Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/236,942

Watercraft Baffle Arrangement System

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 22, 2023
Examiner
HESTON, JUSTIN MICHAEL
Art Unit
3644
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
166 granted / 205 resolved
+29.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
232
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 205 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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) 1-11, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Rabinovich (US 20150210371 A1). Regarding claim 1, Rabinovich teaches a surfboard baffle arrangement system, comprising: a watercraft body having a first side surface and a second side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation); and an array of baffle structures disposed into the watercraft body and through the first side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation), wherein: each baffle structure within the array of baffle structures comprises a baffle retainer (¶ [0031] “connector”. Elements 450 and 451 in Figure 4B) and a baffle panel (elements 306-308, elements 417, elements 515), the baffle panel and the baffle retainer are operably coupled to one another (as depicted in Figures 3A-5C), the baffle panel comprises one degree of freedom of rotation relative the baffle retainer (as depicted in Figures 3A-5C), and the one degree of freedom of rotation comprises rotation of the baffle panel between an open configuration and a closed configuration (as depicted in Figures 3A-5C). Regarding claim 2, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the first side surface is opposite the second side surface (as depicted in Figures 3A-5C). Regarding claim 3, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the array of baffle structures is disposed into the watercraft body and through the first side surface but not the second side surface (as depicted in Figures 3A-5C). Regarding claim 4, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the baffle retainer comprises a housing (element 410) and a perimeter flange (plurality of unlabeled perimeter flanges securing hinges 450 and 451 in Figure 4B). Regarding claim 5, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 4, wherein the housing and the perimeter flange are permanently coupled to one another (as depicted in Figure 4B). Regarding claim 6, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 4, wherein the housing comprises a first wall having a lower concave portion defining an opening to a cavity within the housing (Figure 4B). Regarding claim 7, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 4, wherein the perimeter flange is disposed outside of the watercraft body and upon the first side surface (as depicted in Figure 4B). Regarding claim 8, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the array of baffle structures is arranged symmetric about a vertical axis running along the width-wise midpoint of the watercraft body (Figures 3A-3C teach this embodiment inasmuch as applicant has claimed). Regarding claim 9, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the array of baffle structures is arranged asymmetric about a horizontal axis running along the length-wise midpoint of the watercraft body (Figures 5A-5C teach this embodiment inasmuch as applicant has claimed). Regarding claim 10, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the baffle panel and the baffle retainer are operably coupled to one another via a coupling rod (¶ [0031 and 0037] teach that the retainer is a hinge system. Examiner takes official notice that hinges are well known in the art to comprise a pin/pintle/rod within the hinge system (see Wikipedia-Hinge for extrinsic supporting evidence). Regarding claim 11, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 10, wherein the coupling rod is secured to the baffle retainer via a plurality of coupling apertures formed within the baffle retainer ((¶ [0031 and 0037] teach that the retainer is a hinge system. Examiner takes official notice that hinges are well known in the art to comprise coupling apertures called knuckles/loops/curls/joints/nodes through which the pin passes. See Wikipedia-Hinge for extrinsic supporting evidence). Regarding claim 15, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 11, wherein: the baffle retainer comprises a housing and a perimeter flange (plurality of unlabeled perimeter flanges securing hinges 450 and 451 in Figure 4B), and the coupling rod comprises one degree of freedom of rotation relative the housing (as depicted in Figures 3A-5C). Regarding claim 18, Rabinovich teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein: the baffle retainer comprises a housing (element 410) and a perimeter flange (plurality of unlabeled perimeter flanges securing hinges 450 and 451 in Figure 4B), the housing comprises a cavity therein and each of the housing and the cavity are disposed within the watercraft body (Figure 4B), and the perimeter flange is disposed outside of the watercraft body and upon the first side surface (Figure 4B). Regarding claim 19, Rabinovich teaches a surfboard baffle arrangement system, comprising: a watercraft body having a first side surface and a second