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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/05/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2 and 7 (respectively) recite “configured to being coupled.” This should be rephrased as –configured to be coupled—or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites that “the first and fifth portions are arranged in vertical planes offset from one another, and the third portion is arranged in a horizontal plane.” This would indicate that the first and fifth portions are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the third portion, which is not commensurate with the disclosure. The figures do not show that the third portion is perpendicular to either the first or fifth portion. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the third portion is generally perpendicular to either the first or fifth portion
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 16 and 17 is 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.
Claim 16 line 5 recites “a riser assembly coupled between the tubular body and the deck.” However, parent claim 12 recites “a frame” and “a deck mounted to the frame.” It is unclear what the relationship between the riser and the frame is- that is, are they separate components? As the disclosure states “The riser assembly220 may form part of the chassis or frame of the pontoon” [0037] the riser and frame will be interpreted to be the same components.
Claim 17 line 1 recites “wherein the riser assembly rearward of the end cap to overhang the tubular body.” As this is an incomplete sentence, the intent is unclear. For the purpose of this action it will be interpreted as “wherein the riser assembly rearward of the end cap overhangs the tubular body.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-3 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Horiuchi US 5,199,367.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Horiuchi teaches a pontoon boat, comprising:
a frame 12 having a first end and a second end, the first end located at a bow and the second end located at the stern;
a deck 16 mounted to the frame;
a pontoon 13 for providing floatation of the boat, the pontoon comprising:
a longitudinal section formed by a tubular body comprising a first end and a second end 26, the second end configured to be coupled to another longitudinal section of the pontoon;
an end cap coupled to the first end of the tubular body; wherein the end cap comprises a profile having at least two curvatures;
wherein the at least two curvatures including a first curvature defined by a first radius and a second curvature defined by a second radius.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Curvatures)][AltContent: textbox (Tubular Body)][AltContent: textbox (End Cap)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
224
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Horiuchi Figure 4 (annotated)
Note that all angles have some radius of curvature. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end cap curved of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide greater stress distribution or smoother flow. Likewise, if applicant does not agree that the pontoons are tubular, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the pontoon cylindrical or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide greater structural strength or ease manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi also teaches that the first curvature is convex and the second curvature is concave.
Regarding claim 3, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi also teaches that the profile forms a S-curve.
Regarding claim 7, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi also teaches that the profile of the end cap is formed by a plurality of portions, the plurality of portions including at least a first portion, a second portion, a third portion, a fourth portion, and a fifth portion; wherein at least the first portion and fifth portion are generally flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (3rd Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (4th Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (5th Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd Portion)][AltContent: textbox (1st Portion)]
PNG
media_image2.png
467
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Horiuchi Figure 4 Excerpt (annotated)
Please note that the first and fifth portion are generally flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the first portion and fifth portion flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 8, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Horiuchi also teaches that the fifth portion comprises a surface area that is greater than a surface area of the first portion. Note that the boundary of the first portion is arbitrary, and could be said to be (for example) at the waterline. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the fifth and first portions of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 9, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Horiuchi also teaches that the second portion forms the first curvature and the fourth portion forms the second curvature.
Regarding claim 10, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Horiuchi also teaches that the third portion is generally flat and disposed at an angle relative to the first and fifth portions.
Regarding claim 11 as best understood, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Horiuchi also teaches that the first and fifth portions are generally arranged in vertical planes offset from one another, and the third portion is generally arranged in a horizontal plane. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the first portion and fifth portions generally vertical and the third portion generally horizontal or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 13, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Horiuchi also teaches that the pontoon 13 comprises a plurality of pontoons.
Regarding claim 14, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Horiuchi also teaches that the first curvature is convex and the second curvature is concave.
Regarding claim 15, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Horiuchi also teaches that the profile of the end cap is formed by a plurality of portions, the plurality of portions including at least a first portion, a second portion, a third portion, a fourth portion, and a fifth portion;
wherein at least the first portion and fifth portion are generally flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another;
wherein the second portion forms the first curvature and the fourth portion forms the second curvature;
wherein the third portion is generally flat and disposed at an angle relative to the first and fifth portions.
In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the first portion and fifth portions generally vertical (and parallel to each other) and the third portion generally horizontal or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi US 5,199,367.
Regarding claims 4-6, Horiuchi discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi does not teach radius ratios, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the first and second curvatures of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohm US 5,911,187 in view of Horiuchi US 5,199,367.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Sohm teaches a pontoon boat, comprising:
a frame 26 having a first end and a second end, the first end located at a bow and the second end located at the stern;
a deck 14 mounted to the frame;
a pontoon 12 for providing floatation of the boat, the pontoon comprising:
a longitudinal section formed by a tubular body comprising a first end and a second end 30, the second end configured to be coupled to another longitudinal section of the pontoon;
an end cap coupled to the first end of the tubular body.
