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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/02/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “each of the two seats being connected to top surface” which appears intended as -- each of the two seats being connected to the top surface--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 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 12 recites “two seats,” and it is unclear whether the latter recitation of "two seats" (claim 12) is to refer to the same element as the previous recitation of "seat" (claim 1) or if the latter recitation is to refer to an additional element. Plainly, it is unclear how many seats the structure of the claim requires, e.g., two, three, etc. See MPEP 2173.05(o) which states "where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ix parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)".
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grimes (US 6,739,281).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. A watercraft (10) comprising: a hull (i.e., perimeter of hull shown in figs. 1, 5); a deck (12) supported by the hull, the deck having an upper surface (figs. 1, 5); a support member (18 and/or 34) connected to the deck (12); an interchangeable module (any of 20-30) resting on the upper surface of the deck, the interchangeable module (col. 5, lines 1-14) having at least one of: a seat (60); and a storage compartment (62); and a mating member (32, and/or any of 36, 42, 56) disposed on the interchangeable module and removably engaging the support member (col. 4, lines 51-53).
2. The watercraft of claim 1, wherein: the support member (18) comprises at least one bracket (fig. 8) connected to the upper surface of the deck (12); the interchangeable module (20-30) comprises a front edge (e.g., fig. 4); and the mating member (32, which in the embodiment of fig. 4 include lugs 72, 74) is disposed on the front edge (fig. 4) and is received in (col. 5, lines 36-49) the at least one bracket (18).
4. The watercraft of claim 1, wherein the deck (12) comprises a rear portion (figs. 5-7) and the interchangeable module is disposed at (i.e., near) the rear portion (figs. 5-7).
5. The watercraft of claim 4, wherein the rear portion (figs. 5-7) comprises a rigging area (e.g., 34) and the interchangeable module is disposed adjacent to the rigging area (figs. 5-7).
6. The watercraft of claim 5, wherein: the rigging area (34) comprises: a front wall having a rear face (i.e., face shown by figs. 5-7), the front wall defining an aperture (i.e., figs. 5-7 show apertures of 34); and the support member (18) disposed on the rear face proximate the aperture (figs. 5-7); and the mating member (e.g., any of 36, 42, 56) extends through the aperture (i.e., aperture of 34) and is removably connected (i.e., directly or indirectly, via 12 and/or 20-30) to the support member (18).
7. The watercraft of claim 6, wherein: the support member (i.e., 18) comprises a first right angle bracket (70); and the mating member (32) comprises a second right angle bracket (i.e., 72, 74), fastened to the first right angle bracket (col. 5, lines 50-56).
8. The watercraft of claim 6, wherein: the interchangeable module comprises a rear surface (fig. 4); the mating member (i.e., 72, 74) is disposed on the rear surface of the interchangeable module (fig. 4); and the mating member extends rearwardly away from the rear surface (fig. 4, where the term “rear surface” as claimed is not defined with respect to other surfaces).
9. The watercraft of claim 6, wherein: the aperture of the front wall is a first aperture (figs. 5-7); the support member (18) is a first support member disposed proximate the first aperture; the mating member (e.g., any of 36, 42, 56) is a first mating member extending through the first aperture and being removably connected to the first support member; the front wall defines a second aperture (figs. 5-7) laterally spaced from the first aperture; the rigging area comprises a second support member (also 18) being disposed proximate the second aperture; and the interchangeable module comprises a second mating member (e.g., any other of 36, 42, 56) extending through the second aperture and being removably connected to the second support member.
10. The watercraft of claim 1, wherein: the support member (i.e., 34) is a front support member connected to the upper surface of the deck (12); the mating member (i.e., any of 36, 42, 56) is a front mating member configured to removably engage the front support member (34); the deck (12) comprises a rigging area (figs. 5-7); the rigging area comprises a rear support member (i.e., other 18 and/or other 34) connected to the rigging area; and the interchangeable module (20-30) comprises a rear mating member (i.e., any of 36, 42, 56) configured to removably engage the rear support member.
11. The watercraft of claim 1, wherein the interchangeable module (20-30) extends laterally across a majority of the deck (figs. 5-7 show modules 20-30 extending laterally across the majority of deck 12).
