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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 08 August 2023. Claim 1-10, 13-15, 17-18, 21-22, 26-27, 29-30, 38-39, 44-46, 49, 51 and 53 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 4, 6-9, 13-15, 17-18, 21-22, 26-30, 38-39, 44-45 and 51 are currently amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB 2101724.9, filed on 08 February 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2023 and 12 December 2025 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 10 has reference character “12” where the disclosure page 5 of 21, line 1, recites “belt run channel 12”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets this to be a typo, or error as the spec. “12” does not match the fig. 10 “12” which can be corrected by either deleting the “12” and pointer or labeling the correct reference character.
Fig. 12 has reference character “106” which does not appear to be pointing to the disclosure’s “Telescopic actuators 106” as Fig. 12 appear to have the telescopic actuators hidden from view or only partially visible by a line. Such that the pointer from “106” would be more appropriately labeled “104”, which is already shown in fig. 12. Either, deleting the “106” and pointer or moving the pointer closer to the line that would extend from what would be “104” would correct this.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference sign “345” is not shown in Fig. 22 (See at least: Spec. page 8 of 21 line 23). Labeling “345” with a pointer on figure 22 would correct this. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Spec. page 6 of 21, line 25 recite “lifeboat 101” and should be “lifeboat 1” (See at least: lines 20 and 22 for support of this change). The Examiner notes there are consistency issues of “lifeboat” and “life boat” shown in the spec.
Spec page 7 of 21, line 16 has a typo of “Tthe” and should be “The”.
Spec page 7 of 21, line 35 recite “lifeboat 301” and should be “lifeboat 300” (See at least: line 34 for support of this change).
Spec page 8 of 21, lines 16-17 recite “(e.g. as shown in Figures 13 to 17)”. Please ensure these are the correct figures or if Figures 17-21 better show the features discussed in this paragraph.
Spec page 8 of 21, line 23 recite “search horn 345” which is not found in the fig. 22.
Spec page 8 of 21, line 26 recite “life boat 300” and should be “life boat 300a” (See at least: line 23 for support of this change).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows:
Claim 1 recite “conveyor means on the first conveyor section for drawing a man-over-board up the ramp.” This is being interpreted as found in the spec. page 2 of 21 lines 14-29 which include at least a belt, rollers and a driving force for the rollers which lists a motor. The Examiner notes a motor is being included as the functional language “…for drawing a man-over-board up the ramp…” requires a driving force for the rollers capable of pulling a person up the ramp.
Claims 27, 29-30, 46, 49 and 53 also recite “conveyor means” and is interpreted as stated above for claim 1.
Claim 15 recite “isolation means for isolating motion of a distal end of the recovery ramp from motion of the boat…”, where “isolation means” is not found in the disclosure of the spec. and therefore is given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claim 15 recite “means for isolating motion” where this “means” is not found in the disclosure of the spec. and therefore is given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claims 17-18 also recite “isolation means” and is interpreted as stated above for claim 15.
Claim 53 recite “means for restricting angular movement of the conveyor sections away from lying close to each other to relative orientations”. This is being interpreted as found in the spec. page 2 of 21, lines 6-7 which matches the claim language. As the spec. does not provide any additional disclosure this “means” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Claim 53 recite “means for normally stowing the conveyor sections lying close to each other and extending upwards of the mounting and for releasing them for deployment to a position”. This is being interpreted as found in the spec. page 2 of 21, lines 9-7 which matches the claim language. As the spec. does not provide any additional disclosure this “means” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 17: The Examiner finds no written description or figure showing the claim 17 structure of “a controller”, “at least one motion sensor” along with the corresponding functions and arrangement as described in the claim language. The Examiner did find “at least one actuator” in the spec relating to powered actuator (winch 42), telescopic actuators 106 or actuators 113, however none of these relate the corresponding functions and arrangement as described in the claim 17 language and therefore is a different embodiment not listed in the spec. or drawings. Regarding Claim 18: The Examiner finds no written description or figure showing the claim 18 structure of “a coupling”. At first, the Examiner interpreted the claim language of “a coupling” be same of “a mounting” as found in the spec. page 2 of 21 on lines 13-22, however the claim 18 language is causing confusing to that interpretation as it lists both “a coupling” and “the mounting” as separate structure. The Examiner looked to the spec. and figs. for clarification and finds nothing to clarify the claimed arrangement. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
