Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/129,843

CONVERTIBLE ERGONOMIC SOLO CANOE BACKREST AND PORTAGE YOKE FOR BENCH SEATS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 01, 2023
Examiner
BURGESS, MARC R
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allow Rate
164 granted / 477 resolved
-17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
546
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 477 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 17 are 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “base” in claims 4, 5, 9 & 15 is used by the claim to mean “tube at the top of the backrest,” while the accepted meaning is “A supporting, lower or bottom component of a structure or object.” In this case, component 127 is at the top of the structure, and therefore should not be referred to as a “base.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Regarding claims 11, 12 and 17, lines 1 and 2 recite “The convertible backrest for a solo canoe of claim 1 further comprising: a bench seat of a solo canoe…” It is unclear if the bench seat and/or solo canoe are being positively recited. Note that the backrest is for a canoe, and the seat is a part of the canoe, but claim also recites that the backrest comprises the seat. 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 Walton US 2009/0038526 in view of Morris US 7,562,635. Regarding claim 1, Walton teaches a convertible backrest for a solo canoe comprising: a U-shaped back tube 24; said U-shaped back tube comprising a pair of spaced tube legs; and said tube legs operable for pivotable coupling to a bench seat 33 of a solo canoe. [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Bend)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (U-shaped Back Tube)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Spaced Tube Legs)] PNG media_image1.png 282 446 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure 1- Walton Figure 1 Walton does not teach a pair of spaced upper pivot brackets; said upper pivot brackets extending from said tube legs; a pivot axle; said pivot axle disposed in and extending between said upper pivot brackets; a pair of spaced shoulder pads; said pair of spaced shoulder pads coupled to said pivot axle; wherein said pair of spaced shoulder pads are angularly pivotable with respect to said U- shaped back tube. Morris teaches a convertible backrest for a solo canoe comprising: a pair of spaced upper pivot brackets 16; said upper pivot brackets extending from said tube legs; a pivot axle 32; a pair of spaced shoulder pads 24; said pair of spaced shoulder pads coupled to said pivot axle; wherein said pair of spaced shoulder pads are angularly pivotable with respect to said canoe. PNG media_image2.png 318 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Figure 2- Morris Figure 1 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seat of Walton with the pivoting shoulder pads of Morris in order to allow the watercraft/canoe to be more easily manually carried/portaged. Neither Walton nor Morris teach that said upper pivot brackets extend from said tube legs, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the pads on the U-shaped back tube in order to allow the shoulder pads to function as intended when the seat is collapsed while also keeping them away from other seat components, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Neither Walton nor Morris teach a single pivot axle disposed in and extending between said upper pivot brackets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the pivot pins to be a single axle extending between sides of the back tube in order to make the device stronger or reduce part count, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Regarding claim 2, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a pair of lower pivot brackets 43; said each lower pivot bracket pivotably coupled to a terminal end of said U-shaped back tube and operable to fix to a bench seat 33 of a canoe. Regarding claim 3, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Morris also teaches a pair of spaced shoulder pad support arms 22; said shoulder pad support arms extending radially from said pivot axle (as modified); and wherein each shoulder pad support arm is coupled to a said shoulder pad 24. Regarding claim 4, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Walton also teaches a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs in said U-shaped back tube; and as modified said shoulder pad support arms abut said base in a portage configuration. Regarding claim 5, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs in said U-shaped back tube; a back bumper (top of seat back 31) operable to cushion a user from said U-shaped back tube; wherein said base extends through said back bumper. Regarding claim 6, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a back support strap 31; said back support strap secured to said tube legs; and wherein said back support strap extends between said tube legs. Regarding claim 7, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As modified, the pair of spaced shoulder pads are positioned between said tube legs in a seated configuration. Regarding claim 8, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As modified, the pair of spaced shoulder pads are positioned between said tube legs in a storage configuration. Regarding claim 9, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs in said U-shaped back tube; wherein (as modified) said pair of spaced shoulder pads extend above said base in a portage configuration. Regarding claim 10, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Morris also teaches that said shoulder pads 24 are spaced sufficient for positioning a user's head therebetween during a portage configuration. Regarding claim 11, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a bench seat 33 of a solo canoe; Morris also teaches a shoulder pad face 24 for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face abuts said bench seat in a stored configuration. Regarding claim 12, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a bench seat 33 of a solo canoe; Morris also teaches a shoulder pad face 24 for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face faces away from said bench seat in a portage configuration. Regarding claim 13, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a pivot strap 35, 37; said pivot strap extending from said U-shaped back tube; and wherein said pivot strap limits pivot motion of said U-shaped back tube. Regarding claim 14, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a first bend in each said tube leg (sides of frame 24); said U-shaped back tube comprising a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs; wherein consequent to said first bend in said tube legs, said base is offset from said tube legs. Regarding claim 15, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a back support strap 31; said back support strap extending between said tube legs (sides of frame 24); Morris also teaches a shoulder pad 24 face on said shoulder pads for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face abuts said back support strap in a seated configuration. Regarding claim 16, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a back support strap 31; said back support strap extending between said tube legs (sides of frame 24); Morris also teaches a shoulder pad 24 face on said shoulder pads for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face abuts said back support strap in a storage configuration. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton US 2009/0038526 in view of Morris US 7,562,635 and Haller US 6,065,421. Regarding claim 17, Walton and Morris teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a bench seat of a canoe 33; but does not teach an elastic cord; a cord retainer fixed to the bottom of said bench seat of said canoe; said elastic cord coupled to said shoulder pads; or that said elastic cord is bound by said cord retainer in a portage configuration to prevent said shoulder pads from pivoting downward. Haller teaches that elastic cords 57 bound by a cord retainer 59 to a watercraft 17 can be used to secure items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seat of Walton and Morris with elastic tie down cords and cord retainers as taught by Haller in order to ensure that moving parts are secured in their intended locations when in use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to affix the cord retainers to the bottom of the bench in order to ensure that the elastic cords are always close to the moving components and available for use, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claims 18-20, Walton, Morris and Haller teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 17. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination. That is, the methods steps are drawn to the provision of the structure of claims 1 through 17, and are achieved during the operation of the structure, and are therefore considered obvious accordingly. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton US 2009/0038526 in view of Levin US 11,234,526. Regarding claim 1, Walton teaches a convertible backrest for a solo canoe comprising: a U-shaped back tube 24; said U-shaped back tube comprising a pair of spaced tube legs; and said tube legs operable for pivotable coupling to a bench seat 33 of a solo canoe. Walton does not teach a pair of spaced upper pivot brackets; said upper pivot brackets extending from said tube legs; a pivot axle; said pivot axle disposed in and extending between said upper pivot brackets; a pair of spaced shoulder pads; said pair of spaced shoulder pads coupled to said pivot axle; wherein said pair of spaced shoulder pads are angularly pivotable with respect to said U- shaped back tube. Levin teaches a seat 100 comprising: a U-shaped back rest 104; said U-shaped back rest comprising a pair of spaced tube legs 152, 154; said tube legs operable for pivotable coupling to a seat 102; a pair of spaced upper pivot brackets 147, 149; said upper pivot brackets extending from said tube legs; a pivot axle (the pivoting portion of the brackets); a pair of spaced shoulder pads 146, 148; said pair of spaced shoulder pads coupled to said pivot axle; wherein said pair of spaced shoulder pads are angularly pivotable with respect to said U-shaped back rest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seat of Walton with the pivoting shoulder pads/arm rests of Levin in order to provide a user with a rest position for their arms. Please note that not only could the arm rests as taught be used as shoulder pads, but it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Neither Walton nor Levin teach that said pivot axle is disposed in and extending between said upper pivot brackets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the arm rests/should pads inside the seat tube legs in order to accommodate smaller users or reduce the overall width of the seat, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. As modified, either axle can be interpreted as extending between the upper pivot brackets. Alternatively, neither Walton nor Levin teach a single pivot axle disposed in and extending the entire distance between said upper pivot brackets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the pivot pins to be a single axle extending between sides of the back tube in order to make the device stronger or reduce part count, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Regarding claim 2, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a pair of lower pivot brackets 43; said each lower pivot bracket pivotably coupled to a terminal end of said U-shaped back tube and operable to fix to a bench seat 33 of a canoe. Regarding claim 3, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Levin also teaches a pair of spaced shoulder pad support arms (between the brackets and pads); said shoulder pad support arms extending radially from said pivot axle; and wherein each shoulder pad support arm is coupled to a said shoulder pad 146, 148. Regarding claim 4, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Walton also teaches a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs in said U-shaped back tube; and as modified said shoulder pad support arms abut said base in a portage configuration. Please note that without further limitations, a watercraft could be portaged in any configuration, including with the shoulder pads/arms pivoted up to contact the base. Regarding claim 5, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs in said U-shaped back tube; a back bumper (top of seat back 31) operable to