PNG
media_image3.png
249
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Sohm Figure 1
Sohm does not teach curvatures in the end cap. Horiuchi teaches a pontoon boat, comprising:
a frame 12 having a first end and a second end, the first end located at a bow and the second end located at the stern;
a deck 16 mounted to the frame;
a pontoon 13 for providing floatation of the boat, the pontoon comprising:
a longitudinal section formed by a tubular body comprising a first end and a second end 26, the second end configured to be coupled to another longitudinal section of the pontoon;
an end cap coupled to the first end of the tubular body; wherein the end cap comprises a profile having at least two curvatures;
wherein the at least two curvatures including a first curvature defined by a first radius and a second curvature defined by a second radius.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pontoons of Sohm with the curvature end cap as taught by Horiuchi in order to “(ensure) that the watercraft will operate at a good orientation and also will reduce drag” (column 4, lines 3-11).
Note that all angles have some radius of curvature. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the end cap curved of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide greater stress distribution or smoother flow. Likewise, if applicant does not agree that the pontoons are tubular, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the pontoon cylindrical or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to provide greater structural strength or ease manufacturing. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 2, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi also teaches that the first curvature is convex and the second curvature is concave.
Regarding claim 3, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi also teaches that the profile forms a S-curve.
Regarding claims 4-6, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Neither Sohm nor Horiuchi teach radius ratios, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the first and second curvatures of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 7, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Horiuchi also teaches that the profile of the end cap is formed by a plurality of portions, the plurality of portions including at least a first portion, a second portion, a third portion, a fourth portion, and a fifth portion; wherein at least the first portion and fifth portion are generally flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another.
Please note that the first and fifth portion are generally flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the first portion and fifth portion flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 8, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Horiuchi also teaches that the fifth portion comprises a surface area that is greater than a surface area of the first portion. Note that the boundary of the first portion is arbitrary, and could be said to be (for example) at the waterline. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the fifth and first portions of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 9, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Horiuchi also teaches that the second portion forms the first curvature and the fourth portion forms the second curvature.
Regarding claim 10, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Horiuchi also teaches that the third portion is generally flat and disposed at an angle relative to the first and fifth portions.
Regarding claim 11 as best understood, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Horiuchi also teaches that the first and fifth portions are generally arranged in vertical planes offset from one another, and the third portion is generally arranged in a horizontal plane. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the first portion and fifth portions generally vertical and the third portion generally horizontal or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 13, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Sohm also teaches that the pontoon 12 comprises a plurality of pontoons.
Regarding claim 14, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Horiuchi also teaches that the first curvature is convex and the second curvature is concave.
Regarding claim 15, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Horiuchi also teaches that the profile of the end cap is formed by a plurality of portions, the plurality of portions including at least a first portion, a second portion, a third portion, a fourth portion, and a fifth portion;
wherein at least the first portion and fifth portion are generally flat and disposed in planes parallel to one another;
wherein the second portion forms the first curvature and the fourth portion forms the second curvature;
wherein the third portion is generally flat and disposed at an angle relative to the first and fifth portions.
In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange the first portion and fifth portions generally vertical (and parallel to each other) and the third portion generally horizontal or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired hydrodynamic flow or aesthetic appearance. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohm US 5,911,187 in view of Horiuchi US 5,199,367 and Duke US 9,937,983.
Regarding claim 16 as best understood, Sohm and Horiuchi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. Sohm also teaches:
a wire chase 36 coupled to the second end 30; and
a riser assembly 26 coupled between the tubular body and the deck 14.
Sohm does not teach a wire chase on the end cap, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the end cap of Sohm with a wire chase as taught by the second end of Sohm in order “to prevent damage to the pontoon 12 due to debris floating in the water, impact with the dock or another boat, and the like” (column 2, lines 57-62). As modified, the wire chase would extend between the first and fifth portions.
Sohm does not teach a bracket coupled to the fifth portion. Duke teaches a pontoon boat with a bracket coupled to the bottom of the aft end of the pontoon 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pontoons of Sohm with the bracket as taught by Duke in order to enable mounting of hardware to or reinforcing the pontoon.
[AltContent: textbox (Bracket)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
395
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Duke Figure 10
Regarding claim 17 as best understood, Sohm, Horiuchi and Duke teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Sohm does not teach that the riser assembly rearward of the end cap overhangs the tubular body. Duke teaches that the deck extends rearward past the end of the pontoons (see Duke figures 1 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Sohm by extending the deck (and frame/riser supports) beyond the pontoons as taught by Duke in order to create more usable area on the boat deck. As modified, the riser/frame would overhang the tubular body. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the riser/frame along with the deck in order to provide proper deck support, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohm US 5,911,187 in view of Horiuchi US 5,199,367, Duke US 9,937,983 and Watkins US 2021/0371056.
Regarding claim 17 as best understood, Sohm, Horiuchi and Duke teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Sohm does not teach that the riser assembly rearward of the end cap overhangs the tubular body. Watkins teaches a boat 1 in which the deck 8 comprises a portion 104 that extends rearwardly beyond the aft end of the flotation body, such that a riser/frame assembly 122, 124 rearward of the end cap overhangs the hull. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Sohm by extending the deck (and frame/riser supports) beyond the pontoons as taught by Watkins in order to create more usable area on the boat deck.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hledin US D290,948, Lang US 5,522,333, Lang US 4,802,428, Graf US 5,188,049, Scarboro US D331,564, Simard US 11,420,715 and March US 4,389,958 teach pontoon craft with a step at the aft end of the pontoons.
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