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 3, 9-10, 13-15, 17-18, 29, 39, 45-46 and 53 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the waterline of the boat" in line 3. Where “a waterline” is not found in the claims 1 or 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a casualty" in line 5. Where claim 1 lines 7-8 “a man-over-board”. It is not clear why the applicant changed from “a man-over-board” to "a casualty" or how this change functional would modify the claimed invention. The Examiner ponders that person who is a casualty could be in a different state (injured, unconscious, etc…) than that of a person who is conscious, alert and swimming in the water such as a man-over-board. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets that no extra limitation is applied "a casualty" over “a man-over-board” and will search for prior art a “ramp” capable of supporting/moving a person.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the stowed position" in lines 3-4. Where claims 1-2 do not recite “a stowed position”. Claim 4 recites “a stowed position” however, claim 4 is a different embodiment of the invention than the embodiment of claim 2. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9 to be dependent on claim 2 requiring “a stowed position” to be introduced in claim 9. {The Examiner notes: an amendment to change the claim tree to claim 4 will cause a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.}. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the stowed position" in lines 3-4. Where claims 1-2 and 9 do not recite “a stowed position”. The Examiner notes: no change is required here once the above claim 9 rejection is corrected claim 10 will be correct. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the deployed position" in line 5. Claim 1 does not recite “a deployed position”. Claim 2 recites “a deployed position”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 13 to be dependent on claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the deployed position" in line 5. Claim 1 does not recite “a deployed position”. Claim 2 recites “a deployed position”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 14 to be dependent on claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. To correct this the claimed limitations shall be positively recited.
Claims 17-18 are rejected based on the claim 15 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 29 recites the limitation "a casualty" in line 4. Claim 29, line 3 recite “a casualty”. It is not clear if “a casualty” of line 4 is the same or different than that of line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "a boat" in line 3. Claim 1, lines 1-2 recite “a boat”. It is not clear if “a boat” of claim 39 is the same or different than that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the deployed position" in line 3. Claim 1 does not recite “a deployed position”. Claim 2 recites “a deployed position”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 39 to be dependent on claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "a boat" in line 3. Claim 1, lines 1-2 recite “a boat”. It is not clear if “a boat” of claim 45 is the same or different than that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the stowed position" in lines 4-5. Claim 4 line 5 recites “a stowed position”. As presented claims 1-3, 9-10, 13-15, 17-18, 21-22, 26-27, 29-30, 38-39 and 44-45, do not recite “a stowed position”, therefore it is unknown in these claim trees. The Examiner notes that claim 46 is a multiple dependent claim, and changing “the” to “a” will still cause a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for the claim trees where is it currently proper. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the deployed position" in lines 5. Claim 2 line 2 recites “a deployed position”. As presented claims 13-15, 17-18, 21-22, 26-27, 29-30, 38-39 and 44-45, do not recite “a deployed position”, therefore it is unknown in these claim trees. The Examiner notes that claim 46 is a multiple dependent claim, and changing “the” to “a” will still cause a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for the claim trees where is it currently proper. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "a proximal end" in line 4. Claim 53, line 2 recite “a proximal end”. It is not clear if “a proximal end” in line 4 is the same or different than that of line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the conveyor sections" in lines 12 and 15. Claim 1, line 5, recite “a first conveyor section”. Claim 53, line 7, recite “a second conveyor section”. It is not clear if “the conveyor sections” include more than “a first conveyor section” and “a second conveyor section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 depends on claim 20 which is cancelled. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 22 to depend on claim 1. {Reason for this interpretation claim 22 is similar to that of claim 21 which depends on claim 1}. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 22, 26-27, 29-30, 39, 46, 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Mayall (US 20210229784 A1) {Examiner notes: this application inventor’s own prior art, and that (WO 2019158904 A1) is a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection that is also provided below, however (US 20210229784 A1) is used for clear and concise citation of the prior art}.
Regarding claim 1, Mayall discloses a man-over-board recovery ramp (boarding assistance ramp 18; See at least: figs. 2 or 4) for fitting to a boat (unmanned lifeboat 1, See at least: fig. 1), comprising:
a mounting (bell-crank 57 mechanism and hydraulic actuator 56: See at least: figs. 5-6) adapted to be fitted to the boat (See at least: figs. 1-3 and 5-6), the mounting defining a pivot axis (unlabeled axis/point where engaging one arm 572 connects to the boarding assistance ramp 18; See at least figs. 5-6 which the two views in combination show the pivot action about the unlabeled axis);
a first conveyor section (frame 51, front and back shafts 52,53, ramp's conveyor 54, sideways opening channels 55; See at least: figs. 5-6 and para [0072]) connected to the mounting and arranged to pivot around the pivot axis (See at least: figs. 5-6); and
conveyor means (front and back shafts 52,53, ramp's conveyor 54, drive motor and gearbox 25; See at least figs. 4-6 and para. [0057]) on the first conveyor section for drawing a man-over-board (survivors or casualty; See at least: Abstract for survivors and para. [0007] for casualty) up the ramp (See at least: para. [0057] “…whereby all lifting {of survivors} must be by the ramp conveyor.”).
Regarding claim 2, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein the recovery ramp is arranged to pivot around the pivot axis to a deployed position (See at least: para. [0072] “…a deployed position in which the back end including the back shaft 53 is below water…” and figs. 5-6 where fig. 6 is interpreted as the deployed position).
Regarding claim 3, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein in the deployed position a distal end (unlabeled end side containing back shaft 53; See at least: figs. 5-6) of the recovery ramp is configured to extend to or through the waterline (below water; See at least: para. [0072] and fig. 6) of the boat to which the ramp is to be fitted to thereby permit drawing of a casualty (survivors or casualty; See at least: Abstract for survivors and para. [0007] for casualty) in the water up the ramp (See at least: para. [0057] “…whereby all lifting {of survivors} must be by the ramp conveyor.”).
Regarding claim 22, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1{Examiner assigned to claim 1 see 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection above, was claim 20} as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein the ramp is configured be integrated with the boat during its construction (See at least: figs. 1-6 where the invention of the unmanned lifeboat 1 is designed as a whole for new construction and para [0006] “object of the present invention is to provide an improved lifeboat.”).
Regarding claim 26, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein the recovery ramp has an open or aperture structure which permits water to flow through the ramp (See at least: para [0071] “The ramp can have an open or aperture structure, bearing in mind the advantage of an open structure in allowing water flow through the ramp”).
Regarding claim 27, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein the conveyor means comprises projections (formations; See at least: para. [0071] “a more continuous ramp still having formations by which a casualty can grip the ramp surface or be gripped by it to be conveyed up the ramp. The formations can be in the nature of cleats on a tracked vehicle's track.”) extending from a surface (ramp's conveyor 54; See at least: para. [0072] and figs. 5-6 where the figures shown triangle formations on the ramp's conveyor 54) of the conveyor means.
Regarding claim 29, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein the conveyor means is arranged to create a current in the water (inherent characteristic; Examiner Rationale: this is an inherent characteristic relating to a cause-effect scenario that is expected to occur when the ramp's conveyor 54 with formations/apertures are activated by rotation of front and back shafts 52, 53, from the drive motor and gearbox 25. The rotation of the formations/apertures would create a pumping effect (e.g. act like a centrifugal pump impeller) where the movement of the formations/apertures create a flow/movement/current in the water matching the forces applied to the water particles by the formations/apertures in the rotation velocity (direction and speed). Additionally, the application’s belt 16 and the prior art ramp's conveyor 54 are substantially identical and therefore it is understood that both perform the same when operated in water.) when used to help draw a casualty up the recovery ramp, wherein the current urges a casualty in the water towards the recovery ramp (inherent characteristic; Examiner Rationale: Continued from above: The direction of the current is based on the rotation velocity (direction and speed) of the formations/apertures as they impact on the water particles. As both the application’s belt 16 and the prior art ramp's conveyor 54 rotate in the direction to bring a casualty up the ramp (i.e. the same direction) it is understood that both perform the same when operated in water.).
Regarding claim 30, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein the material of the conveyor means is advantageously tacky or otherwise has an enhanced frictional surface (See at least: para. [0071] “The material of the ramp is advantageously tacky or otherwise has an enhanced frictional surface, which avoids the need for grips and potential snagging points.”).