side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation), wherein the first side surface is opposite the second side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation); and an array of baffle structures disposed into the watercraft body and through the first side surface but not the second side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation), wherein: each baffle structure within the array of baffle structures comprises a baffle retainer (¶ [0031] “connector”. Elements 450 and 451 in Figure 4B) and a baffle panel (elements 306-308, elements 417, elements 515), the baffle retainer comprises a housing (element 410) and a perimeter flange (plurality of unlabeled perimeter flanges securing hinges 450 and 451 in Figure 4B), the housing and the perimeter flange are permanently coupled to one another (Figure 4B), the baffle panel and the baffle retainer are operably coupled to one another (Figure 4B), the baffle panel comprises one degree of freedom of rotation relative the baffle retainer (Figure 4B), and the one degree of freedom of rotation comprises rotation of the baffle panel between an open configuration and a closed configuration (Figure 4B, elements 460 and 461). Regarding claim 20, Rabinovich teaches a surfboard baffle arrangement system, comprising: a watercraft body having a first side surface and a second side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation), wherein the first side surface is opposite the second side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation); and an array of baffle structures disposed into the watercraft body and through the first side surface but not the second side surface (Figures 3A-5C depict a plurality of embodiments that satisfy this limitation), wherein: each baffle structure within the array of baffle structures comprises a baffle retainer (¶ [0031] “connector”. Elements 450 and 451 in Figure 4B) and a baffle panel (elements 306-308, elements 417, elements 515), the baffle retainer comprises a housing (element 410) and a perimeter flange (plurality of unlabeled perimeter flanges securing hinges 450 and 451 in Figure 4B), the housing comprises a first wall having a lower concave portion defining an opening to a cavity within the housing (Figure 4B), the perimeter flange is disposed outside of the watercraft body and upon the first side surface (Figure 4B), the baffle panel and the baffle retainer are operably coupled to one another (Figure 4B), the baffle panel comprises one degree of freedom of rotation relative the baffle retainer (Figure 4B), and the one degree of freedom of rotation comprises rotation of the baffle panel between an open configuration and a closed configuration (Figure 4B, elements 460 and 461). Claim(s) 1-3, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (GB 2522394 A). Regarding claim 1, Moore teaches a surfboard baffle arrangement system, comprising: a watercraft body having a first side surface and a second side surface (Figures 3-5, 7); and an array of baffle structures disposed into the watercraft body and through the first side surface (Figures 3-5, 7), wherein: each baffle structure within the array of baffle structures comprises a baffle retainer (Figures 3-5 comprise unlabeled side panels that retain main panel. Figure 7 comprises a surfboard fin retainer) and a baffle panel (elements 13 in Figures 3-5, elements 19 in Figure 7), the baffle panel and the baffle retainer are operably coupled to one another (Figures 3-5, 7), the baffle panel comprises one degree of freedom of rotation relative the baffle retainer (Figures 3-5, 7), and the one degree of freedom of rotation comprises rotation of the baffle panel between an open configuration and a closed configuration (Figures 3-5, 7). Regarding claim 2, Moore teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the first side surface is opposite the second side surface (Figures 3-5, 7). Regarding claim 3, Moore teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the array of baffle structures is disposed into the watercraft body and through the first side surface but not the second side surface (Figures 3-4, 7). Regarding claim 8, Moore teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the array of baffle structures is arranged symmetric about a vertical axis running along the width-wise midpoint of the watercraft body (Figures 3-5, 7). Regarding claim 9, Moore teaches the invention in Claim 1, wherein the array of baffle structures is arranged asymmetric about a horizontal axis running along the length-wise midpoint of the watercraft body (Figures 3-5, 7). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 12-14 and 16-17 are 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. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599236
BENCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600434
Mooring Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589874
Passenger Service Unit Passenger Assist Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583586
TANK ASSEMBLY AND HELICOPTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583558
Method and Apparatus for Maintaining Energy Production in an Offshore Wind Farm
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.1%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 205 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month