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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5/4/26.
Please note that while claim 14 states that it depends from (elected) claim 12, it appears that claim 14 was intended to depend from (unelected) claim 13.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Burg US 2022/0097802 in view of Culp US 5,138,965.
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Burg teaches a vessel mooring system comprising:
a tension hoist 34 coupled to a mooring line 19, the mooring line configured to couple to a vessel;
a sensor configured to sense at least one parameter associated with the mooring line [0010]; and
a programmable controller in communication with the sensor, the programmable controller configured to compare the at least one parameter associated with the mooring line sensed by the sensor to a predetermined mooring line parameter threshold and, when the at least one parameter associated with the mooring line differs from the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold, the programmable controller is configured to cause the tension hoist to adjust the mooring line [0067].
Van Der Burg does not teach an elevation hoist coupled to an elevation line, the elevation line configured to couple to a mooring cart. Culp teaches a vessel mooring system comprising:
a tension arm 29 coupled to a mooring coupling 26, the mooring coupling configured to couple to a vessel 8; and
an elevation hoist 32, 36 coupled to an elevation line 34, the elevation line configured to couple to a mooring cart 28.
PNG
media_image1.png
423
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Culp Figures 5 and 7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the mooring tension system of Van Der Burg with the elevation hoist and mooring cart of Culp in order to enable the mooring line to be repositioned and stay at the level of mooring connection.
Regarding claim 2, Van Der Burg and Culp teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Van Der Burg also teaches that the at least one parameter associated with the mooring line differs from the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold, the programmable controller is configured to cause the tension hoist to adjust the mooring line to an extent that brings the at least one parameter associated with the mooring line back to the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold [0067].
Regarding claim 3, Van Der Burg and Culp teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Van Der Burg also teaches that the at least one parameter associated with the mooring line differs from the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold, the programmable controller is configured to cause the tension hoist to adjust the mooring line to an extent that brings the at least one parameter associated with the mooring line back to the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold without manual input [0067].
Regarding claim 4, Van Der Burg and Culp teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Van Der Burg also teaches that the at least one parameter associated with the mooring line comprises tension in the mooring line such that the sensor is configured to sense at least tension at the mooring line [0010].
Regarding claim 5, Van Der Burg and Culp teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Van Der Burg also teaches that the programmable controller is configured to compare at least tension at the mooring line sensed by the sensor to the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold and, when at least the tension at the mooring line differs from the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold, the programmable controller is configured to cause the tension hoist to adjust the mooring line to an extent that brings at least the tension at the mooring line back to the predetermined mooring line parameter threshold [0067].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 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. The prior art of record fails to teach a system in which both the tension on the mooring line and the elevation of the mooring cart are automatically adjusted based on the tension in the mooring line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yordi US 2,979,014 teaches a boat mooring device in which a mooring cart adjustable in height.
Ueki US 7,866,630 teaches a winch which automatically adjusts holding position based on length and/or tension of a line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights