Haggin does not explicitly recite the plurality of conduits forms a first layer, a second layer and a third layer, wherein each layer is arranged substantially parallel to a generally horizontal surface, or a splitter having an inlet and a plurality of outlets, the splitter inlet being connected with the pressure booster outlet and a plurality of valves each having an inlet and an outlet, wherein at least one valve inlet is connected to at least one splitter outlet. WO 2010103203 discloses a ship cleaning system where the conduits and jets are arranged to form multiple horizontal layers (see Fig. 5). Additionally shown in Figure 3 is a controller configured to provide the water from the water source to the conduits and pumping means 12 (pressure booster) connected to a splitter 11 which connects to three valves 6a, 6b, 6c, the nozzles selectively activated by the control means. While not explicit reciting valves, selective nozzle activation inherently discloses controlling the flow of water to the nozzles which is easily accomplished by valves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Haggin by arranging conduits and jets in multiple horizontal layers as disclosed by WO 2010103203 and to allow selective activation of various nozzles while rinsing the watercraft. Doing so allows vessels of larger sizes to be accommodated by the watercraft rinsing system by adding additional layers of jets and allows selectively cleaning portions of the vessel by controlling valves to the water outlets, thereby reducing booster pump size by being able to control the number of active water outlets at any time. Regarding claims 3-8: The examiner takes official notice that the claimed features, flow sensors, movement sensors, pressure sensors and the control functionality of such sensors is well known and commonly used in water supply and irrigation systems or water sprinkler systems. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate well known sensors into the system of Haggin as modified by WO 2010103203 to optimize system performance by supplying desired water pressure range for cleaning the watercraft and also by detecting/measuring water flow to particular valves to limit overall water use. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00. 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 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. /ANTHONY D WIEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595025
STEP APPARATUSES FOR BOATS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589836
SURGE DAMPING SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES FOR USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577942
METHODS OF SECURING A VESSEL DURING TRANSPORTATION, OFF-LOADING, AND INSTALLATION OF WIND TURBINE COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571372
FLOATING WIND TURBINE SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565296
RAPID REPLACEMENT CONTROL FIN FOR AN UNDERWATER VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+34.7%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 896 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month