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 422 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Mayrand does not disclose a hidden compartment. However, Mayrand clearly discloses a hidden compartment 422.
Applicant further alleges that the combination of features of Mayrand and Zimmerman to add a leg rest to the seat assembly of Mayrand would not have been obvious because Zimmerman is drawn to a fishing chair. However, to the contrary, fishing from the stern of a watercraft is well known. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been familiar with various watercraft chairs and chairs in general. Such a person would have known that boaters often fish from the stern area of watercraft and would have found the addition of a leg rest as taught by Zimmerman would have been obvious when combined with the seating assembly of Mayrand.
Applicant has not separately argued against the Franklin combination so that rejection is deemed to be proper.
The terminal disclaimer filed by Applicant has overcome the double patenting rejections.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Marc Q. Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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
Prosecution Insights