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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 88-105 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/6/26.
In this case, newly added claims 88-105 recite features of a plate being coupled to at least two rails so as to be slidably adjustable. These features are not a part of elected species D (figures 17-22), and are only shown in non-elected species G (figures 25 and 26) and L (figures 30 and 31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites that “the second support is configured for coupling to the first support in a manner that allows adjustment of a combined height of the first and second supports.” It is unclear if this is a different feature that the “manner that allows adjustment of a combined length of the first and second supports” recited in parent claim 1. For the purposes of this action, they will be assumed to be the same feature.
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 2 is 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. In this case, as parent claim 1 already recites that the combined length is adjustable, claim 2 recites no further limitations. 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 § 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 1-12, 15, 16, 19-38, 106 and 107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missler US 11,685,481 in view of Sommerlatt US 11,345,449.
Regarding claim 1, Missler discloses a mast 10, comprising:
a first support 10a configured for coupling to one of a foiling platform 12 and a foiling assembly; and
a second support 10b configured for coupling to the other of the foiling platform and the foiling assembly 14 and for coupling to the first support in a manner that allows adjustment of a combined length of the first and second supports (column 8, lines 6-24).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Missler Figure 6
Missler does not teach a plate configured for attaching one of the first or second supports to the foiling platform in a manner allowing adjustment of a position of the intercoupled first and second supports relative to the foiling platform. Sommerlatt teaches a mast 2 for a foil board comprising a plate 7 disposed at the top end of the support and configured for coupling to a foiling board in a manner allowing adjustment of a position of the masts relative to the foiling platform (both by tightness of fasteners, and complete removal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mast of Missler with a mounting plate as taught by Sommerlatt in order to provide a secure means of fastening the mast to a board.
PNG
media_image2.png
271
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Sommerlatt Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler also teaches that the second support 10b is configured for coupling to the first support 10a in a manner allowing adjustment of a combined height of the first and second supports (column 8, lines 6-24).
Regarding claim 3, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler also teaches that the first support 10a includes at least one first hole; the second support 10b includes at least one second hole configured for alignment with the at least one first hole; and while aligned, the at least one first hole and at least one second hole are configured to receive at least one fastener (column 8, lines 25-44).
Regarding claim 4, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler also teaches that the first 10a and second 10b supports are configured to slide relative to each other (column 8, lines 6-24).
Regarding claim 5, Missler discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler also discloses that one of the first support 10a or the second support 10b is configured to slide inside of the other of the first support or the second support (column 8, lines 6-24).
Regarding claim 6, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler also teaches that the first 10a and second 10b supports are configured to allow adjustment of the combined length of the first and second supports by allowing sliding of the first and second supports relative to each other (column 8, lines 6-24).
Regarding claim 7, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler also teaches that the first 10a and second 10b supports are configured to allow adjustment of the combined length of the first and second supports by allowing sliding of one of the first or second supports inside of the other of the first or second supports (column 8, lines 6-24).
Regarding claims 8-12, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler and Sommerlatt also teach that the plate is configured for attaching the one of the first 10a and second 10b supports is configured for coupling to a foiling platform 12 at any location a platform can accept. Note that the platform is not claimed, therefore as long as the unclaimed platform has a mating connection feature in the recited location, the mast as disclosed by Missler could be coupled there.
In an alternate interpretation, Missler does not teach that the supports are configured to be coupled to the foiling platform at a location other that between a middle section and a rear section of the foiling platform. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to couple the mast to the board wherever it was desired in order to account for the desired weight distribution and/or type of board, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler also teaches that at least one of the first support 10a and the second support 10b is configured to extend approximately normal to a foiling platform 12.
Regarding claim 16, Missler discloses a mast 10, comprising:
a female support 10a having a first end configured for coupling to one of a foiling platform 12 and a foiling assembly and a having second end having an opening; and
a male support 10b having a first end configured for coupling to the other of the foiling platform and the foiling assembly 14 and the having a second end configured for extending into the opening of the female support an adjustable distance (column 8, lines 6-24).
Missler does not teach a flange configured for coupling the first end of one of the female or male supports to the foiling platform in a manner allowing adjusting a location of the first end of one of the female or male supports relative to the foiling platform. Sommerlatt teaches a mast 2 for a foil board comprising a flange 7 disposed at the top end of the support and configured for coupling to a foiling board in a manner allowing adjustment of a position of the masts relative to the foiling platform (both by tightness of fasteners, and complete removal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mast of Missler with a mounting plate as taught by Sommerlatt in order to provide a secure means of fastening the mast to a board.
Regarding claim 17, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Sommerlatt also teaches that the flange 7 is configured for coupling the first end of the mast 2 to the foiling platform.
Regarding claim 18, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Missler does not teach details of the male support to foiling assembly connection. Sommerlatt teaches a mast 2 for a foil board comprising a nipple 13 disposed at the bottom end of the support and configured for coupling to a foiling assembly 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mast of Missler with a mounting nipple and recess as taught by Sommerlatt in order to provide a secure means of fastening the mast to the foiling assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Missler also teaches that the female support 10a includes at least one female hole; the male support 10b includes at least one male hole configured for alignment with the at least one female hole; and the aligned at least one female hole and at least one male hole are configured to receive at least one fastener (column 8, lines 25-44).
Regarding claims 20-27, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Missler does not teach shapes of the male and female supports, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the mast profile hydrodynamic or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to reduce drag or obtain the desired flow. 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 28, Missler discloses a kit, comprising:
a first support 10a configured for coupling to one of a foiling platform 12 and a foiling assembly; and
a second support 10b configured for coupling to the other of the foiling platform and the foiling assembly 14 and for coupling to the first support in a manner that allows adjustment of a height between the foiling platform and the foiling assembly (column 8, lines 6-24).
Missler does not teach a plate configured for attaching one of the first or second supports to the foiling platform in a manner allowing adjustment of a position of the intercoupled first and second supports relative to the foiling platform. Sommerlatt teaches a mast 2 for a foil board comprising a plate 7 disposed at the top end of the support and configured for coupling to a foiling board in a manner allowing adjustment of a position of the masts relative to the foiling platform (both by tightness of fasteners, and complete removal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mast of Missler with a mounting plate as taught by Sommerlatt in order to provide a secure means of fastening the mast to a board.
Regarding claim 29, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Missler also teaches that the first support 10a includes at least one first alignment hole and the second support 10b includes at least one second alignment hold; and at least one fastener configured to maintain alignment of at least one first hole with the at least one second hole (column 8, lines 6-24).
Regarding claims 30-32, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Missler teaches that the fastener is a pin, but does not teach a screw, bolt, nut or bushing. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute screws, bolts, nuts or bushings in for the pin in order to ensure retention and/or use fasteners that are common elsewhere on the system, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 33, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Missler also teaches the foiling assembly 14.
Regarding claim 34, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 33. Missler also teaches that the foiling assembly 14 comprises:
a fuselage 20;
a fin 16; and
a stabilizer 18.
PNG
media_image3.png
357
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Missler Figure 1
Regarding claim 35, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 34. Missler does not teach details of the male support to foiling assembly connection. Sommerlatt teaches a foiling assembly 12 in which the fuselage 8 has a receptacle 14 configured for receiving an end of the mast 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mast of Missler with a mounting nipple and recess as taught by Sommerlatt in order to provide a secure means of fastening the mast to the foiling assembly.
Regarding claim 36, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 34. Missler also teaches that the fuselage 20 has a leading end; and the fin 16 is configured for coupling to the fuselage at, or approximately at, the leading end.
Regarding claim 37, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 34. Missler also teaches that the fuselage 20 has a trailing end; and the stabilizer 18 is configured for coupling to the fuselage at, or approximately at, the trailing end.
Regarding claim 38, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Missler also teaches that one of the first 10a and second 10b supports is configured slide within the other of the first and second supports (column 8, lines 6-24).
Regarding claim 106, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Neither Missler nor Sommerlatt explicitly teach that the plate is integral with an end of the one of the first or second supports. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the plate and mast integrally in order to strengthen the device, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claim 107, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Neither Missler nor Sommerlatt explicitly teach that the plate is separate from the first and second supports. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the components separately in order to simplify repair or replacement, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 13, 14 and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missler US 11,685,481 in view of Sommerlatt US 11,345,449 and Giroux US 2023/0382496.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 4- Giroux Figure 8)]
PNG
media_image4.png
122
93
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Missler does not teach that the supports extend away from the platform at an acute or obtuse angle. Giroux teaches a hydrofoil 50 in which the support 52 extends away from the platform 10 at an acute or obtuse angle (depending on how the angle is measured- see Giroux figures 5 and 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mast of Missler to angle forward or backward as taught by Giroux in order to “aid in handling of the watercraft” [0110].
Regarding claims 20-27, Missler and Sommerlatt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Missler does not teach shapes of the male and female supports. Giroux teaches a mast 52 for a hydrofoil, which comprises a rounded/tapered leading edge, a tapered trailing edge, and a tear drop cross section [0113]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mast of Missler with a teardrop cross section as taught by Giroux in order to reduce drag on the mast.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 16 and 28 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.
Regarding the 112 rejections of claim 2, the applicant argues that “a mast’s height can be different from the mast’s length when the mast is slanted” (page 10). The examiner replies that this does not clarify whether the claims are referring to two separate adjustment mechanisms.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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