Regarding claim 39, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses wherein the recovery ramp is configured to be fitted to a boat such that in the deployed position the ramp is amidships (See at least: figs. 2-3 where amidships is defined as to the middle of the ship either longitudinally or laterally and where the figures show the boarding assistance ramp 18 in the middle longitudinally.).
Regarding claim 46, Mayall discloses all the limitations of any preceding claim (See at least: claims 1-3, 22, 26-27, 29-30 and 39) as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses A method of recovering a man-over-board using a boat fitted with the man-over-board recovery ramp of any preceding claim (See at least: rejections for claims 1-3, 22, 26-27, 29-30 and 39 above), the method comprising: pivoting the first conveyor section around the pivot axis from the stowed position (See at least: fig. 5 and para. [0072] “It is pivoted about the front shaft, allowing the back to be raised into which it is parallel with the aft deck portion 11…”) to the deployed position (See at least: fig. 6 and para. [0072] “It is pivoted about the front shaft… a deployed position in which the back end including the back shaft 53 is below water.); and drawing the man-over-board up the ramp using the conveyor means (See at least: para. [0057] “…whereby all lifting {of survivors} must be by the ramp conveyor.”).
Regarding claim 49, Mayall discloses a method of manufacturing a man-over-board recovery ramp (boarding assistance ramp 18; See at least: figs. 2 or 4) for fitting to a boat (unmanned lifeboat 1, See at least: fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing a mounting (bell-crank 57 mechanism and hydraulic actuator 56: See at least: figs. 5-6) adapted to be fitted to the boat (See at least: figs. 1-3 and 5-6), the mounting defining a pivot axis(unlabeled axis/point where engaging one arm 572 connects to the boarding assistance ramp 18; See at least figs. 5-6 which the two views in combination show the pivot action about the unlabeled axis);
connecting a first conveyor section (frame 51, front and back shafts 52,53, ramp's conveyor 54, sideways opening channels 55; See at least: figs. 5-6 and para [0072]) having a proximal end (unlabeled end side containing front shaft 52; See at least: figs. 5-6) and a distal end (unlabeled end side containing back shaft 53; See at least: figs. 5-6) to the mounting such that the first conveyor section is arranged to pivot around the pivot axis (See at least: figs. 5-6); and
providing conveyor means (front and back shafts 52,53, ramp's conveyor 54, drive motor and gearbox 25; See at least figs. 4-6 and para. [0057]) on the first conveyor section for drawing a casualty (survivors or casualty; See at least: Abstract for survivors and para. [0007] for casualty) up the ramp (See at least: para. [0057] “…whereby all lifting {of survivors} must be by the ramp conveyor.”).
Regarding claim 51, Mayall discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Mayall discloses A vessel comprising the man-over-board recovery ramp according to claim 1.
Claims 1-3, 22, 26-27, 29-30, 39, 46, 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mayall (WO 2019158904 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 22, 26-27, 29-30, 39, 46, 49 and 51, Mayall discloses the claimed features as provided above using the prior art of Mayall (US 20210229784 A1). Where Mayall (WO 2019158904 A1) and Mayall (US 20210229784 A1) are essentially the same in content having different priority dates. Therefore, the listed claims are rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied above 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 13, 15, 18, 21, 38, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kern (US 20080202405 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kern discloses a man-over-board recovery ramp (launch/recovery device 10; See at least: fig. 1) for fitting to a boat (a vessel or host ship 5; See at least: fig. 1), comprising:
a mounting (hinged connector 15: See at least: para. [0049]) adapted to be fitted to the boat (See at least: fig. 1), the mounting defining a pivot axis (See at least: Fig. 1 which has unlabeled axis near where launch/recovery device 10 meets the waterline and para [0049] “The vessel 5 includes a launch/recovery device 10 that can pivot through means of a hinged connector 15 to provide a plurality of different launching or recovery positions. For example, the launch/recovery device 10 can be positioned through an adjustment of connector 15 to launch or recover a surface water vehicle 20 as represented by position A. In addition, through further adjustment of connector 15, the launch/recovery device 10 can be angled to position B to recover an underwater vehicle 25.”);
a first conveyor section (launch/recovery device 10 or launch/recovery device 210; See at least: figs. 1 or 5 and para [0058] for discussion on launch/recovery device 210) connected to the mounting and arranged to pivot around the pivot axis (See at least: fig. 1); and
conveyor means (wet-traction members 255, trolleys 300, cable or belt 260 and gearmotor 277; See at least: fig. 5 and para [0058] “the ropes 295 are translated in the launch direction 70 or in the recovery direction 75 through the movement of the trolleys 300 pulled by the cable or belt 260, driven by a wheel 270 rotated by gearmotor 277 or by other means (e.g., manually)…” and para [0059]“The ropes 295 in combination with a wet-traction outer layer 290, together form the wet-traction members 255…”) on the first conveyor section for drawing a man- over-board up the ramp (Para [0014] “method of recovering a water vehicle from a body of water. The method includes positioning a ramp extended from a hull of a recovery vessel at an incline of about 0 degrees to about 40 degrees (e.g., about 5 to 35 degrees; about 10 to about 35 degrees for an underwater marine vehicle; about 5 to about 25 degrees for a surface marine vehicle), the ramp including a plurality of spaced traction members; lowering a portion of the ramp into the body of water; and supplying power to the plurality of spaced traction members to lift the water vehicle from the body of water. In certain embodiments, the water vehicle is lifted from the water without the use of a tow line (e.g., a tether). In other embodiments, a tether is attached as a security measure, but the water vehicle is lifted by the plurality of spaced traction members.” {Examiner note: this is being interpreted as capable as supporting and drawing a person. The examiner understands this prior art is for a marine vehicle, which may have people onboard, however it is capable of performing the same to recover a person from the water and therefore is not limited to only to marine vehicles.}).
Regarding claim 2, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the recovery ramp is arranged to pivot around the pivot axis to a deployed position (Position A or Position B; See at least: Fig. 1 and para [0049] “…the launch/recovery device 10 can be positioned through an adjustment of connector 15 to launch or recover a surface water vehicle 20 as represented by position A. In addition, through further adjustment of connector 15, the launch/recovery device 10 can be angled to position B to recover an underwater vehicle 25. In some embodiments, a depth adjusting or support cable 16 from the host ship 5 or a flotation device 28 is used to control and/or secure the position and angle of the device 10.”).
Regarding claim 9, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the recovery ramp is arranged to pivot to the deployed position and/or from the stowed position under the effect of gravity(See at least: Fig. 1 and para. [0010] “the ramp further includes support cables that extend from the host ship to the ramp or from the floatation devices to the aft portion of the ramp. These support cables are used to control the depth of the aft portion of the ramp in the water (i.e., control an angle of deployment of the ramp).” Where best understood by the Examiner the support cables would control the fall of the weight/mass of the ramp and therefore as the object has weight/mass would be interpreted as “under the effect of gravity”.).
Regarding claim 10, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses comprising a winch (depth adjusting or support cables 16; See at least fig. 1 and para [0049] “…a depth adjusting or support cable 16 from the host ship 5 or a flotation device 28 is used to control and/or secure the position and angle of the device 10…” where the depth adjusting or support cables are interpreted to be a mechanical device used to pull up or let down tension of a rope or cable, which is a definition of a winch.) that is arranged to control the recovery ramp as it pivots to the deployed position (See at least: fig. 1) and/or from the stowed position (Examiner notes: while the stowed position is not depicted, Fig. 1 and the movement discussed in the specification: a person skilled in the art would derive that the ramp 10 would pivot as cable 16 is drawn into the boat 5 and the stowed position is when the ramp is stopped close to the boat 5 and relatively vertical as would be shown in the view of fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 2{Examiner interpretation see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above}as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein a distal end (aft portion of the ramp; See at least: fig. 1 where the aft portion is the end in the water and “…two or more floatation devices attached to the aft portion of the ramp…”) of the recovery ramp is provided with buoyancy (floatation devices; See at least para [0010]) arranged to maintain the distal end of the recovery ramp at a predetermined depth (See at least: para [0010]) “…two or more floatation devices attached to the aft portion of the ramp for controlling the angle of deployment or depth relative to the water surface. The floatation devices reduce lift of a lower end of the ramp relative to waves and heave motion of the vessel. In addition, the floatation devices provide a reduction in relative heave of the aft end of the ramp relative to the water's surface in the ship's wake. The floatation devices allow the ramp to take on a pitch angle depending on the ship's motion and thus allowing the ramp to maintain its aft end at a desired depth under the water's surface. In certain embodiments, the floatation devices enhance the yaw motion of the ramp to allow the ramp to follow the side to side motion of the wake, and act as guides to provide guiding forces directing the surface vehicle to the ramp.)in the water in the deployed position.
