Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Bethany Lahmann on 10 February 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II – Apparatus, claims 11-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the interview held on 10 February 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 11-20 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it appears FIG. 7 and FIG. 8 are the same Figure, while according to the Specification FIG. 7 and FIG. 8 are supposed to be different. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding paragraph [0014]:
Paragraph [0014] appears to contain a clerical error, as Figure 8 is said to be another view of Figure 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison (US 4584959), hereafter referred to as Allison, Kaye (US 20140102351), hereafter referred to as Kaye, and Wenstadt et al (US 5443026), hereafter referred to as Wenstadt.
Regarding Claim 11, Allison discloses the following:
A fiberglass watercraft comprising (Col. 3, lines 19-21):
a hull (10) comprising a port hull side wall (34 on port side of hull; see FIG. 1-2) and a starboard hull side wall (34 on starboard side of hull; see FIG. 1-2);
a port corner extension (45 on port side of hull; see FIG. 2) extending from a posterior of the port hull side wall (34 on port side of hull; see FIG. 1-2);
a starboard corner extension (45 on starboard side of hull; see FIG. 2) extending from a posterior of the starboard hull side wall (34 on starboard side of hull; see FIG. 1-2);
a transom assembly (42; FIG. 1-2) attached to a hull (10) lower posterior edge of the hull (10); and
wherein the port corner extension (45 on port side of hull; see FIG. 2) is bent (as seen in FIG. 2) to attach to a port side of the transom assembly (42; FIG. 1-2) and to form a rounded port corner (as seen in FIG. 2), and
wherein the starboard corner extension (45 on starboard side of hull; see FIG. 2) is bent (as seen in FIG. 2) to attach to a starboard side of the transom assembly (42; FIG. 1-2) and to form a rounded starboard corner (as seen in FIG. 2).
Allison does not explicitly disclose the following:
An aluminum watercraft;
a deck attached to the hull;
However Kaye teaches the following:
It is well known in the art to fabricate rigid boat hulls out of either fiberglass or aluminum ([0003, 76, 109]).
and Wenstadt teaches the following:
it is well known to attach a deck (12) to the hull (14) of a boat (see for example Col. 5, lines 19-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fiberglass material of the hull, as disclosed by Allison which also teaches the hull may be made of any suitable material (Allison Col. 3, lines 19-21), with the aluminum material of the hull, as taught by Kaye, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a hull made of a known suitable material. The Examiner further notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Kaye discloses the aforementioned material(s) is/are known material(s) suitable for the intended purpose of rigid boat hulls (see MPEP 2144.07).
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 boat hull, as disclosed by Allison, by attaching a deck to the hull, as taught by Wenstadt, with the reasonable expectation of forming a complete boat, and providing a structure for which a windshield may be attached so as to protect the operator of the boat (see Wenstadt, Col. 5, lines 19-31).
Regarding Claim 12, Allison as modified by Kaye and Wenstadt discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 11,
Allison continues to disclose the following:
further comprising: a curved port rail (port side 38; FIG. 2) attached to the rounded port corner (as seen in FIG. 2); and
a curved starboard rail (starboard side 38; FIG. 2) attached to the rounded starboard corner (as seen in FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Allison as modified by Kaye and Wenstadt discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 11,
Allison continues to disclose the following:
further comprising: a port gunnel (36 port side; FIG. 2) attached to the port hull side wall (34 on port side of hull; see FIG. 1-2); and
a starboard gunnel (36 port side; FIG. 2) attached to the starboard hull side wall (34 on starboard side of hull; see FIG. 1-2).
Claims 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison as modified by Kaye and Wenstadt, as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of Thomas (US 20020152943).
Regarding Claim 13, Allison as modified by Kaye and Wenstadt discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 12,
Allison continues to teach the following:
wherein the curved port rail (port side 38; FIG. 2) and the curved starboard rail (starboard side 38; FIG. 2) each comprise a rigid extrusion (as seen in FIG. 2 38 extrudes from the hull of the boat, and as modified by Kaye the material selected is aluminum, which is considered to be rigid).
