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 § 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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riordan US 10,858,072.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Riordan Figure 2
Regarding claim 21, Riordan teaches a bimini system for a watercraft comprising:
at least one support member 18;
a bimini frame including at least one bow 16, 26, operably coupled to the at least one support member; and
a lift-assist device 38, 44 configured to control movement of the at least one bow of the bimini frame, the lift-assist device being associated with the at least one support member;
wherein the bimini frame is movable between a retracted position and a stowed position, and the lift-assist device is configured to maximize a force applied by the lift-assist device to the at least one bow when the bimini frame is in a stowed position (note that in the stowed position of figure 7, the moment arm is at its longest while the spring is the most extended, maximizing the force applied to the bow).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Riordan Figure 4
Regarding claim 22, Riordan teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 21. Riordan also teaches a support bracket 56 affixed to the at least one bow 16, the lift-assist device 38, 44 being coupled to the support bracket.
Regarding claim 23, Riordan teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 22. Riordan also teaches that a geometry of the support bracket and the connection between the lift-assist device and the support bracket 56 is configured to maximize the force applied by the lift-assist device to the at least one bow 16 when the bimini frame is in the stowed position (note that in the stowed position of figure 7, the moment arm is at its longest while the spring is the most extended, maximizing the force applied to the bow).
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 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riordan US 10,858,072 in view of Parniske US 10,173,754.
Regarding claim 1, Riordan teaches a bimini system for a watercraft comprising:
at least one support member 18;
a bimini frame including a front bow 26 and a rear bow 16, operably coupled to the at least one support member, wherein the front bow and the rear bow are rotatable relative to the at least one support member about an axis, the front bow being rotatable about its axis independently from the rear bow; and
a lift-assist device 38, 44 configured to control movement of the at least one bow of the bimini frame, the lift-assist device being associated with the at least one support member.
Riordan does not teach that the front bow and the rear bow are rotatable relative to the at least one support member about the same axis, the front bow being rotatable about the axis independently from the rear bow. Parniske teaches a bimini system for watercraft comprising:
at least one support member (around 16);
a bimini frame including a front bow 20 and a rear bow 12, operably coupled to the at least one support member, wherein the front bow and the rear bow are rotatable relative to the at least one support member about an axis 16, the front bow being rotatable about its axis independently from the rear bow (column 3, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bows of Riordan by attaching them to a common pivot point as taught by Parniske in order to reduce complexity and/or obtain the desired motion and/or aesthetics.
Regarding claim 2, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Riordan also teaches that the lift-assist device could be a “piston” (column 4, lines 53-65), but does not teach a gas shock. The examiner is taking official notice that gas shocks are a well-known biasing piston. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the biasing member of Riordan with a gas spring in order to ensure smooth operation with an easy to use, well-established component, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Riordan also teaches that the at least one support member 18 is mountable to a support structure of the watercraft 14.
Regarding claim 6, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Riordan also teaches that the at least one support member 18 further comprises a support bracket 56, the support bracket being rigidly coupled to the rear bow 16, wherein both the support bracket and the front bow 26 are rotatable about an axis.
Regarding claim 7, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Riordan also teaches that the lift-assist device 38, 44 is operably coupled to the support bracket 56 to rotate the support bracket about the axis.
Regarding claim 8, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Riordan also teaches that the lift-assist device 38, 44 further comprises a body and movable component movable relative to the body, wherein the body is coupled to the support bracket 56 and the movable component is coupled to a base of the at least one support member 18. Please note that Riordan teaches that the biasing member could be a “piston” (column 4, lines 53-65). By definition, a piston has two relatively moveable members, and either one could be the body or movable component. Therefore in this interpretation, whichever component is attached to the support bracket is the body, and whichever component is attached to the base is the movable component.
Regarding claim 9, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Riordan also teaches that the bimini frame is movable between a retracted position (figures 4 and 8) and a stowed position (figures 6 and 7) and a force generated by the lift-assist device 38, 44 is applicable to the bimini frame to move the bimini frame from the stowed position to the retracted position.
Regarding claim 10, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Riordan also teaches that the force generated by the lift-assist device 38, 44 is applicable to the bimini frame to control a lowering of the bimini frame from the retracted position (figures 4 and 8) to the stowed position (figures 6 and 7).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riordan US 10,858,072 in view of Grovender US 10,427,761.
Regarding claim 2, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Riordan also teaches that the lift-assist device could be a “piston” (column 4, lines 53-65), but does not teach a gas shock. Grovender teaches a marine frame structure 100 that is biased in to a desired position by a gas shock 400. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the biasing member of Riordan with a gas shock as taught by Grovender in order to ensure smooth operation with an easy to use, well-established component.
Regarding claim 8, Riordan and Parniske teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. In an alternate interpretation, Riordan does not explicitly teach that the lift-assist device 38, 44 further comprises a body and movable component movable relative to the body, wherein the body is coupled to the support bracket 56 and the movable component is coupled to a base of the at least one support member. Riordan teaches that the lift-assist device could be a “piston” (column 4, lines 53-65), but does not teach the specific structure. Grovender teaches a marine frame structure 100 that is biased in to a desired position by a gas shock 400 which comprises a body 402 and movable component 404 movable relative to the body, wherein the body is coupled to the support member and the movable component is coupled to a base of the at least one support bracket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the biasing member of Riordan with a gas spring as taught by Grovender in order to ensure smooth operation with an easy to use, well-established component. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the gas shock orientation in order to meet space concerns or simplify replacement, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 with respect to new claims 21-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Riordan therefore is designed to control the movement of the bimini as it is stowed, and does not suggest that the geometry of configuration of the lift-assist device is selected to maximize the force it applies to the at least one bow when in the stowed position” (page 8). The examiner replies that these factors are not mutually exclusive- Riordan’s lift-assist device applies a force that opposes gravity in a direction that moves the bow away from the stowed position. As detailed above, that force is maximized in the stowed position by both the moment arm about the support bracket and because the spring is at the maximum extension. The device as taught meets the claims as written.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thompson US 7,040,587 teaches a bimini top in which both bows pivot about the same point.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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
Prosecution Insights