15. The watercraft of claim 1, wherein the storage compartment (i.e., the embodiment of fig. 2 showing 40, where a user is capable of sitting on the top surface of 40, and the live-well 50 is a storage compartment) comprises a live-well (50).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimes (US 6,739,281).
Regarding claim 3, Grimes does not teach that the at least one bracket is a Z-shaped bracket. However, it has been held to be well-within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to reconfigure a device according to design specifications. The claimed shape does not appear to change the function of the claimed device, and applying the shape, as claimed, to the device of the prior art would not change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of relative shape, and since the claimed device having the relative shape would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.1
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimes (US 6,739,281), in view of Nelson et al. (US 5,050,526).
Regarding claim 12, Grimes does not explicitly detail the interior of the storage compartment 62 or live-well 50, and therefore cannot be said to read on the limitations of claim 12.
Nelson teaches the old and well-known use of an elongated container (11) which serves the combined function of a live well, a bait well, and a container (e.g., ice chest), where the elongated container (11) comprises: a top surface (fig. 1) defining three openings (openings beneath 12, 13, 14); at least two storage compartments (compartments beneath 13, 14) disposed on opposing ends of the interchangeable module, a first (compartment beneath 13) of the two storage compartments being disposed beneath a first (opening of 13) of the three openings, and a second (compartment beneath 14) of the two storage compartments being disposed beneath a second (opening of 14) of the three openings; a live-well (36) disposed laterally between the two storage compartments (fig. 3 shows the claimed configuration, where 36 runs laterally between the areas beneath 13 and 14) and beneath a third (opening of 12) of the three openings (fig. 3 shows the claimed configuration, where 36 is shown beneath door 12); a door (12) configured to selectively close the third (opening of 12) of the three openings; and two seats (i.e., as disclosed, tops of 13, 14 are designed to function as seats), each of the two seats being connected to top surface and being disposed at opposing ends of the interchangeable module, a first (13) of the two seats being configured to selectively close the first of the three openings; and a second (14) of the two seats being configured to selectively close the second of the three openings. The combination of the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.2
Further, although the combination of the prior art meets the claimed limitations, as mapped above, in the interest of compact prosecution the Examiner notes that: it is reasoned that both the general engineering design of compartments and the ability to make predictable changes to such systems are expected to be well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art; and it is reasoned that rearranging the order of individual compartments, at least into a configuration similar to that which was already known in the art, is expected to be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, the claimed location of the third compartment does not appear to modify the operation of the claimed device, and rearranging the ice chest of the prior art to be in another location on the structure, as claimed, would not impact or change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of relative order of the compartments, and since the claimed device having the relative order would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.3 Further, it has been held to be well-within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts of a device according to design specifications, and the particular placement, arrangement, or ordering of compartments would be an obvious matter of design choice.4
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimes (US 6,739,281), in view of Martin (US 4,970,982).
Regarding claims 13-14, Grimes does not explicitly detail the interior of the storage compartment 62 or live-well 50, and therefore cannot be said to read on the limitations of claims 13-14.
Martin teaches the old and well-known use of a tank (14) which serves the combined function of a livewell for holding fish and a bait well for receiving a minnow bucket (abstract), where the tank (14) comprises: a top surface (fig. 2) defining two openings (46, 50); a first door (70) connected to the interchangeable module and configured to selectively close a first of the two openings (46); a second door (68) connected to the interchangeable module and configured to selectively close a second of the two openings (50); a live-well (66) disposed beneath the two openings (fig. 2); and a bait bucket (54) holder (52) disposed in one (50) of the two openings (46, 50); a top surface (fig. 2) defining two openings (46, 50) disposed at opposing ends of the interchangeable module; a live-well (66) disposed beneath a first (46) of the two openings; the storage compartment (i.e., compartment within 50) being disposed beneath a second (50) of the two openings; a first door (70) connected to the interchangeable module and configured to selectively close the first of the two openings; and a second door (68) connected to the interchangeable module and configured to selectively close the second of the two openings. The combination of the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.2
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeman (US 5,864,981) discloses a combination tackle box, bait well, and container (i.e., cooler) which includes seats on the top surface for fishing.
Crabtree (US 5,249,388) discloses a combination seat and fish storage container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 MPEP 2144.04(IV): In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
2 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
3 In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.) [emphasis added]
4 In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice) [emphasis added]