Allison as modified by Kaye and Wenstadt does not explicitly disclose the following:
a resilient component.
However Thomas teaches the following:
It is well known in the art to provide the side walls aluminum boat hulls with rubber bumpers (12, 12',13, 13'; FIG. 1; *synonymous with "a resilient component"); on both the port and starboard sides of the hull (see for example [0041]; claim 7).
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 boat hull, as disclosed by Allison as modified by Kaye and Wenstadt, by attaching a rubber bumper to the hull, as taught by Wenstadt, with the reasonable expectation of providing an external fender system for protecting the hull of a boat when mooring the boat or bringing the boat along side another boat for boarding while not interfering with the normal operation of the boat (see for example Thomas [0005]).
Regarding Claim 14, Allison as modified by Kaye, Wenstadt, and Thomas discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 13,
Allison continues to teach the following:
wherein the transom assembly (42; FIG. 1-2) comprises an upper transom (42; FIG. 1-2), a transom step (44; as best seen in FIG. 1), a lower transom (12; as best seen in FIG. 1), a port transom wing (46 on port side; FIG. 1-2), and a starboard transom wing (46 on starboard side; FIG. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 15, Allison as modified by Kaye, Wenstadt, and Thomas discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 14,
Allison continues to teach the following:
wherein the transom assembly (42; FIG. 1-2) attaches to the hull (10) lower posterior edge of the hull (10) along the lower transom (12; as best seen in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Allison as modified by Kaye, Wenstadt, and Thomas discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 14,
Allison continues to teach the following:
wherein the port corner extension (45 on port side of hull; see FIG. 2) comprises a port extension bottom edge (edge between 38/40 and 56 port side; as best seen in FIG. 2), a port extension bottom edge (edge between 46 and 48 port side; as best seen in FIG. 2), and a port extension distal edge (48 port side; as best seen in FIG. 2) (as seen in FIG. 1-2), and
wherein the starboard corner extension (45 on starboard side of hull; see FIG. 2) comprises a starboard extension bottom edge (edge between 38/40 and 56 starboard side; as best seen in FIG. 2), a starboard extension bottom edge (edge between 46 and 48 starboard side; as best seen in FIG. 2), and a starboard extension distal edge (48 starboard side; as best seen in FIG. 2) (as seen in FIG. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 17, Allison as modified by Kaye, Wenstadt, and Thomas discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 14,
Allison continues to teach the following:
wherein a port extension bottom edge (edge between 46 and 48 port side; as best seen in FIG. 2) attaches to the port transom wing (46 on port side; FIG. 1-2)(as seen in FIG. 1-2); and
wherein a starboard extension bottom edge (edge between 46 and 48 starboard side; as best seen in FIG. 2) attaches to the starboard transom wing (46 on starboard side; FIG. 1-2)(as seen in FIG. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 18, Allison as modified by Kaye, Wenstadt, and Thomas discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 14,
Allison continues to teach the following:
wherein a port extension distal edge (48 port side; as best seen in FIG. 2) attaches to a port side of the upper transom (42; FIG. 1-2)(as seen in FIG. 1-2); and
wherein a starboard extension distal edge (48 starboard side; as best seen in FIG. 2) attaches to a starboard side of the upper transom (42; FIG. 1-2)(as seen in FIG. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 19, Allison as modified by Kaye, Wenstadt, and Thomas discloses the following:
The aluminum watercraft of claim 16,
Allison as modified Wenstadt continues to teach the following:
wherein the deck (12 of Wenstadt) extends to the port extension bottom edge (edge between 38/40 and 56 port side; as best seen in FIG. 2) and the starboard extension bottom edge (edge between 38/40 and 56 starboard side; as best seen in FIG. 2).
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar boat hull arrangements see Pages 1-6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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 CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights