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Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/14/25.
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 1 and 3-10 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 1, 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Riordan Figure 4
Regarding claim 3, Riordan teaches 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 4, Riordan teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Riordan also teaches that the at least one bow further comprises a front bow 26 and a rear bow 16, wherein both the front bow and the rear bow are rotatably mounted to the at least one support member 18.
Regarding claim 5, Riordan teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Riordan also teaches that the front bow 26 is rotatable relative to the rear bow 16.
Regarding claim 6, Riordan teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riordan US 10,858,072.
Regarding claim 2, Riordan teaches 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).
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 teaches 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 teaches 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
James US 7,921,797 teaches a bimini top with a very similar bow structure.
Schwindaman US 8,752,498 teaches a bimini top with an actuated lift assist in the support member.
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