cushion a user from said U-shaped back tube; wherein said base extends through said back bumper. Regarding claim 6, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a back support strap 31; said back support strap secured to said tube legs; and wherein said back support strap extends between said tube legs. Regarding claim 7, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As modified, the pair of spaced shoulder pads are positioned between said tube legs in a seated configuration. Regarding claim 8, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As modified, the pair of spaced shoulder pads are positioned between said tube legs in a storage configuration. Regarding claim 9, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs in said U-shaped back tube; wherein (as modified) said pair of spaced shoulder pads extend above said base in a portage configuration (upside down). Regarding claim 10, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Levin also teaches that said shoulder pads 146, 148 are spaced sufficient for positioning a user's head therebetween during a portage configuration. Regarding claim 11, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a bench seat 33 of a solo canoe; Levin also teaches a shoulder pad face for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face abuts said bench seat in a stored configuration. Please note that without further limitations, a watercraft could be stored in any configuration, including with the shoulder pads/arms pivoted down to contact the seat. Regarding claim 12, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a bench seat 33 of a solo canoe; Levin also teaches a shoulder pad face for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face faces away from said bench seat in a portage configuration (which could simply be the watercraft turned upside down). Regarding claim 13, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a pivot strap 35, 37; said pivot strap extending from said U-shaped back tube; and wherein said pivot strap limits pivot motion of said U-shaped back tube. Regarding claim 14, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a first bend in each said tube leg (sides of frame 24); said U-shaped back tube comprising a base (top of frame 24) extending between said tube legs; wherein consequent to said first bend in said tube legs, said base is offset from said tube legs. Regarding claim 15, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a back support strap 31; said back support strap extending between said tube legs (sides of frame 24); Levin also teaches a shoulder pad face on said shoulder pads 146, 148 for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face abuts said back support strap in a seated configuration. Please note that without further limitations, a watercraft seat could be used in any configuration, including with the shoulder pads/arms pivoted up to contact the back support strap if the user does not wish to make use of the arm rests. Regarding claim 16, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a back support strap 31; said back support strap extending between said tube legs (sides of frame 24); Levin also teaches a shoulder pad face on said shoulder pads 146, 148 for engaging the shoulder of a user during portage; and as modified said shoulder pad face abuts said back support strap in a storage configuration. Please note that without further limitations, a watercraft could be stored in any configuration, including with the shoulder pads/arms pivoted up to contact the back support strap. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton US 2009/0038526 in view of Levin US 11,234,526 and Haller US 6,065,421. Regarding claim 17, Walton and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Walton also teaches a bench seat of a canoe 33; but does not teach an elastic cord; a cord retainer fixed to the bottom of said bench seat of said canoe; said elastic cord coupled to said shoulder pads; or that said elastic cord is bound by said cord retainer in a portage configuration to prevent said shoulder pads from pivoting downward. Haller teaches that elastic cords 57 bound by a cord retainer 59 to a watercraft 17 can be used to secure items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the seat of Walton and Levin with elastic tie down cords and cord retainers as taught by Haller in order to ensure that moving parts are secured in their intended locations when in use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to affix the cord retainers to the bottom of the bench in order to ensure that the elastic cords are always close to the moving components and available for use, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claims 18-20, Walton, Morris and Levin teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 17. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination. That is, the methods steps are drawn to the provision of the structure of claims 1 through 17, and are achieved during the operation of the structure, and are therefore considered obvious accordingly. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Snelling US 1,161,420, Alexander US D727,047 and Nutz US 9,242,703 teach folding watercraft seats. Massicotte US 2,671,231, Duval US 2002/0030073, Miller US 5,495,968, Evans US 8,479,959 and Lustig US 4,873,935 teach boat portage devices, often integrated with a boat seat. Paddling Light (NPL) teaches a set of portage shoulder pads that can be deployed from a canoe seat. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 01, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12454342
ADAPTABLE THROTTLE UNITS FOR MARINE DRIVES AND METHODS FOR INSTALLING THEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Patent 12356953
INTELLIGENT CAT LITTER BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 11524761
STRINGER-FRAME INTERSECTION OF AIRCRAFT BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 13, 2022
Patent 11240999
FISHING ROD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 08, 2022
Patent 11130565
ELECTRIC TORQUE ARM HELICOPTER WITH AUTOROTATION SAFETY LANDING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 28, 2021
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+21.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 477 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month