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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitations in claims 1-3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include any reference sign(s) neither in the drawings, nor in the description to support the claimed limitations. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: please omit the word “of” following “comprising” in line 1 of each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “12 inches high” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “12 inches high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim can simultaneously be construed as “comprising a height of”, and “may be actuated to 12 inches in height”. Regarding both of these instances, upon amendment, the height will need to be defined relative to supporting structure on the boat itself. For purposes of examination, Examiner will provide rejections for both instances.
Claim 2 recites in the preamble the subcombination of an “speedboat windscreen” that is inconsistent with the body of the claim that recites limitations directed to the combination of the “windscreen” and “the width of the cockpit”. This inconsistency presents the question as to whether the claim recites a combination or subcombination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation that is directed to the combination rather than to the subcombination because a “cockpit” is not an inherent component of the “windscreen”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the width of the cockpit" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim..
Claim 3 recites in the preamble the subcombination of an “speedboat windscreen” that is inconsistent with the body of the claim that recites limitations directed to the combination of the “windscreen” and “rear bench seat”. This inconsistency presents the question as to whether the claim recites a combination or subcombination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation that is directed to the combination rather than to the subcombination because a “rear bench seat” is not an inherent component of the “windscreen”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "behind the rear bench seat" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JerseyOutlaw’s forum post on the Online Forum “Baja’s 40 Outlaw Poker Run Theme Boat ‘Split Decisions’” (hereinafter JerseyOutlaw).
Regarding claim 1, JerseyOutlaw teaches a speedboat windscreen comprising a pop-up windscreen (rear pop-up windscreen located in the aft of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 2, JerseyOutlaw teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the windscreen is 12 inches high (The rear windscreen found in Jersey Outlaw’s post may actuate between lying flat and opening approximately 3 feet in height. As such, windscreen may satisfy the limitation of “12 inches high”) and the width of the cockpit (as depicted in Jersey Outlaw’s post).
Regarding claim 3, JerseyOutlaw teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the windscreen is located behind the rear bench seat (rear pop-up windscreen located in the aft of the vehicle).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dorst (US Patent No. 3021535).
Regarding claim 1, Dorst teaches a speedboat windscreen comprising a pop-up windscreen (Figure 1. Col. 1, lines 35-46).
Regarding claim 3, Dorst teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the windscreen is located behind the rear bench seat (Figure 1. Col. 1, lines 35-46).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hulten (US Patent No. 5832862).
Regarding claim 1, Hulten teaches a speedboat windscreen comprising a pop-up windscreen (Figures 2-3, element 62).
Regarding claim 3, Dorst teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the windscreen is located behind the rear bench seat (Figures 2-3, element 62).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorst (US Patent No. 3021535).
Regarding claim 2, Dorst teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the windscreen is the width of the cockpit (Figure 1). Dorst fails to specifically teach wherein the windscreen comprises a height of 12 inches, however, Examiner takes official notice that boating windscreens may be purchased commercially off-the-shelf and normally comprise heights spanning from 6 inches in low-profile instances to 24 inches for high-profile windscreens (see updplastics.com/windshield-manufacturers/ or Applicant admitted prior art, Greatlakesskipper.com for extrinsic supporting evidence). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Dorst’s windshield such that is comprised a height of 12 inches, in order to facilitate aerodynamics of the watercraft and minimize drag, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the windscreen of Dorst), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday: 0500-1400, Thursday-Friday by appointment only.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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 MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644