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
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract line 1 includes the implied phrase “is provided” which should be deleted.
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.
Claims 10-15 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 10 recites, “a manifold assembly positioned within at least one pontoon of the plurality of pontoons, the manifold assembly positioned within the port side envelope, the starboard side envelope and the deck outer perimeter. It is unclear how only one manifold assembly is in all of these three envelopes. It appears from applicant’s drawings (fig. 17 for instance) that two assemblies are required to be both on the port and starboard side envelopes.
Claims 11-15 are rejected based on their dependency on 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 requires the wherein the manifold assembly is positioned within the deck outer perimeter which is already a requirement of claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (KR 20160006943, cited by applicant, see English translation provided herein) in view of Schnell-Tomaczak et al. (US 6477969, hereafter referred to as Schnell).
For claim 1, You teaches a pontoon boat (figs. 2-3), comprising:
a plurality of pontoons (P1) including:
a port-side pontoon (P2);
a starboard-side pontoon spaced from the port-side pontoon (P1);
a deck coupled to each of the port-side pontoon, the starboard-side pontoon, and the middle pontoon (see figs. 2-3);
a manifold system positioned within the pontoon (see figs. 2-3), the manifold system comprising
a first portion including a first fluid conduit having an inlet (inlet of pump 41) in fluid communication with an exterior of the pontoon (see fig. 1),
a second portion coupled to the first portion (between 41 and 40a is considered the second portion) and having a second fluid conduit (portion of L1 between 41 and 40a) positioned to receive fluid from the first fluid conduit (see fig. 3), and
a third portion (portion of L1 between 40a and 40b) including a third fluid conduit (portion of L1 between 40a and 40b) positioned to receive fluid from the second fluid conduit (see fig. 3) and having an outlet (at 40a) in fluid communication with the exterior of the middle pontoon (see fig. 3), the second portion being coupled to the third portion (see fig. 3); and
a motor coupled to the manifold system (must include a motor coupled somewhere to the system to power the pumps and thrusters).
You is silent about a middle pontoon positioned intermediate the port-side pontoon and the starboard- side pontoon; the second portion being removably coupled to the first and the third portion being removably coupled to the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the various portions of the manifold removably couplable, in order to allow for maintenance and easy replacement of parts of the system and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Schnell teaches a pontoon boat (abstract and figs.) including a port, starboard and middle pontoon (30, 32, 34) wherein the middle pontoon includes a propulsion system thereon (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to make the pontoon boat of You include a middle pontoon with the propulsion system therein, as taught by the pontoon boat of Schnell, in order to hold up the deck and effectively propel the boat.
For claim 2, modified You further teaches the manifold system further comprises:
a fourth fluid conduit (between 40b and 42) comprising a second outlet (40b) in fluid communication with the exterior of the middle pontoon (see fig. 3);
a fifth fluid conduit (inside of pump 42) positioned to receive fluid from the first fluid conduit (fluid flows between pump 41 and 42) and to provide fluid to the fourth fluid conduit (42 can pump fluid to the section of L1 between 42 and 40b);
a first fluid path including the first fluid conduit, the second fluid conduit, and the third fluid conduit (fluid path from 41 to 40b); and a second fluid path including the first fluid conduit, the fifth fluid conduit, and the fourth fluid conduit (fluid path from 41 to 42).
For claim 5, modified You further teaches wherein the motor is coupled to the second portion (all elements are coupled together).
For claim 7, modified You teaches wherein the outlet is a first outlet (40a) and the motor is a first motor, and the manifold system further comprises a second outlet (40b).
You is silent about a second motor or power source.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a second motor to You, in order to power various elements of the system and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. and a second motor coupled to the manifold system.
Claim(s) 10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (KR 20160006943, cited by applicant, see English translation provided herein)
For claim 10, You teaches a pontoon boat (Figs. and description), comprising:
a plurality of pontoons (P1, P2), the plurality of pontoons defining a port side envelope of the plurality of pontoons and a starboard side envelope of the plurality of pontoons (see figs. 2-3);
a deck (see figs. 2-3)supported by the plurality of pontoons, the deck having a deck outer perimeter;
a manifold assembly positioned within at least one pontoon of the plurality of pontoons (see fig. 3), the manifold assembly positioned within the port side envelope, the starboard side envelope and the deck outer perimeter (as best understood in one of the pontoons),
the manifold assembly comprising:
an inlet (inlet to pump 41), a first outlet (at 40a), and a second outlet (at 40b) each fluidly coupled to the exterior of at least one of the plurality of pontoons (see fig. 3);
at least a first conduit defining at least a portion of a first fluid path between the inlet and the first outlet (L1 between 41 and 40a);
at least a second conduit defining at least a portion of a second fluid path between the inlet and the second outlet (L1 between 41 and 40b);
a motor operatively coupled to the system (must have some power source for thrusters and pumps).
You is silent about a first motor operatively coupled to the first conduit, the first motor configured to propel a fluid along the first fluid path; and a second motor operatively coupled to the second conduit, the second motor configured to propel the fluid along the second fluid path.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a second motor to You, in order to power various elements of the system and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. and a second motor coupled to the manifold system.
The resultant motor thrusters 40a, 40b can propel fluid along these paths.
For claim 13, modified You further teaches wherein the inlet, the first outlet, and the second outlet are positioned to be below a water line of the pontoon boat when the pontoon boat is sitting stationary in the body of water and to remain submerged when the pontoon boat is running at speed (see figs. and description).
For claim 14, modified You further teaches wherein the manifold assembly is positioned within the deck outer perimeter (as best understood as per claim 10 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a pontoon boat including a plurality of pontoons and a deck having a hatch therein to provide access to one of the pontoons, the pontoon including a thruster system including at least one water inlet in the at least one of the plurality of pontoons, a plurality of water outlets in the at least one of the plurality of pontoons, and at least one motor positioned within an interior of the at least one of the plurality of pontoons, the at least one motor being removable through the at least one access opening in the deck.
The prior art of record McChesney et al. (US 9108710, cited in IDS) teaches a pontoon boat including a hatch to access a central thrust system (hatch 48, see figs. 1-5) however McChesney fails to teach the thruster system within a pontoon, wherein that pontoon includes a plurality of water outlets and a motor positioned within the pontoon removable through the hatch.
The further prior art of record You (KR 20160006943, cited in IDS) teaches a pontoon boat including a pontoon having a thruster system therein including a plurality of openings (41, 42, fig. 3), however You fails to teach or suggest a hatch nor does You teach the details of a motor in the pontoon, the motor being removable through a hatch in the deck. The deck of You is not aligned with the pontoons, it would be undue hindsight reconstruction to modify You in such a manner (i.e. moving the pontoon locations, adding a hatch, and adding a removable motor, etc.)
Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art of record is noted as it pertains to the state of the art of pontoon boats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642