DETAILED ACTION
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6, 10, 12-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastenberger et al. US 5263733 A in view of Gillespie US 3863588 A.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kastenberger et al. discloses [an adapter 12 for mounting to a bow eye 10 of a boat 8 and receiving a latch 6 for securing the boat to a trailer 1,] (Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 22-32) comprising: [a receiving member 13 defining an aperture for receiving the latch;] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Kastenberger et al. illustrates wherein a receiving member 13 defines an aperture for receiving the latch 6.) and [at least one fastener 36 for extending through an aperture defined by a mounting plate and the bow eye.] (Fig. 3; Col. 9, lines 9-16; Kastenberger et al. discloses a pair of threaded arms 36 that extend through the aperture defined by a mounting plate 37 and bow eye. These arms are further fastened to the mounting plate using a pair of nuts 38.)
Kastenberger et al. does not disclose a second mounting plate attached to the receiving member and an aperture defined by the second mounting plate and securing the bow eye between the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate.
Gillespie teaches [a first mounting plate 30 and a second mounting plate 24 attached to the receiving member] (Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 44-61) and [an aperture defined by the second mounting plate and securing the bow eye between the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate.] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates an aperture defined by the second mounting plate and securing the bow eye between the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the mounting plate configuration of Gillespie with the adapter of Kastenberger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for securing the adapter more securely to the bow eye and distributing the attachment forces across multiple mounting points, thus reducing stress on a single fastener and increasing overall stability of the adapter.
Regarding claim 2, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the receiving member includes an at least partially straight engaging leg 15, 17.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; Col. 3, lines 21-32 of Gillespie)
Regarding claim 3, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate extend from the receiving member and define a gap for receiving at least a portion of the bow eye.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the first mounting plate 30 and the second mounting plate 24 extend from the receiving member 14 and define a gap for receiving a portion of the bow eye.)
Regarding claim 4, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the receiving member includes an at least partially straight engaging leg 15, 17.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; Col. 3, lines 21-32 of Gillespie)
Regarding claim 5, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the at least one fastener includes a first fastener for extending through a first aperture of a first plurality of apertures defined by the first mounting plate, the bow eye, and a first aperture of a second plurality of apertures defined by the second mounting plate,] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein a first fastener 15 extends through the first apertures defined by the first mounting plate 30, the second mounting plate 24, and the bow eye.) and [a second fastener for extending through a second aperture of the first plurality of apertures defined by the first mounting plate and a second aperture of the second plurality of apertures defined by the second mounting plate, and securing the adapter against the bow eye.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein a second fastener 17 extends through the second apertures defined by the first mounting plate 30, the second mounting plate 24, and the bow eye.)
Regarding claim 6, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the at least one fastener includes a second fastener for extending through a second aperture defined by the first mounting plate] (Fig. 3 of Kastenberger et al.; Col. 9, lines 8-16) and [a second aperture defined by the second mounting plate] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie) such that [the second fastener is adjacent an outer surface of the bow eye when mounted to the bow eye.] (Fig. 3 of Kastenberger et al.; As shown in Fig. 3, Kastenberger et al. illustrates a U-shaped member 34 with a pair of threaded legs 36 which is used to fasten the bow eye 10 to the adapter using nuts 38. The U-shaped portion of the member is adjacent with the bow eye 10 when mounted to the bow eye.)
Regarding independent claim 10, Kastenberger et al. discloses [an adapter 12 for mounting to a bow eye 10 of a boat 8 and receiving a latch 6 for securing the boat to a trailer 1,] (Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 22-32) comprising: [at least one mounting plate 37 attached to and extending from the base to be secured against the bow eye by at least one fastener 36 extending through an aperture defined by the at least one mounting plate and an aperture defined by the bow eye.] (Fig. 3; Col. 9, lines 8-16; Kastenberger discloses a mounting plate 37 that extends from the receiving member and is attached to the bow eye through a threaded pair of arms 36 that fasten the plate to the bow eye using a pair of nuts 38.)
