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 .
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 3 and all claims depending therefrom 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.
Claims 3 ultimately depending from claim 1 which recites “to store a power supply device” which is a recitation of an intended use, which does not further limit the structural features of the claimed invention. It has been held that a recitation regarding the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus that satisfies the claimed limitations. Therefore as best understood the structure and device of the power supply device and surfing equipment are not encompassed by the claimed invention, rather they are functional limitations. Claim 3 recites further features of the power supply device including “a charging box and a backup battery”, “charging box is portable”. Accordingly, as best understood the features and recitations of claim 3 are functional limitations of the intended use as recited in claim 1 and do not further limit the structural features of the claimed invention. In light of the above noted issues, it is unclear if applicant intends for the features of claim 3 to be part of the scope of the claimed invention causing confusion.
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) 1-3,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconicchio (20230245519) in view of Merz (7882577).
Claims 1,2. Marconicchio discloses a multifunctional surfing equipment station, the multifunctional surfing equipment station comprising:
a stational body having a top (as seen in figure 5);
sides connected to the top;
four enclosed spaces (each surfboard compartment and the interface as seen in figure 5);
wherein a storage module is used to store a plurality of surfboards (paragraph 0034);
a plurality of at least five surfboards disposed within said storage module (paragraph 0034);
wherein a second of said four enclosed spaces is a power module (as noted in the annotated figure) to store a power supply device;
wherein said power module has no standing room for a person (as seen in figure 5).
Marconicchio does not disclose that the surfing equipment station has four sides and four side panels each corresponds to said four sides; four enclosed spaces disposed behind said four side panels; wherein each of the four side panels opens to an outside environment; wherein a first of said four enclosed spaces is a storage module;
wherein each of said four enclosed spaces do not have open access to each other except through their respective side panels when said side panels open to the outside environment.
Merz discloses a multifunctional station comprising a stational body having a top, four sides connected to the top; four side panels each corresponds to said four sides (as seen at least at figure 6) and pivotably attached to said top; four enclosed spaces disposed behind said four side panels, wherein each of the four side panels opens to an outside environment (as seen in the figure); wherein a first of said four enclosed spaces is a storage module (where it is capable of being used as a storage module), wherein a second of said four enclosed spaces is a power module (as seen at figures 2,4) to store a power supply device; and wherein each of saif our enclosed spaces do not have an open access to each other except through their respective side panels when said side panels open to the outside environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the surfing equipment station of Marconicchio to have four sides and four side panels each corresponds to said four sides and pivotably attached to said top; four enclosed spaces disposed behind said four side panels; wherein each of the four side panels opens to an outside environment; wherein a first of said four enclosed spaces is a storage module; wherein each of said four enclosed spaces do not have open access to each other except through their respective side panels when said side panels open to the outside environment as taught by Merz to achieve the predictable result of allowing for multiple board to be accessed at time and provide shade and cover to a user at each side. Wherein upon the modification, the storage module would house a plurality of boards.
PNG
media_image1.png
1171
1111
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3. The multifunctional surfing equipment station according to claim 2, wherein the power supply device includes a charging box and a backup battery, the backup battery can be installed on the surfboard to supply power to the surfboard, the charging box is portable and can be removed from the surfing equipment station to charge the backup battery (where is capable of the claimed intended use).
Claim 9. The multifunctional surfing equipment station according to claim 1, but Marconicchio does not expressly disclose further comprising a plurality of wheels attached to a bottom of the station body. Merz discloses a plurality of wheels attached to bottom of the station body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the station of Marconicchio to have wheels attached to the bottom of the station body to achieve the predictable result of transporting the multifunctional station to different locations to achieve optimum exposure and sales.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconicchio (20230245519) in view of Merz (7882577) and further in view of Appert (20110056146).
Claim 4. The multifunctional surfing equipment station according to claim 2, further comprising a solar panel (10) disposed on top, wherein the solar panel is electrically connected to the power module (as noted throughout the disclosure).
Marconicchio in view of Merz do not disclose that the a solar panel disposed on the four side panels, but instead Marconicchio discloses a solar panel disposed on the top.
Appert discloses a stational body having four sides and four side panels corresponding the four sides and a solar panel disposed on the four side panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the station of Marconicchio in view of Merz to have a solar panel on the four side panels to achieve the predictable result of providing additional solar power capacity and allow the solar panels to stow for transport.
Claim 5. The multifunctional surfing equipment station according to claim 4, Marconicchio in view of Merz and Appert do not expressly disclose wherein the power module includes a charging plug, the charging plug can be connected to a municipal power grid through the charging plug, but does disclose devices that require power. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the power module of Marconicchio to have a charging plug that is capable of being connected to a power grid to achieve the predictable result of sending/receiving electricity for power items to be used within the station, when the solar power is insufficient.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconicchio (20230245519) in view of Merz (7882577) and further in view of DeMacedo (20220161705).
Claim 6. Marconicchio discloses the multifunctional surfing equipment station according to claim 3 but does not expressly disclose a third of said four enclosed spaces has a display module disposed on a wall in said third of said four enclosed spaces to display information; wherein there is no standing room for a person within said third of said four encloses spaces. Marconicchio does disclose a display module disposed on a wall to display information (as seen in figure 5) there is no standing room for a person within said module at said display (see figure 5).
DeMacedo discloses that it is known to have a multifunctional station with four sides and multiple sides, including a third side, of said four includes a display module to display information.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the station of Marconicchio to have a third side of said four enclosed spaces include a display module on a wall in said third of said four enclosed spaces to display information, where Marconicchio discloses there is no standing room for a person within said display space (see figure 5), to achieve the predictable result of providing increased user access to the station.
Claim 7. The multifunctional surfing equipment station according to claim 6 but does not expressly disclose wherein a fourth of said four encloses spaces is a shower space or a changing room.
Merz discloses that it is known to have a shower or changing room on a fourth side of a station (as seen in the figures).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the station of Marconicchio to have a fourth of said four enclosed spaces be a shower space or changing room to achieve the predictable result of providing a use a private space to prepare for or clean up from a surfing session.
Claim(s) 10,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconicchio (20230245519) in view of Merz (7882577) and further in view of DeMacedo (20220161705) and further in view of Appert (20110056146).
Claims 10,11. The multifunctional surfing equipment station according to claim 7, however Marconicchio, Merz and DeMacedo do not expressly disclose wherein the top has a square shape, wherein the four side panels have the same dimensions to each other. Appert discloses that is known to have a station with a top in a square shape, wherein the side panels have the same dimensions to each other (see figures 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the station of Marconicchio in view of Merz and DeMacedo to have a top with a square shape wherein the four side panels have the same dimensions to each other to achieve the predictable result of a uniform design aesthetic with similar access to each side. Further It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the top to be a square shape and the four side panels to have the same dimensions to each other, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size or shape of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). A change is shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious design choice to achieve a desired aesthetic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicants arguments are drawn to the newly amended claim limitations not previously considered.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571.270.3238. 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635