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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Perez-Collazo (US 6152061).
The limitations in the claims below are disclosed in Perez’
1. A boat hull protection system, comprising: a frame (Abstract); a liner cable (31, 32, 33); and an adjustable liner 20.
2. The boat hull protection system of claim 1, wherein the frame (abstract – tubular) is formed from a material which allows the frame to float on a surface of a body of water into which the boat hull protection system is installed (the tubular frame inherently floats and also includes floating devices as well).
3. The boat hull protection system of claim 1, further comprising a gate system 21.
4, The boat hull protection system of claim 3, wherein an enclosed slip is formed within the boat hull protection system when the gate system is in a raised configuration (Clearly understood from figures 1, 2, 4 and 5).
5. The boat hull protection system of claim 3, wherein a boat may enter or leave a slip of the boat hull protection system when the gate system is in a lowered configuration (Clearly understood from figures 1, 2, 4 and 5).
6. The boat hull protection system of claim 1, wherein the adjustable liner comprises an anti- algae, or algae-resistant materials (“bacterial and fungal corrosion resistant, such as Pro-Liner 40.RTM”).
7. The boat hull protection system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the adjustable liner is coated with an anti-algae or algae-resistant material (“bacterial and fungal corrosion resistant, such as Pro-Liner 40.RTM”).
8. The boat hull protection system of claim 1, wherein the adjustable liner is replaceable (inherently easily replaceable).
9. A gate system for a boat hull protection system, comprising: a gate member 21 secured to a portion of an adjustable liner 20 of a boat hull protection system; one or more gate cables 31 32 33; and one or more gate connection points (28, 38, 41) located about the boat hull protection system; wherein the gate member is configured to be raised or lowered by adjusting a configuration of the one or more gate cables in relation to the one or more gate connection points (See Fig. 1), thereby enclosing or opening a slip of the boat hull protection system (Clearly shown in Fig. 4 or 5).
10. The gate system of claim 9, wherein at least one of the one or more gate connection points is located on a structure (See 38 in Fig. 1) located adjacent to the boat hull protection system.
11. The gate system of claim 9, wherein the gate member is raised or lowered by manually (See man in Fig. 1).
13, 15. The rejections applied above are applied mutatis mutandis to the method limitations in claim 13, and 15.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez-Collazo (US 6152061).
12. Perez does not disclose The gate system of claim 9, wherein the gate member is raised or lowered based upon operation of an electric motor but does disclose manual operation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an automatic or powered mechanism rather than a manual one, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In this case it would be obvious to use an electric motor in order to provide for remote operation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez-Collazo (US 6152061) in vew of Jackson US 4280436.
14. Jackson discloses what Perez does not The method of claim 13, further comprising operating a pump to remove water from the slip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the dewatering pump system of Jackson into the hull protection system of Perez I order to actively remove residual or accumulated water from the isolated slip region, thereby improving protective effect and reducing hull fouling
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure all relate to protective hull systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M BENEDIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7824. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/JUSTIN M. BENEDIK/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JUSTIN M BENEDIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642