Kastenberger et al. does not disclose a receiving member having an at least partially straight engaging leg, the receiving member and the at least partially straight engaging leg defining an aperture for receiving the latch.
Gillespie teaches [a receiving member having a based and an at least partially straight engaging leg,] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the receiving member has a partially straight leg.) [the receiving member and the at least partially straight engaging leg defining an aperture for receiving the latch.] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the receiving member and the straight engaging leg defining an aperture for receiving the latch.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the receiving member configuration of Gillespie with the adapter of Kastenberger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for forming a well-defined aperture for receiving the latch while maintaining secure attachment to the bow eye, thus providing a more stable and reliable adapter structure.
Regarding claim 12, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a second mounting plate is secured against the bow eye by the least one fastener,] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein a second mounting plate 37 is secured against the bow eye via at least one leg 15, 17 that is fastened with at least one nut 32.) [a first of the at least one fastener extends through a first aperture of a first plurality of apertures defined by the first mounting plate, the bow eye, and a first aperture of a second plurality of apertures defined by the second mounting plate,] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein a first fastener 15 extends through the first apertures defined by the first mounting plate 30, the second mounting plate 24, and the bow eye.) and [a second of the at least one fastener extends through a second aperture of the first plurality of apertures defined by the first mounting plate and a second aperture of the second plurality of apertures defined by the second mounting plate,] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein a second fastener 17 extends through the second apertures defined by the first mounting plate 30, the second mounting plate 24, and the bow eye.) [further wherein the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate are substantially parallel when secured to the bow eye.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate are substantially parallel when secured to the bow eye.)
Regarding claim 13, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the base is attached to a substantially U-shaped member] (Fig. 2 Gillespie.; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the receiving member 14 includes a base 22 attached to a substantially U-shaped member.) and the [at least partially straight engaging leg forms a portion of the substantially U-shaped member.] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the straight engaging leg defines a portion of the substantially U-shaped member.)
Regarding independent claim 15, Kastenberger et al. discloses [an adapter 12 for mounting to a bow eye 10 of a boat 8 and receiving a latch 6 for securing the boat to a trailer 1.] (Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 22-32)
Kastenberger et al. does not disclose a base attached to an at least partially straight engaging leg, the base and the at least partially straight engaging leg at least partially defining an aperture for receiving the latch; a first mounting plate extending from the base; a second mounting plate extending from the base; and at least one fastener for extending through the first mounting plate, the bow eye, and the second mounting plate and for securing the adapter to the bow eye.
Gillespie teaches [a base 22 attached to an at least partially straight engaging leg,] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the base 22 is attached to the pair of at least partially straight engaging legs 15, 17.) [the base and the at least partially straight engaging leg at least partially defining an aperture for receiving the latch;] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the base 22 and the at least partially straight engaging leg at least partially defining an aperture for receiving the latch.) [a first mounting plate extending from the base;] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the first mounting plate 30 extends from the base 22 through the pair of legs 15, 17.) [a second mounting plate extending from the base;] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the second mounting plate 24 extends from the base 22 through the pair of legs 15, 17.) and [at least one fastener for extending through an aperture defined by the first mounting plate, an aperture defined by the bow eye, and an aperture defined by the second mounting plate and securing the bow eye between the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate.] (Fig. 2; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates a pair of threaded arms 15, 17 that extend through the aperture defined by the first mounting plate 30, second mounting plate 24, and bow eye. These arms are further fastened to the mounting plates and bow eye using a pair of nuts 32.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the base arrangement of Gillespie with the adapter of Kastenberger et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for securely mounting the adapter to the bow eye while providing a defined aperture for receiving the latch, thus resulting in a more stable and reliable attachment of the boat to the trailer.
Regarding claim 16, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the at least partially straight engaging leg forms part of a substantially U-shaped member attached to the base.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the at least partially straight engaging leg 15, 17 forms part of a substantially U-shaped member 14 attached to the base 22.)
