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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp US 2017/0202208 in view of Dicken US 9,572,339, and alternatively also in view of Propp US 2,814,146 or McCabe US 2,709,316.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Beauchamp discloses a waterfowl decoy deployment system comprising:
a hub assembly 102 defining a longitudinal axis 311, the hub assembly comprising:
a central hub 110;
a base 122, 128 coupled to the central hub, the base and central hub at least partially defining an interior cavity of the central hub; and
a motor assembly 306, 310 attached to the base, the motor assembly including
a motor housing 318,
a drive shaft 320, and
a propeller 322 coupled to the drive shaft, the drive shaft being rotatable about a rotational axis to propel the hub assembly in a linear direction in an aqueous environment; and
a plurality of arms 104 coupled to the central hub such that the plurality of arms extends radially outward from the central hub, wherein the propeller is laterally offset from the base (see Beauchamp figure 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Beauchamp Figure 3
Beauchamp does not teach that at least a portion of the motor housing is positioned to be longitudinally overlapped with the base. Dicken teaches a waterfowl decoy system 70 in which at least a portion of a motor housing 80 is positioned to be longitudinally overlapped with a base 72 and the propeller 82 is laterally offset from the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the waterfowl decoy system of Beauchamp with a single central motor as taught by Dickens in order to simplify the system to make it less expensive or enable the system to have the desired motion characteristics.
PNG
media_image2.png
284
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Dicken Figure 6
Neither Beauchamp nor Dicken teach specifically teach that the propeller is positioned radially outwards from an outer boundary of the base. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the propeller shaft long enough that the propeller is positioned radially outwards from an outer boundary of the base in order to allow the propeller to operate in less disturbed water or be observed from above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Alternatively, Propp teaches a waterfowl decoy deployment system which comprises a base 10, a motor assembly 35 attached to the base, the motor assembly including a motor housing, a drive shaft 44, and a propeller 46 coupled to the drive shaft, the drive shaft being rotatable about a rotational axis to propel the decoy in a linear direction in an aqueous environment; wherein at least a portion of the motor housing is positioned to be longitudinally overlapped with the base and the propeller is positioned radially outwards from an outer boundary of the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the waterfowl decoy system of Beauchamp with drive shaft long enough that the propeller is positioned radially outwards from an outer boundary of the base as taught by Propp in order to allow the propeller to operate in less disturbed water or be observed from above.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
475
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Propp Figure 2
Alternatively, McCabe teaches a hunting buoy comprising a base 15, a motor assembly 27 attached to the base, the motor assembly including a motor housing, a drive shaft 28, and a propeller 29 coupled to the drive shaft, the drive shaft being rotatable about a rotational axis to propel the decoy in a linear direction in an aqueous environment; wherein at least a portion of the motor housing is positioned to be longitudinally overlapped with the base and the propeller is positioned radially outwards from an outer boundary of the base. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the waterfowl decoy system of Beauchamp with drive shaft long enough that the propeller is positioned radially outwards from an outer boundary of the base as taught by McCabe in order to allow the propeller to operate in less disturbed water or be observed from above.
PNG
media_image4.png
201
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- McCabe Figure 2
Specifically regarding claim 16, The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of assembling the combination.
Regarding claims 2, 17 and 20, Beauchamp and Dicken together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 16. As modified, Dicken also teaches that the motor assembly 80 is positioned relative to the base 72 such that the rotational axis is perpendicular to and intersects the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Beauchamp and Dicken together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 16. Beauchamp also teaches that the base 122, 128 includes an inner surface at least partially defining the interior cavity and an opposed outer surface, wherein the motor assembly 306, 310 is attached to the base on the outer surface.
Regarding claim 14, Beauchamp and Dicken together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Beauchamp as modified also teaches a bracket attaching the motor assembly 306, 310 to the base 128, the bracket comprising an outer clamp 326, an inner clamp 302, and a fastener (whatever is attaching outer clamp 326), the outer clamp and inner clamp defining a cavity therein sized to receive at least a portion of the motor assembly. Note that as modified (to have one central motor) the motor bracket would be attached directly to the base.
If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to attach the motor bracket directly to the base in order to eliminate the need for additional parts and reduce complexity, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Beauchamp does not explicitly teach the fastener extending through the outer clamp, the inner clamp, and the base, however examiner is taking official notice that a through bolt with a nut is a well-known way to secure a bracket to a plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bracket attachment of Beauchamp with a fastener passing through the outer clamp, the inner clamp, and the base in order to utilize common components and make replacement of parts easier.
Claims 4-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp US 2017/0202208 in view of Dicken US 9,572,339 and Blaha US 2016/0120168, and alternatively also in view of Propp US 2,814,146 or McCabe US 2,709,316.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Beauchamp and Dicken together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 16. Beauchamp also teaches that the hub assembly further comprises:
a shaft coupled to the base 122 and extending longitudinally therefrom; and
a cap 116 coupled to a shaft, wherein the cap and the base are positioned at opposed longitudinal ends of the hub assembly 102.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 5- Blaha Figure 2A)]
PNG
media_image5.png
200
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Beauchamp does not teach that the same central shaft is coupled to both the base and extends through the hub assembly. Blaha teaches an animal attracting system in which the housing comprises: a central shaft 60 coupled to a base 30 and extending longitudinally therefrom; and a cap 20 coupled to the central shaft, wherein the cap and the base are positioned at opposed longitudinal ends of the housing assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hub assembly of Beauchamp with a central shaft attached to the bottom and top as taught by Blaha in order to reduce part count and provide a stronger connection.
Regarding claim 5, Beauchamp, Dicken and Blaha together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Blaha also teaches that the central shaft 60 is a threaded shaft [0026] and wherein the housing assembly further comprises a fastener 22 that engages the threaded shaft to urge the cap 20 into contact with the base 30. As modified, the fastener will urge the cap 16 into contact with the central hub 102.
Regarding claim 6, Beauchamp, Dicken and Blaha together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. As taught, the cap is positioned longitudinally between the fastener and the central hub.
Regarding claim 7, Beauchamp, Dicken and Blaha together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Beauchamp also teaches that the cap 16 comprises a first tapered surface that tapers laterally outward in a longitudinal direction extending away from the base (see Beauchamp figure 3). If applicant disagrees, then it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the cap tapered or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to ease the alignment with other components. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 8, Beauchamp, Dicken and Blaha together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Beauchamp does not teach that the base 122 comprises a second tapered surface that tapers laterally inward in the longitudinal direction, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the base tapered or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to ease the alignment with other components. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 9, Beauchamp, Dicken and Blaha together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Beauchamp does not teach that the central hub 102 comprises a third tapered surface that is configured to contact the second tapered surface of the base 122, the third tapered surface being tapered in correspondence with the second tapered surface., however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the hub and base correspondingly tapered or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to ease the alignment with other components. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 10, Beauchamp, Dicken and Blaha together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. As modified, the first tapered surface extends around a circumferential periphery of the cap, the second tapered surface extends around a circumferential periphery of the base, and the third tapered surface extends around circumferential periphery of the central hub.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp US 2017/0202208 in view of Dicken US 9,572,339 and Dietz US 2021/0120807, and alternatively also in view of Propp US 2,814,146 or McCabe US 2,709,316.
Regarding claim 11, Beauchamp and Dicken together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Beauchamp does not teach that the central hub includes an outer body portion and a sealing body, the sealing body being positioned on a radially interior surface of the outer body portion, the outer body portion having a structural rigidity that is greater than the sealing body.
Dietz teaches a water decoy system in which connections 302 comprise a tapered top 344 and bottom 346 with multiple sealing bodies (o-rings in grooves 358, 360). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hub to base and/or cap connections of Beauchamp with tapered walls and sealing bodies as taught by Dietz in order to add an additional restricting force to prevent separation of the components [0068]. As modified, the sealing body (o-rings) are positioned on a radially interior surface of the outer body portion, and the outer body portion has a structural rigidity that is greater than the sealing body.
Regarding claim 13, Beauchamp, Dicken and Dietz together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Beauchamp also teaches that the outer body portion defines a plurality of apertures 112 positioned in correspondence to facilitate inserting a spring connector 114 through the central hub 102 and at least partially into the interior cavity. As modified, the sealing bodies would also at least partially define apertures.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchamp US 2017/0202208 in view of Dicken US 9,572,339, Dietz US 2021/0120807 and Blaha US 2016/0120168, and alternatively also in view of Propp US 2,814,146 or McCabe US 2,709,316.
Regarding claim 12, Beauchamp, Dicken and Dietz together, or alternatively in view of Propp or McCabe, teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Beauchamp also teaches that the hub assembly further comprises:
a shaft coupled to the base 122 and extending longitudinally therefrom; and
a cap 116 coupled to a shaft, and wherein the inner surface, the hub, and the cap collectively define the interior cavity.
Beauchamp does not teach that the same central shaft is coupled to both the base and extends through the hub assembly. Blaha teaches an animal attracting system in which the housing comprises: a central shaft 60 coupled to a base 30 and extending longitudinally therefrom; and a cap 20 coupled to the central shaft, wherein the cap and the base are positioned at opposed longitudinal ends of the housing assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the hub assembly of Beauchamp with a central shaft attached to the bottom and top as taught by Blaha in order to reduce part count and provide a stronger connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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 Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights