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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begley US 20070125235 in view of Kozo JP H0745972.
Regarding claim 1, Begley discloses a watercraft comprising:
a hull (42) having a keel (Fig. 2);
a deck (46) supported by the hull;
a compartment defined between the hull and the deck (Fig. 2);
a fuel reservoir (28, to run the engine [0005]) disposed in the compartment and extending longitudinally over the keel (Fig. 2).
However, Begley does not teach that the fuel reservoir comprising an external hollowed portion; and, at least one battery at least partially disposed in the hollowed portion.
Kozo teaches a portable air heater. It has been held that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. See MPEP 2141.01(a). Here, the problem faced by the inventor is how to efficiently use the limited space available to house the fuel reservoir and battery.
Kozo teaches that the heater comprises a fuel reservoir (5) comprising an external hallowed portion and at least one battery (4) at least partially disposed in the hallowed portion (Fig. 1) in order to efficiently use the limited space available. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel reservoir as taught by Begley by utilizing an external hallowed portion housing at least one battery as taught by Kozo in order to efficiently use the limited space to house the components that run the engine.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further teaches that the external hollowed portion is a recess extending laterally inward from a lateral wall of the fuel reservoir (Kozo, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination further teaches that the at least one battery is disposed in the recess and laterally inwardly from the lateral wall (Kozo, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Begley further discloses that the fuel reservoir is laterally centered about the keel (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Begley further discloses that the fuel reservoir comprises a bottom left side surface and a bottom right side surface; and the bottom left and right side surfaces define a generally V-shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Begley further discloses that the hull is a V-shaped hull; and the generally V-shape of the fuel reservoir is angled substantially similar to the V-shaped hull such that the fuel reservoir lays flat on the hull (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Begley does not teach that a longitudinal distance between a rear face of the fuel reservoir and a rear end of the hull is less than a longitudinal distance between a front face of the fuel reservoir and a front end of the hull.
Applicant has not disclosed that locating the fuel reserve such that the rear face is closer to the rear end of the hull than the front face is to the front end of the hull solves any stated problem or is for any particular other than to supply fuel to the engine, and it appears that the combination, per claim 1, would perform equally well with that arrangement as claimed by applicant. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify location of the fuel reservoir to have the claimed arrangement for the purpose of supplying fuel to the engine. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, Begley further discloses that the fuel reservoir is disposed laterally centrally in the hull (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, the combination does not teach that the at least one battery comprises two batteries; and the two batteries are disposed within the external hollowed portion of the fuel reservoir.
It has been held, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since the duplication of the battery is used to provide electricity to start the engine and another battery, either in series or parallel, would only produce an expected increase electrical capacity of the system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the battery in order to provide an increase in the electrical capacity of the system. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination does not teach that one of the two batteries is disposed in front of another one of the two batteries.
Applicant has not disclosed that having one battery disposed in front of the other solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the combination, per claim 13, would perform equally well with one battery disposed in front of the other as claimed by applicant. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify arrangement of the two batteries by utilizing one in front of the other as claimed for the purpose of efficient use of space. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, the combination does not teach a power cable, wherein the power cable is connected to a terminal of the at least one battery and extending along a top of the fuel reservoir. Official notice is taken that power cables are routinely connected to battery terminals in order to supply power to the component in need thereof. And, Applicant has not disclosed that routing the power cable along a top of the fuel reservoir solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose other than to route power to the designated component. It appears that the combination, per claim 1, would perform equally well with the power cable routed along the top of the fuel reservoir as claimed by applicant. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify cable management to be as claimed for the purpose of routing the power to a designated component. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 16, Begley further discloses at least one of: an above-deck side compartment and an above-deck rear compartment (housing the fuel canister 10).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begley US 20070125235 in view of Kozo JP H0745972 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ward US 2980049 and Nagata US 20020038624.
Regarding claim 9, the combination does not teach a plurality of fasteners fastening the keel to a bottom surface of a hull body of the hull; and wherein a bottom surface of the fuel reservoir defines a longitudinally extending groove, the groove is sized for avoiding contact between the fasteners and the bottom surface of the fuel reservoir.
Ward teaches a boat hull keel construction wherein a plurality of fasteners (28) fasten the keel (22) to a bottom surface of a hull body (12, 14) of the hull (Fig. 2). Ward so teaches in order to attach the keel to the hull. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the attachment means as taught by Begley by utilizing fasteners as taught by Ward in order to attach the keel to the hull.