Regarding claim 15, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the ramp comprises isolation means (hinged or pivotable connector; support cables and/or floatation devices; See at least para [0010] and fig. 1) for isolating motion of a distal end (aft portion of the ramp; See at least: fig. 1 where the aft portion is the end in the water and “…two or more floatation devices attached to the aft portion of the ramp…support cables are used to control the depth of the aft portion of the ramp in the water…”) of the recovery ramp from motion of the boat (heave motion; See at least para [0010] and fig. 1two or more floatation devices attached to the aft portion of the ramp for controlling the angle of deployment or depth relative to the water surface. The floatation devices reduce lift of a lower end of the ramp relative to waves and heave motion of the vessel. In addition, the floatation devices provide a reduction in relative heave of the aft end of the ramp relative to the water's surface in the ship's wake. The floatation devices allow the ramp to take on a pitch angle depending on the ship's motion and thus allowing the ramp to maintain its aft end at a desired depth under the water's surface. In certain embodiments, the floatation devices enhance the yaw motion of the ramp to allow the ramp to follow the side to side motion of the wake, and act as guides to provide guiding forces directing the surface vehicle to the ramp. In one embodiment, the ramp further includes support cables that extend from the host ship to the ramp or from the floatation devices to the aft portion of the ramp. These support cables are used to control the depth of the aft portion of the ramp in the water (i.e., control an angle of deployment of the ramp).”) to which the ramp is to be fitted, optionally wherein the means for isolating motion comprises one or more floatation devices attached to or forming part of the recovery ramp and configured to support the distal end of the recovery ramp in the water.
Regarding claim 18, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the isolation means comprises a coupling (hinged or pivotable connector; See at least: fig. 1 and para [0010] “The water vehicle launch and recovery device also includes a hinged or pivotable connector (e.g., a dual, two axis pivotable connector, or a three axis, possibly spherical connector) for attaching the forward portion of the ramp to a vessel used in a launch or recovery process…”) connecting the mounting and the first conveyor section and/or a coupling configured to connect the mounting and the boat, the coupling(s) permitting relative movement between the recovery ramp and the mounting and/or configured to permit relative movement between the mounting and the boat (Examiner notes: The pivotable connector along with the flotation devices would permit the ramp to move in the combinations as discussed in para [0010] and was cited above in the claim 15 rejection. Where a person skilled in the art would connect the pivotable connector to join the boat and ramp for allowing the movement discussed in para. [0010].).
Regarding claim 21, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the recovery ramp is configured be retrofitted to an existing boat (the prior art of Kern is not limited to the construction, repair or overhaul phase of the boat).
Regarding claim 38, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the mounting is configured to be fitted with the pivot athwart-ship (along side ; See at least: para [0072] “…it may be desired to locate the launch/recovery device 10, 210, or 410 on the front of a vessel such as a catamaran or along side a vessel. One advantage to placing the launch/recovery device 10, 210 or 410 on the front of the vessel instead of the stern of the vessel in the case of capturing a non-active water vehicle or a stern of a boat”).at the stern (stern of the vessel; See at least: fig. 1 and para [0072]) of the boat or at the bow (the front of the vessel ; See at least: fig. 1 and para [0072]) of the boat.
Regarding claim 44, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein a proximal end (forward portion of the ramp; See at least: para. [0010] “The water vehicle launch and recovery device also includes a hinged or pivotable connector (e.g., a dual, two axis pivotable connector, or a three axis, possibly spherical connector) for attaching the forward portion of the ramp to a vessel used in a launch or recovery process, and two or more floatation devices attached to the aft portion of the ramp for controlling the angle of deployment or depth relative to the water surface.) of the first conveyor section comprises a shaft and wherein the mounting comprises two plumber blocks through which the shaft runs (hinged connector 15, See at least: para [0049] “The vessel 5 includes a launch/recovery device 10 that can pivot through means of a hinged connector 15 to provide a plurality of different launching or recovery positions…” and fig. 1 where the Applicant’s structure of “a shaft” and “two plumber blocks” is describing a hinge mechanism. The prior art is not limiting on the type of hinge mechanism used in this location.).
Regarding claim 45, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the mounting is configured to be fitted to a transom, a gunwale, a deck, a bow (front of the vessel; See at least: para [0072] “…it may be desired to locate the launch/recovery device 10, 210, or 410 on the front of a vessel such as a catamaran or along side a vessel. One advantage to placing the launch/recovery device 10, 210 or 410 on the front of the vessel instead of the stern of the vessel in the case of capturing a non-active water vehicle or a stern of a boat”).or a stern (stern; See at least: fig. 1) of a boat (vessel, catamaran See at least: para. [0072]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (US 20080202405 A1) in view of Frankel (US 3596623 A).
Regarding claim 53, Kern discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kern discloses wherein the first conveyor section has a proximal end (See at least: fig. 1 the launch/recovery device 10 side facing forward or towards the boat 5) and a distal end (See at least: fig. 1 the launch/recovery device 10 side facing aft or away from the boat 5), the first conveyor section is pivotally attached to the mounting at the pivot axis at a proximal end of the first conveyor section (See at least; fig. 1), and wherein the man-over-board recovery ramp comprises:
However, Kern does not disclose a second conveyor section…
Frankel in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a second conveyor section (platform 24 with conveyor device 56; See at least fig. 5) pivotally attached to the first conveyor section (basic ramp 14 with conveyor device 56; See at least fig. 5) about a second pivot axis (See at least: figs. 1-2 where an unlabeled axis is centerline of forward chambers 16 best shown in fig. 2, col. 2 lines 69-74 “…The apparatus includes a basic or simple partially floatable ramp portion 14 which has one end pivotally secured to the ship 12 and its other end pivotally supported by a pair of forward floating chambers or pontoons…” and col. 3 lines14-18 “While the platform 24 and basic ramp 14 have been shown as pivoting separately about the forward flotation chambers 16, it should be understood that the platform 24 could be pivotally secured to the end of the basic ramp 14 and this assemblage pivotally secured to the chamber 16.”) at the distal end (basic ramp 14 with conveyor device 56 end that faces platform 24 with conveyor device 56; See at least fig. 5) of the first conveyor section and a proximal end (platform 24 with conveyor device 56 end that faces basic ramp 14 with conveyor device 56; See at least fig. 5) of the second conveyor section, whereby the conveyor sections (platform 24 with conveyor device 56 and basic ramp 14 with conveyor device 56; See at least fig. 5) can lie close to each other when not deployed (See at least: fig. 7 and col. 2 lines 64-67 “FIG. 7 is a side elevational view of a portion of the large ship and the improved apparatus of the present invention shown in retracted or stored position and forming part of the shell of the ship.”);
means for restricting angular movement (forward flotation chambers 16; See at least figs. 1-2 and 5 along with col. 2 lines 69-74 “…The apparatus includes a basic or simple partially floatable ramp portion 14 which has one end pivotally secured to the ship 12 and its other end pivotally supported by a pair of forward floating chambers or pontoons…” and col. 3 lines14-18 “While the platform 24 and basic ramp 14 have been shown as pivoting separately about the forward flotation chambers 16, it should be understood that the platform 24 could be pivotally secured to the end of the basic ramp 14 and this assemblage pivotally secured to the chamber 16.”) of the conveyor sections away from lying close to each other to relative orientations wherein they extend away from each other (See at least figs. 1-2 and 5);
means (a plurality of cables 20, associated idlers 22, hydraulic, activated, pneumatic, or electromagnetic devices for raising and lowering; See at least: figs. 1-2 and 7 and col. 3 lines 2-7 “…a plurality of cables 20 and associated idlers 22 which function to raise and lower the ramp 14. While cables and attachments are shown, hydraulic, activated, pneumatic, or electromagnetic devices for raising and lowering the ramp 14 can also be used without varying from the scope of the invention…”) for normally stowing the conveyor sections lying close to each other and extending upwards of the mounting (conventional fashion or flanges and pins See at least fig. 1 and col. 2 lines 74-75 and col. 3 lines 1-2 “…the simple ramp 14 is shown secured to the stern of the ship 12 in a conventional fashion such as by flanges and pins as shown at 18…”) and for releasing them (See at least: figs. 1-2 and 7 and col. 3 lines 2-7 “which function to raise and lower the ramp 14”) for deployment to a position in which the first conveyor section slopes downwards from the mounting and the second conveyor section extends away from the first (See at least: figs. 1-2, 5 and 7); and
