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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for the specific claim language “in some embodiments”, as this is implied and should be deleted to achieve clear and concise language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.75(i), where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP §608.01(m). See claim rejections for examples of line indentations.
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, 3-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Licina (US 7,883,294 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Licina discloses a floating dock (Fig. 1), comprising:
a monolithically-molded structure having opposed top and bottom surfaces and one or more side surfaces connecting the top and bottom surfaces (exoskeleton or dock 10; col. 9, ln. 3-9: The exterior of the monolithic dock 10 is shown as including upper corner members 12 that are used to form an upper and outer perimeter, side members 14 that are used to form vertical siding that is disposed under the corner members 12 and also to form horizontal decking material that is disposed between the corner members 12, and lower J-shaped members 16 that are disposed along the perimeter at the bottom of the monolithic dock 10; EXAMINER NOTE: Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966),
the monolithically-molded structure including an integral polymeric foam core (30, 120).
Regarding claim 3, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein the one or more edge channels are fully contained within the monolithically-molded structure (Fig. 1 ; and e.g., consistent and beautiful appearance, col. 10, ln. 41-56 reproduced below),
the edge channels having opposed end openings in the one or more side surfaces (Fig. 1, e.g. opening 94 detailed in col. 17, ln. 33); (col. 10, ln. 41-56: Accordingly, the sides and ends 10a, 10b of the monolithic dock, which include an outer and vertical portion of each of the corner members 12, those side members 14 that are vertically disposed and along the sides which include the side members 14 and a first side member 14a as is described in greater detail hereinafter, and the J-shaped members 16, and the top or upper surface of the monolithic dock 10, which include a remaining upper and horizontal portion of each of the corner members 12, those side members 14 that are horizontally disposed along the upper surface (i.e., which form the decking, and the upper surface of the channel member 18, are all formed of the HDPE synthetic material, which thereby provides a consistent and beautiful appearance to the monolithic dock 10).
Regarding claim 4, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more edge channels includes a top member and a side member (col. 10, ln. 41-56 above),
the top member being co-planar and formed with the top surface (col. 10, ln. 41-56 above), and
the side member being parallel to a corresponding side surface of the one or more side surfaces and formed with the top member (col. 10, ln. 41-56 above), and
wherein the top member, the side member, and the corresponding side surface collectively define a channel that is accessible from external the monolithically-molded structure (col. 10, ln. 41-56 above).
Regarding claim 5, Licina discloses the dock of claim 4, wherein the top member, the side member, and the corresponding side surface collectively define a U-shaped channel that is accessible from external the monolithically-molded structure (see Fig. 4, col. 17, line 33; Examiner notes the channel 18 is u-shaped in an instance where removable lid 96 is removed or not included).
Regarding claim 7, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, further comprising one or more fixtures directly mounted to one or more end portions of the top surface or at least one side surface of the one or more side surfaces of the monolithically-molded structure (Figs 1-2, 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 8, Licina discloses the dock of claim 7, wherein the one or more fixtures (96, Fig. 4) are directly mounted to the one or more end portions the top surface or the at least one side surface via one or more fasteners (screw or hinge, col. 17, line 36),
the one or more fasteners extending into the one or more edge channels (col. 17, line 36: The lid 96 may be secured by screws, not shown, or… it may be hinged, as desired).
Regarding claim 9, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface includes two or more spaced keel rails (rail portion of 72 and/or rail portion of79; detailed in col. 20, at least lines 48-60).
Regarding claim 10, Licina discloses the dock of claim 9, further comprising a skid plate attached to each of the two or more spaced keel rails (Examiner notes plate portions 74 or 76 of rails 72 and/or plate portion 79a of structure 79).
Regarding claim 11, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, further comprising an anti-slip coating applied to the top surface (Examiner notes in an instance the foam core of claim 1 is 120, urethane foam 30 is configured as an anti-slip coating applied to the top surface; see specifically col. 20, lines 13-25; see also upper decking surface, ABSTRACT; Examiner notes the top surface of a deck/dock is naturally manufactured with a degree of anti-slip characteristics by virtue of being the exposed deck surface as detailed in col. 20, line 13-25).
Regarding claim 12, Licina discloses the dock of claim 11, further comprising a polymeric coating applied to the bottom surface and the one or more side surfaces (124, col. 21, ln. 41-46).
Regarding claim 13, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein the dock is free from a structural collar and a foundational frame (ABSTRACT, Fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licina as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, wherein the monolithically-molded structure further includes one or more edge channels (channel member 18, Fig. 6; col. 16, beginning ln. 65),
the one or more edge channels being adjacent to the top surface and the one or more side surfaces (Fig. 6), and
being spaced from the bottom surface relative to the top surface and the one or more side surfaces (Fig. 6); disposed where desired (col. 9, line 11), but does not appear to specifically disclose the one or more edge channels at the periphery of the monolithically-molded structure.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the dock so that the edge channel(s) are at the periphery of the monolithically molded structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being accommodating utilities exactly where desired (Licina, col. 17, beginning ln. 16, see line 31).
Regarding claim 6, Licina discloses the dock of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the one or more edge channels is configured to extend around the periphery of the polymeric foam core.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the dock so that the edge channel(s) extend around the periphery of the polymeric foam core (120), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being the ability to configure the channel(s) to accommodate utilities exactly where desired (Licina, col. 17, beginning ln. 16).
Claims 11-12 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licina as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of Nanning et al. (US 5,081,946), hereinafter Nanning.
Regarding claim 11, if Applicant argues (urethane foam 30, Licina) does not constitute an anti-slip coating applied to the top surface, then alternatively Nanning teaches a dock in the same field of endeavor including a top surface with a non-slip top surface, (end of paragraph 4), and a non-slip coating suitably roughened applied to a top surface of the dock (ABSTRACT).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the top surface of the structure disclosed by Licina with the anti-slip coating as taught by Nanning, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the dock comprises the anti-slip coating applied to the top surface during manufacturing. The benefit being the predicted outcome of avoiding slippage (last line of ABSTRACT, Nanning); and in claim 12, modified Licina discloses the dock of claim 11, further comprising a polymeric coating applied to the bottom surface and the one or more side surfaces (124, col. 21, ln. 41-46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alesi, Jr. et al. (US 5,133,276) teaches a dock is supported by a plurality of flotation units, each comprising an upper sheet and a lower sheet which have been joined and sealed at the peripheral edge by means of the vacuum forming method and procedure set. Each flotation unit comprises a block of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam encapsulated within an outer shell formed by the top and bottom sheets. The process for encapsulating the foam involves the use of a slightly oversized block of EPS foam that is compressed inside two molded sheets, e.g. "Marlex" (Trademark) or other polyethylene plastic. The process, through heat and one hundred fifty tons of pressure, seals and bonds the foam in a protective cover with a seam fused together with all the strength and integrity of the original material. The finished part has a smooth, durable and permeable surface fully packed with foam and free from the voids and loose beads associated with "foam-filled" or "foamed-in-place" pontoons.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/Shanna Danielle Glover/Examiner, Art Unit 3642