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 .
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)(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) 34-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Mayrand et al (US 2010/0319604; cited by Applicant). With respect to claim 34, Mayrand et al disclose the claimed boat 1 with a hull (Figure 1) including a bow, a transom, port and starboard sides, a seat support structure having at least one hidden compartment therein, a seat supported by the seat support structure (Figure 4), the seat including a seat bottom 212, 512 movable between a first position and a second position (Figures 4, 6, 12), the second position being a position in which the seat bottom allows access (Figures 6, 12) to the compartment and a leg rest 514 extending in a direction away from the seat bottom. With respect to claims 35-40, note Mayrand et al, Figures 1, 4, 6, 12.
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) 21-24 and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayrand et al (US 2010/0319604; cited by Applicant) in view of Zimmerman et al (US 5795017; cited by Applicant). With respect to claim 21, Mayrand et al disclose the claimed boat 1 with a hull (Figure 1) including a bow, a transom, port and starboard sides, a seat support structure having at least one hidden compartment therein, a seat supported by the seat support structure (Figure 4), the seat including a seat bottom 212, 512 movable between a first position and a second position (Figures 4, 6, 12), the second position being a position in which the seat bottom allows access (Figures 6, 12) to the compartment and a leg rest 514 extending in a direction away from the seat bottom. Not disclosed by Mayrand et al is a leg rest with a surface gap such that the distal end is not supported below the leg rest. Zimmerman et al teach a leg rest with a surface gap such that the distal end is not supported below the leg rest (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Mayrand et al with the leg rest with a surface gap such that the distal end is not supported below the leg rest as taught by Zimmerman et al with a high likelihood of success for improved comfort, increased reliability and durability. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. With respect to claims 22-24 and 26-33, note Mayrand et al, Figures 1, 4, 6, 12.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayrand et al (US 2010/0319604; cited by Applicant) in view of Zimmerman et al (US 5795017; cited by Applicant), as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Franklin (US 4085473; cited by Applicant). With respect to claim 25, not disclosed by Mayrand et al is the leg rest extending aft of the transom. Franklin teaches an aft boat seat that extends aft of the boat transom (Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Mayrand et al with the boat seat extending aft of the transom as taught by Franklin with a high likelihood of success for improved fishing. Note if the seat is aft of the transom the leg rest would inherently be aft of the transom. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10336411 or claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 9650117 or claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10604217 in view of Mayrand et al (US 2010/0319604; cited by Applicant) and Zimmerman et al (US 5795017). Not disclosed by the patents are leg rest having an upper portion and a lower end, with the leg rest being supported at the upper portion and having a length such that gap is present between the lower end of the leg rest and a surface beneath the leg rest. Mayrand et al teach a boat including a seat with a leg rest 514, the leg rest extending in a direction that is at a downward angle relative to the seat bottom. Zimmerman et al teach a boat (column 1, lines 10-15), a seat 54 including a leg rest 60, 62, the leg rest extending in a direction that is at a downward angle relative to the seat bottom, the leg rest having a length such that a gap is present between the leg rest and surface beneath the leg rest. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Gratz et al with a leg rest having an upper portion and a lower end, with the leg rest being supported at the upper portion including sliding for retraction as taught by Mayrand et al for improved user comfort and leg rest storage and having a length such that gap is present between the lower end of the leg rest and a surface beneath the leg rest and with the leg rest at an oblique angle and being pivoted as taught by Zimmerman et al for improved user comfort.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11673626. The claims are encompassed by the patented claims.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending U.S. Patent No. 12312049. in view of Mayrand et al (US 2010/0319604; cited by Applicant) and Zimmerman et al (US 5795017). Not disclosed by the patents are leg rest having an upper portion and a lower end, with the leg rest being supported at the upper portion and having a length such that gap is present between the lower end of the leg rest and a surface beneath the leg rest. Mayrand et al teach a boat including a seat with a leg rest 514, the leg rest extending in a direction that is at a downward angle relative to the seat bottom. Zimmerman et al teach a boat (column 1, lines 10-15), a seat 54 including a leg rest 60, 62, the leg rest extending in a direction that is at a downward angle relative to the seat bottom, the leg rest having a length such that a gap is present between the leg rest and surface beneath the leg rest. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Gratz et al with a leg rest having an upper portion and a lower end, with the leg rest being supported at the upper portion including sliding for retraction as taught by Mayrand et al for improved user comfort and leg rest storage and having a length such that gap is present between the lower end of the leg rest and a surface beneath the leg rest and with the leg rest at an oblique angle and being pivoted as taught by Zimmerman et al for improved user comfort.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11091230 in view of Zimmerman et al (US 5795017). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the patented device with a leg rest having a length such that gap is present between the lower end of the leg rest and a surface beneath the leg rest and with the leg rest at an oblique angle and being pivoted as taught by Zimmerman et al for improved user comfort. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wainright et al (GB 2379193) shows a boat seat and swim platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615