Nagata teaches a watercraft comprising a bottom surface of a fuel reservoir defining a longitudinally extending groove sized for avoiding contact between a bottom surface of the hull (Figs. 3 and 4) in order to provide stability to the tank ([0012]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fuel reservoir as taught by Begley by utilizing a groove as taught by Nagata in order to provide stable attachment of the tank.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begley US 20070125235 in view of Kozo JP H0745972 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wood US 4406630.
Regarding claim 10, the combination does not teach a hatch door wherein the deck defines a hatch disposed above the at least one battery, and the hatch door is configured to selectively close the hatch.
Wood teaches a watercraft comprising a hatch door (38); wherein: the deck defines a hatch (Fig. 3) disposed above the at least one battery (14-16); and the hatch door is configured to selectively close the hatch (col. 4 ln. 27-29). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the deck of Begley by utilizing a deck defined by a hatch above the battery as taught by Wood in order to provide access to the battery.
Claim(s) 1 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Begley US 20070125235 in view of Kozo JP H0745972 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wood US 4406630.
Regarding claim 1, Jauncey teaches a watercraft comprising:
a hull (20) having a keel ([0043]);
a deck (16, 26) supported by the hull;
a compartment (Fig. 6, defined by 40 and 41) defined between the hull and the deck; a fuel reservoir (51) disposed in the compartment and extending longitudinally over the keel.
However it does not teach that the fuel reservoir comprising an external hollowed portion; and, at least one battery at least partially disposed in the hollowed portion.
Kozo teaches a portable air heater. It has been held that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In order for a reference to be "reasonably pertinent" to the problem, it must "logically have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. See MPEP 2141.01(a). Here, the problem faced by the inventor is how to efficiently use the limited space available to house the fuel reservoir and battery.
Kozo teaches that the heater comprises a fuel reservoir (5) comprising an external hallowed portion and at least one battery (4) at least partially disposed in the hallowed portion (Fig. 1) in order to efficiently use the limited space available. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuel reservoir as taught by Begley by utilizing an external hallowed portion housing at least one battery as taught by Kozo in order to efficiently use the limited space to house the components that run the engine.
Regarding claim 17, Jauncey further discloses that the hull has a first pontoon (21), a second pontoon (22), and a central portion (Fig. 4) disposed laterally between the first and second pontoons; the keel is a first keel of the first pontoon (Fig. 4); the second pontoon has a second keel (Fig. 4); the central portion has a third keel (Fig. 4); the compartment is a first compartment defined between the first pontoon and the deck (Fig. 5); the fuel reservoir is a first reservoir disposed in the first compartment (Fig. 5); and the at least one battery is at least one first battery disposed in the first compartment (per the combination of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, the combination does not teach that a second compartment is defined between the second pontoon and the deck; and the watercraft further comprises: a second fuel reservoir disposed in the second compartment and extending longitudinally over the second keel, the second fuel reservoir comprising a second external hollowed portion; and at least one second battery at least partially disposed in the second external hollowed portion.
It has been held, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since the first compartment, fuel reservoir, hallowed portion and battery are used to provide means to drive the engine and additional ones would only produce an expected redundancy and increased range of the vessel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the claimed features in order to provide an increase in the redundancy and/or range of the vessel. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 19, the combination does not teach that the at least one first battery comprises two first batteries; and the at least one second battery comprises two second batteries.
Since the duplication of the batteries are used to provide electricity to start the engine and another battery, either in series or parallel, would only produce an expected increase electrical capacity of the system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the battery in order to provide an increase in the electrical capacity of the system. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 20, the combination does not teach a first hatch door and a second hatch door, wherein: the deck defines a first hatch disposed above the two first batteries and a second hatch disposed above the two second batteries; the first hatch door being configured to selectively closes the first hatch; and the second hatch door being configured to selectively closes the second hatch.
Wood teaches a watercraft comprising a hatch door (38); wherein: the deck defines a hatch (Fig. 3) disposed above the at least one battery (14-16); and the hatch door is configured to selectively close the hatch (col. 4 ln. 27-29).
Since it is known to provide access to the battery via a hatch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the deck and compartments, as taught by Jauncey, by manufacturing the vessel with a hatch to each compartment, in order to yield the predictable results of providing access to each battery bank. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 is allowable since defining the recess centrally would result in portions of the fuel reservoir on opposite sides of the battery. Claim 5 is allowable for the support frame not being found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
BRIAN O. PETERS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745