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 .
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daikoku et al (US 2011/0244740) in view of Korcz et al (US 20140238738) and Marek (US 5371454) and Gretz (US 7009110). With respect to claim 21, Daikoku et al disclose the basic claimed structure including an electric unit for an electrically powered watercraft with an electric box 68 including a side wall, a battery box 62a (note Figure 6C) with an electric component 66 attached to an inner surface of the side wall. Not disclosed by Daikoku et al is a detachable top cover for the electrical box and side wall of sheet metal bent at right angles and the battery box being separate from the electrical box. Marek teaches battery boxes 152, 154 separate from an electrical box 10. Korcz et al teach a detachable top cover 20 for an electrical box 10 and sheet metal (paragraph 0047; steel) sides bent at right angles (Figure 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Daikoku et al with a detachable top cover as taught by Korcz et al with a high likelihood of success for ease of access for maintenance, repair and replacement of parts and to have side walls of sheet metal with right angles with a high likelihood of success for ease of manufacture, safety and durability and to separate the battery box from the electrical box as taught by Marek with a high likelihood of success for improved safety. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. It is noted that the electrically powered watercraft has been given weight in the claims because of the watercraft components including but limited to an electrical box, a battery box and an electric component give the watercraft life and meaning. Further Daikoku et al do not disclose an open bottom. Gretz teaches an electrical box with an open bottom (note the Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Daikoku et al with an open bottom as taught by Gretz with a high likelihood of success for ease of cable routing and improved mounting and draining of water. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Additionally, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing electrical boxes in a marine environment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have some years of experience and would be familiar with various electrical box configuration and would have found the above combinations to have been obvious.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are allowed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights