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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 1, “A plurality of securing chains” should be changed to “a plurality of securing chains”.
In line 4 of claim 1, the periods after “diameter”, “length”, and “width” should be deleted. Appropriate punctuation marks to follow “diameter”, “length”, and “width” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 5 of claim 1, the period after “assemblies” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “assemblies” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 6 of claim 1, the period after “wire” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “wire” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 8 of claim 1, the period after “chain” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “chain” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 14 of claim 1, the period after “lift” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “lift” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 46 of claim 1, the period after “directions” should be deleted, assuming that “A system comprising” as recited in line 47 is part of claim 1. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “directions” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 47 of claim 1, “): A system” should be changed to “the system”.
In line 4 of claim 13, “A plurality” should be changed to “a plurality”.
In line 5 of claim 13, the periods after “diameter”, “length”, and “width” should be deleted. Appropriate punctuation marks to follow “diameter”, “length”, and “width” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 6 of claim 13, the period after “assemblies” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “assemblies” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 7 of claim 13, the period after “wire” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “wire” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 9 of claim 13, the period after “chain” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “chain” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 15 of claim 13, the period after “lift” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “lift” would be a comma or a semicolon.
In line 47 of claim 13, the period after “directions” should be deleted. An appropriate punctuation mark to follow “directions” would be a comma or a semicolon.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are 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.
The limitation “nearly perpendicular” as recited in line 28 of claim 1 is not described in the original specification and, therefore, the aforementioned limitation represents new matter. Examiner notes that the figures illustrate the plurality of horizontal boat bunks arranged perpendicular to the horizontal lifting I-beams. The term “nearly” indicates that the bunks are not perpendicular to the I-beams. If Applicant is referring to the original drawings to provide basis for the aforementioned limitation, the limitation “approximately perpendicular” more accurately describes the arrangement between the bunks and I-beams. Claim 13 contains a similar error.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “all of the securing chains are positioned in a slot of one of a plurality of chain engagement brackets” is not described in the original specification and represents new matter. Examiner notes that the original disclosure describes each of the securing chains is positioned in a slot of a respective one of the plurality of chain engagement brackets.
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 1 and 13 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.
The limitation “all of which” as recited in line 3 of claim 1 renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether “which” refers to the plurality of securing chains or to the plurality of links. Claim 13 contains a similar error.
In line 47 of claim 1, the phrase “): A system comprising” is confusing because it is unclear whether the limitations associated with the system recited in line 47 is part of claim 1 or if it represents the preamble of another claim. For purposes of examination, the system recited in line 47 and all of the limitations associated therewith are assumed to be additional limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear whether the claim is directed to a system or a method because the limitations recited in the first half of the body of the claim are directed to a lifting bunk restrain system, while the limitations recited in the second half of the body of the claim are directed to a method of adjusting slack. Since the preamble of claim 13 is directed to a method of adjusting slack, Examiner has interpreted the claim as being directed to a method, as best understood. Examiner suggests incorporating the portion of the claim directed to a system into the method by reciting a step of using the system rather than just reciting the system itself.
Regarding claim 13, the fact that “e.” as recited in line 7 has been used to identify the first subsection associated with the plurality of attachment assemblies is confusing. Since labeling of subsections usually begin with subsection “a.”, it is unclear whether subsections “a. - d.” are missing.
Regarding claim 13, the fact that “d.” as recited in line 28 has been used to identify the first subsection associated with the lifting bunk structure is confusing. Since labeling of subsections usually begin with subsection “a.”, it is unclear whether subsections “a. - c.” are missing.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in lines 7 - 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of “a plurality of securing chains” as recited in line 3 “the securing chain” is referring. Examiner has interpreted the claim as requiring one of the plurality of the securing chains to be associated with a respective one of the plurality of attachment assemblies, as best understood. Examiner takes the position that changing “the securing chain” as recited in lines 7 - 8 to “a respective one of the securing chains”, or something similar, would clarify that one of the plurality of the securing chains to be associated with a respective one of the plurality of attachment assemblies. Subsection “a.” of claim 1 is replete with recitations of “the securing chain”, but Examiner acknowledges that making the change to lines 7 – 8 as discussed above would provide antecedent basis for the remaining occurrences of “the securing chain” recited throughout subsection “a.”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in lines 37 - 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in line 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in lines 39 - 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in line 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the motion" in line 45. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the seabed" in line 48. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the watercraft bunk system" in lines 56 - 57. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in lines 8 - 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of “a plurality of securing chains” as recited in line 4 “the securing chain” is referring. Examiner has interpreted the claim as requiring one of the plurality of the securing chains to be associated with a respective one of the plurality of attachment assemblies, as best understood. Examiner takes the position that changing “the securing chain” as recited in lines 8 - 9 to “a respective one of the securing chains”, or something similar, would clarify that one of the plurality of the securing chains to be associated with a respective one of the plurality of attachment assemblies. Subsection “e.” beginning on line 7 of claim 13 is replete with recitations of “the securing chain”, but Examiner acknowledges that making the change to lines 8 - 9 as discussed above would provide antecedent basis for the remaining occurrences of “the securing chain” recited throughout subsection “e.”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in lines 23 - 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in line 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in lines 38 - 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in lines 40 - 41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the securing chain" in line 41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the motion" in line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
3/6/2026