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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 March 2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 15, 18-20, 22, 25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy-Bernier (US 2023/0182864) in view of Vlock et al. (US 2013/0059489).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, and claim 22:
Roy-Bernier discloses an electric watercraft comprising:
a seat (13);
a deck (12);
a hull (generally 14) having port and starboard sides and an interior volume (as seen in e.g. Fig 2B);
an electric motor (16);
a battery (18) in the hull and operatively connected to the motor;
a battery enclosure comprising a frame (as generally seen in Figs 3A and 4A) in the interior and supporting the battery, comprising port and starboard members (longitudinal side sections) and braces (front and rear transverse walls) extending across to define a peripheral structure surrounding the battery, the port and starboard members comprising respective first and second tabs (44) for mounting to the hull, and
upper and lower shells (e.g. Fig 3A; [0036]) attached to the peripheral structure (Fig 3A).
Roy-Bernier does not specifically disclose the peripheral structure and lower shell having a unitary construction.
Vlock teaches a battery enclosure having a unitary frame and lower shell (Figs 18 and 19, the small wall surrounding all the components is integrally formed with the lower shell surface 1671).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Roy-Bernier to use a unitary construction as taught by Vlock for the predictable advantage of reducing the prevalence of joints between components, to reduce water seepage (protecting the electronics), and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 3:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses multiple first and second longitudinally spaced-apart tabs (as seen in Figs 3A and 4A).
Regarding claims 6-8:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses two braces (front and rear of the peripheral frame), and an enclosure having isolated sections (e.g. Fig 2C), but does not specifically disclose third or fourth braces between the first and second braces.
Vlock teaches a watercraft battery enclosure having four transverse braces (e.g. Figs 3 and 19) segmenting the enclosure for differing components.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Roy-Bernier to use additional braces as taught by Vlock for the predictable advantage of further supporting/reinforcing the enclosure, further supporting the internal components (e.g. providing additional “hardpoints” for mounting), and/or further protecting the components from any external damage.
The fourth brace would be between the third and second, as the nomenclature of interior braces is otherwise arbitrary.
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 6 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses a drive shaft (28) drivingly connecting the motor to an impeller (15), with the third brace extending thereover (as seen in Figs 2C and 3B, the frame is vertically above the drive shaft, rendering the braces thereof above as well).
Regarding claims 10 and 11:
The discussion above regarding claim 6 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses forward and aft battery modules (Fig 2C) with the third brace therebetween (as the section walls are between) and the aft battery supported by the first and third braces (supported within the enclosure aft section).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 20 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses the frame in sealing engagement with and between the shells (e.g. Fig 4A).
Regarding claim 18:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses composite internal structures ([0036]), but does not specifically disclose a composite hull or metal brace.
Vlock discloses a watercraft hull made of composite ([0048) and battery enclosure frame made of metal ([0057]).
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention (as evidenced by [0085]), It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Roy-Bernier to use a composite hull and metal brace as taught by Vlock for the predictable advantage of increasing the strength-to-weight ratio of the watercraft by the use of composites, while maintaining a secure (e.g. metal permitting more deformation in the event of an accident) and electrically-grounded metal connection for the electronics within.
Regarding claim 19:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses the brace vertically above and spaced apart from the inner surface of the hull (e.g. Figs 3A-B).
Regarding independent claim 25, and claims 27-29:
The discussion above regarding claims 1 and 20 is relied upon.
Roy-Bernier discloses a battery enclosure as noted above, but does not disclose a shelf including a pillar extending from a bottom of the lower shell and configured to support the battery.
Vlock teaches shelves with pillars extending from the lower shell for mounting internal electronics (e.g. Fig 18, the pillars with “shelf” upper surface for mounting transceiver 1669).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Roy-Bernier to use shelves with pillars as taught by Vlock for the predictable advantage of electrically isolating the battery from the shell and/or other internal components to prevent short circuits or other damage.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy-Bernier (‘864) in view of Vlock et al. (‘489) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of “Preventing lithium ion battery failure during high temperatures by externally applied compression” (hereafter, “Zhao”).
Roy-Bernier discloses lithium batteries ([0034]) within a frame, but does not disclose the frame exerting a compressive force on the aft battery module.
Zhao teaches applying compression to batteries to reduce the likelihood of battery lamination failure due to gas generation by the chemical reactions therein (e.g. abstract; introduction; conclusion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Roy-Bernier to compress the battery as taught by Zhao for the predictable advantage of reducing battery lamination failure to prolong battery life.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2013/0252059) in view of Collins (US 2024/0174091).
Choi discloses a battery enclosure comprising:
a shell (220) configured to house a battery; and
a frame (as seen in e.g. Fig 3) including and integral with a peripheral structure (outer frame portion) and a plurality of mounting tabs (e.g. 211) extending outwardly therefrom and space apart around the peripheral structure configured to attach to a watercraft hull ([0054]) and define load paths therebetween, and a shelf having a pillar extending from the lower shell configured to support the battery (rounded vertically-extending interior portions in Fig 3).
Choi discloses a frame and integral lower shell, but does not disclose the frame between the lower shell and an upper shell.
Collins teaches a battery enclosure having a frame between upper and lower shells (e.g. Fig 1A) to prevent water from damaging the components ([0025]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Choi to use the shell arrangement as taught by Collins for the predictable advantage of safeguarding the batteries from water damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Vlock does not teach a peripheral structure having a unitary structure with the lower shell, such is seen in e.g. Fig 19:
PNG
media_image1.png
648
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that Vlock does not disclose a peripheral structure as defined in the amended claims, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that Choi and Collins do not disclose a shelf with pillar, Choi discloses shelves within the enclosure:
PNG
media_image2.png
498
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights