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 Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “claim” is a typo for clamp. Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“first coupling member“ “second coupling member” “primary release” “secondary release” in claims 1.
“first connecting member” “second connecting member” in claims 3, 14, 15
“securing member” in claim 12
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 § 112b
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 3-20 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 limitation “a first connecting member”(Claims 3-20) “as second connecting member” (Claims 4-20) “securing member” (Claims 12-20. Synonymous with “means for securing”, a nonce defined purely functionally with no generally accepted definition in this context) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The corresponding structure is not addressed in the spec. (These are shown in the drawings, and Applicant may use the drawings for 112a support when amending the description in the spec, but claim scope is defined by and limited to embodiments described in the spec when 112f nonces are used. Alternately including a description of the drawing in the claims ) Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Mulikin (US 20170297658 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mulikin discloses a dock line system for a vessel, comprising: a first coupling member (26); a main body (54); the main body having a ratcheting system (80); the first coupling member selectively attached to the ratcheting system (See Fig 3); a primary release (96); wherein the primary release can be operated to release the first coupling member from the ratcheting system; a second coupling member (24); the second coupling member selectively attached to the main body; a secondary release (62) attached to the main body; wherein the secondary release can be removed thereby separating the second coupling member from the main body (1).
Regarding Claim 2, Mulikin discloses dock line system of claim 1, wherein: the secondary release has a first end and a second end. (See Fig. 3.)
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 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulikin in view of Hancock (US 11813905 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Mulikin discloses the dock line system of claim 2, wherein the secondary release serves as the connection for second coupling member (C4, L24) but does not explicitly disclose: a first connecting member is connected to the first end.
Hancock discloses a secondary release (Element 200, Fig 14) in the form of a locking pin with a first connecting member (206). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to replace the secondary release of Mulikin with the locking pin of Fig 14. of Hancock which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mulikinis to swap out the screw connection for a quick release connection to facilitate disconnection of the second coupling.
Regarding Claim 4, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 3, wherein: a second connecting member is connected to the second end. (Hancock, 208)
Regarding Claim 5, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 4, wherein: the first end is configured to be manipulated by a user pulling the first end; the manipulation of the first end releases the second connecting member from the second end and thereby releases the second coupling member from the main body. (See Hancock Fig. 14)
Regarding Claim 6, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 5, wherein: the first coupling member is a rope. (paragraph 19)
Regarding Claim 7, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 5, wherein: the second coupling member is a rope. (Mulikin paragraph 19)
Regarding Claim 8, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 5, wherein: at least one clamp is attached to the first coupling member; the at least one clamp is configured to allow the first coupling member to form a loop. (Mulikin 32, 42)
Regarding Claim 9, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 8, wherein: at least one clamp is attached to the second coupling member; the at least one claim is configured to allow the second coupling member to form a loop. (Mulikin 32, 42)
Regarding Claim 10, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 5; wherein: the primary release is a lever. (Mulikin Element 93)
Regarding Claim 11, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system of claim 5, wherein: the secondary release is a wire lock pin. (See Hancock Fig 14)
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulikin in view of Hancock (US 11813905 B2) and further in view of Leitzke (US 5784760 A)
Regarding Claim 12, Mulikin in view of Hancock discloses the dock line system for a vessel, comprising: a first coupling member; a main body; the main body having a ratcheting system; the first coupling member selectively attached to the ratcheting system; a primary release; wherein the primary release can be operated to release the first coupling member from the ratcheting system; a second coupling member; the second coupling member selectively attached to the main body; a secondary release attached to the main body; wherein the secondary release can be removed thereby separating the second coupling member from the main body. (See rejection of Claim 5 above.) Mulikin in view of Hancock does not explicitly disclose the main body is connected to the secondary release via a securing member; wherein the securing member remains attached to the secondary release after the second coupling member has been separated from the main body.
Leitzke discloses a lanyard which acts a securing member for attaching to main bodies for retaining retained members. (C1, L22) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the lanyard of Leitzke to the main body and secondary release of Mulikin in view of Hancock which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mulikin is retain the releasable pin as taught by Leitzke as a draw pin.
Regarding Claim 13, Mulikin in view of Hancock and further in view of Leitzke discloses the dock line system of claim 12, wherein: the secondary release has a first end and a second end. (See rejection Claim 2 above.)
Regarding Claim 14, Mulikin in view of Hancock and further in view of Leitzke dock line system of claim 13, wherein: a first connecting member is connected to the first end. (See rejection Claim 3 above.)
Regarding Claim 15, Mulikin in view of Hancock and further in view of Leitzke dock line system of claim 14, wherein: a second connecting member is connected to the second end. (See rejection Claim 4 above.)
Regarding Claim 16, Mulikin in view of Hancockand further in view of Leitzke dock line system of claim 15, wherein: the first end is configured to be manipulated by a user pulling the first end; the manipulation of the first end releases the second connecting member from the second end and thereby releases the second coupling member from the main body. (See rejection Claim 5 above.)
Regarding Claim 17, Mulikin in view of Hancock and further in view of Leitzke dock line system of claim 16, wherein: the first coupling member is a rope. (See rejection Claim 6 above.)
Regarding Claim 18, Mulikin in view of Hancock and further in view of Leitzke dock line system of claim 16, wherein: the second coupling member is a rope. (See rejection Claim 7 above.)
Regarding Claim 19, Mulikin in view of Hancock and further in view of Leitzke dock line system of claim 16, wherein: at least one clamp is attached to the first coupling member; the at least one clamp is configured to allow the first coupling member to form a loop. (See rejection Claim 8 above.)
Regarding Claim 20, Mulikin in view of Hancock and further in view of Leitzke dock line system of claim 16, wherein: at least one clamp is attached to the second coupling member; the at least one claim is configured to allow the second coupling member to form a loop. (See rejection Claim 9 above.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 7 December 2025