Regarding claim 17, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein a standoff 26 attached to at least one of an end portion of the first mounting plate and an end portion of the second mounting plate for maintaining a gap between the first and second mounting plates.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein a pair of nuts 24 are attached to the end portions of the first 30 and second 24 mounting plates. These nuts act as a standoff for maintaining a gap between the first and second mounting plates.)
Regarding claim 20, Kastenberger et al., as modified discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the standoff secured between the first and second mounting plates.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein a pair of nuts 24 are attached to the end portions of the first 30 and second 24 mounting plates. These nuts act as a standoff for maintaining a gap between the first and second mounting plates.)
Claims 7-9, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastenberger et al. US 5263733 A in view of Gillespie US 3863588 A and further in view of Aichele US 6981463 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Kastenberger et al., as modified does not disclose at least one damper attached to at least one of the base, an edge of the first mounting plate, an edge of the second mounting plate, an inner face of the first mounting plate, and an inner face of the second mounting plate.
Aichele teaches [at least one damper 30 attached to at least one of the base, an edge of the first mounting plate, an edge of the second mounting plate, an inner face of the first mounting plate, and an inner face of the second mounting plate.] (Fig. 3-4 and 5-6; Col. 5, lines 9-26; Aichele discloses a gasket 30 positioned between plates 26, 28. The gasket includes apertures 36 that fit over the bow eye legs 20 and cause the gasket to pucker and compress when the bow eye is secured. When nuts 22, 24 are tightened, the gasket functions as a damper because it prevents direct contact between the metal components, seals connection, and absorbs compressive forces to protect the bow eye.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the damper of Aichele with the adapter of Kastenberger et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for preventing metal-to-metal contact between the mounting plates and the bow eye, thus protecting the bow eye from damage and providing cushioning to improve the stability and durability of the adapter.
Regarding claim 8, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the receiving member includes a base attached to a substantially U-shaped member,] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie.; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the receiving member 14 includes a base 22 attached to a substantially U-shaped member.) and [the base and the substantially U-shaped member define the aperture for receiving the latch. (Fig. 2 Gillespie.; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the base 22 and the U-shaped member define an aperture for receiving a latch.)
Regarding claim 9, Kastenberger et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [wherein the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate are substantially parallel.] (Fig. 2 of Gillespie; As shown in Fig. 2, Gillespie illustrates wherein the first mounting plate 30 and the second mounting plate 24 are substantially parallel to each other.)
Regarding claim 14, Kastenberger et al., as modified does not disclose a damper attached to the receiving member.
Aichele teaches [a damper attached to the receiving member.] (Fig. 5 and 6; As shown in Fig. 5 and 6, Aichele illustrates the pair of legs 20 of the receiving member 16 being attached to the damper 30.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the damper of Aichele with the adapter of Kastenberger et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for cushioning the receiving member and prevention of metal-to-metal contact, thus protecting the bow eye from damage and providing cushioning to improve the stability and durability of the adapter.
Regarding claim 18, Kastenberger et al., as modified does not disclose a damper attached to the base.
Aichele teaches [a damper attached to the base.] (Fig. 5 and 6; As shown in Fig. 5 and 6, Aichele illustrates the damper 30 being attached to the base plate 26.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the damper of Aichele with the adapter of Kastenberger et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for absorbing forces applied to the based and preventing damage to the boat, thus protecting the bow eye from damage and providing cushioning to improve the stability and durability of the adapter.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kastenberger et al. US 5263733 A in view of Gillespie US 3863588 A and further in view of La Roque US 5727805 A.
Regarding claim 19, Kastenberger et al., as modified, does not disclose wherein the first mounting plate defines a first plurality of apertures aligned in rows and columns, and the second mounting plate defines a second plurality of apertures aligned in rows and columns, the second plurality of apertures aligned in rows and columns aligned with the rows and columns of the first plurality of apertures.
La Roque teaches [wherein the first mounting plate defines a first plurality of apertures aligned in rows and columns,] (Fig. 15; Col. 6, lines 26-32; As shown in Fig. 15, La Roque illustrates wherein a first mounting plate 114 has a first plurality of holes 115 aligned in rows and columns.) and [the second mounting plate defines a second plurality of apertures aligned in rows and columns,] (Fig. 15; Col. 6, lines 26-32; As shown in Fig. 15, La Roque illustrates wherein a second mounting plate 131 has a second plurality of holes 134 aligned in rows and columns) [the second plurality of apertures aligned in rows and columns aligned with the rows and columns of the first plurality of apertures.] (Fig. 3; Col. 6, lines 47-50; La Roque discloses that the matrix of the second plurality of holes 134 are arranged to complement the first plurality of holes 114.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the aligned plurality of apertures of La Roque with the adapter of Kastenberger et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for providing multiple selectable attachment points that are consistently aligned between the first and second plates, thus facilitating adjustability, ease of assembly, and secure attachment of the adapter to the bow eye.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 09/30/2025 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15, and 20 have been amended. In light of amendments, all 112 rejections and objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kastenberger et al. does not disclose mounting plates that secure a bow eye as recited in the claims and instead relies on a cradle and U-shaped clamp arrangement, asserting that plate 37 merely acts as a reaction surface and is not secured to the bow eye. This argument is not persuasive. Kastenberger discloses a mounting structure in which the bow eye is captured and restrained between structural members that function as mounting plates by distributing clamping forces and maintaining the position of the bow eye relative to the adapter. Although Kastenberger employs a cradle and clamp configuration rather than explicitly labeling the members as “mounting plates,” the claimed language does not require the plates to be named or formed identically, but only to perform the function of securing the bow eye. The plate cooperates with the clamp structure to secure the bow eye in position, thus meeting the claimed limitation when reasonably interpreted.
Applicant further argues that incorporating Gillespie’s plate arrangement into Kastenberger would require removal of substantial portions of Kastenberger’s structure and would therefore amount to an improper reconstruction. This argument is not persuasive because the proposed modification does not require wholesale removal of Kastenberger’s attachment mechanism, but rather a predictable substitution of know attachment elements. Gillespie teaches the use of aligned apertures and fasteners in opposing plates to secure a marine component, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a plate-and fastener configuration could be used in place or in conjunction with Kastenberger’s securing function. The modification represents a routine design choice within the level of ordinary skill, rather than an impermissible reconstruction.
Applicant also contends that the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of Kastenberger. This argument is not persuasive. The principle of operation of Kastenberger is to secure an adapter to a bow eye so that a trailer latch may reliably engage the bow eye. Substituting or supplementing the clamping mechanism with mounting plates and fasteners, as taught by Gillespie, does not alter this principle, but merely provides an alternative. Both references are directed to securely attaching marine hardware, and the fundamental purpose and operation of Kastenberger remains unchanged.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the references and that the examiner’s rationale relies on impermissible hindsight. This argument is not persuasive. Gillespie explicitly teaches that the use of opposing plates with aligned apertures and fasteners provides a secure and stable attachment for the adapter’s hardware. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this known attachment technique to Kastenberger’s adapter in order to improve alignment, stability, and ease of installation, particularly in view of the well-recognized need for secure bow-eye engagement in trailer coupling systems. The motivation arises from the teachings of the references themselves and from common sense engineering considerations, not from applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant also argues that Gillespie is directed to a different context, namely securing hardware to a hull, and is therefore non-analogous or unsuitable for combination. This argument is not persuasive. Both references are in the field of marine hardware attachment and address the problem of securely fastening components subjected to towing forces. Gillespie’s teachings regarding plate-based fastening are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by Kastenberger, namely proving a reliable and secure connection to a bow eye. Accordingly, Gillespie constitutes analogous art.
Applicant argues that the limitations of claim 10 are still not taught by the cited references. This argument is not persuasive for at least the reason discussed above. Gillespie teaches mounting plates having aligned apertures that receive fasteners to secure a marine component, and Kastenberger teaches an adapter structure configured to engage a bow eye. The combination of these teachings reasonably results in a mounting plate extending from a base portion and secured to the bow eye by a fastener extending through aligned apertures, as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611