wherein the conveyor means (See at least: fig. 5 and col. 4 lines 12-18 “a possible conveyor device 56, incorporated into the upper surface of the basic ramp 14 and platform 24. This type of device would be driven by a conventional drive system (not shown) such as a belt or chain drive and would be used to automatically move cargo or the small ship into the larger ship.”) on the first conveyor section and a conveyor means (See at least: fig. 5 and col. 4 lines 12-18 “a possible conveyor device 56, incorporated into the upper surface of the basic ramp 14 and platform 24. This type of device would be driven by a conventional drive system (not shown) such as a belt or chain drive and would be used to automatically move cargo or the small ship into the larger ship.”) provided on the second conveyor section are suitable for drawing a casualty up the ramp (Cargo; See at least: fig. 5 and col. 4 lines 12-18 {Examiner note: this is being interpreted as capable as supporting and drawing a person. The examiner understands this prior art is for moving cargo between ships, however it is capable of supporting and moving a pallet of cargo and therefore also capable to supporting and drawing a person.}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the launch/recovery device 10 of Kern with the double-hinged flotation ramp design of Frankel with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of limiting impact forces and creating a ramp that is synchronized in phase movement when bring a smaller watercraft/ship onto a larger ship (See at least: Frankel col. 1 lines 39-56 “…the detrimental consequences of such impact forces could be avoided, and a ship could beach smoothly with a floating dock or other similar apparatus, such as a loading ramp, provided that such apparatus is decoupled from the ship. This means to say that the loading ramp must be free-floating, i.e., free to move vertically with the waves or under their impact, independently from the structure to which it is attached, particularly when the marine structure is either a large vessel or a stationary dock. In the present invention, this free-floating condition is accomplished by using two ramp structures which are interconnected by a hinge mechanism, with one end of one of the ramp structures being connectable, also by a hinge mechanism, to the marine structure which is a stationary dock or a large vessel. It can be seen that with such double-hinged ramp structure the ramp structure not coupled to the marine structure can be maintained free-floating by buoyancy means of conventional nature…” and col. 2 lines 57-60 “FIG. 5 is a side elevational drawing of a small amphibious ship engaging the apparatus of the present invention illustrating the synchronized in phase movement established between the small ship and the flotation platform of the apparatus.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…wherein the first conveyor section is slidably connected to the mounting or wherein the mounting is configured to be slidably connected to the boat such that the recovery ramp is slidable into a stowed position…”. The closest prior art for this feature is found in the field of agricultural harvesters and is shown in the NPL of DRW-81D. The Examiner considered how a boat for cleaning weeds would be combined with a boat for rescuing people and has determined there is no obvious reason to combine the prior art of the harvester into a rescue device. See below for images from the NPL of DRW-81D.
PNG
media_image1.png
896
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…wherein a distal end of the recovery ramp is provided with ballast arranged to maintain the distal end of the recovery ramp at a predetermined depth in the water in the deployed position…”. The Examiner found no mention of ballast, weight, lead or sandbags in the prior art. From the searches performed, the Examiner found more art on floatation and buoyancy, to where the structure of prior art is already known to be heavy enough to sink or position into the water where additional ballast is not required. Therefore, the Applicant’s invention is designed light enough where it requires additional ballast to position in the water and where the additional structure of “ballast” is the novel feature.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Newman et al. (US 20100147782 A1) in the art of agricultural harvesters teaches an apparatus for extracting a material from a body of liquid (See at least: fig. 1).
Walczyk (US 20060065586 A1) teaches a trash skimmer work boat collects and discharges debris from the front or bow which has slide means (See at least: claim 1).
Karafiath et al. (US 9376175 B1) teaches an apparatus for transferring assets to and from a water vessel (See at least: fig. 2A).
Dredgers of Ukraine Water harvester DRW-81D Datasheet [online]., dredgers.com.ua 2021 [archived on 2021-01-16]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20210116061702/https:/ /dredgers.com.ua/en/water-harvester/ >.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615