DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
There are no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) of record.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Invention I: Claims 1-12, drawn to an apparatus for attaching a deck to a hull for calculating hybrid vehicle design, classified in B63B3/142.
Invention II: Claim 13, drawn to a apparatus of a deck of a boat, classified in B63B3/5.
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, Invention I is related to how a deck can be connected to hull of a watercraft whereas Invention II is directed to a deck where the front and back platform have a planar shape, and the casting platform with front and rear legs, both inventions are mutually exclusive since each one of them could be practiced independently of the other. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants of each other.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because both of these Inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions belong to different classes/subclasses and have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1 .143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Election over of the Phone
During a telephone conversation with Scott Swanson on 2/18/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the Invention I (Claims 1-12). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim 13 has been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter has been captured in the independent claim.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Restriction Election” of 2/18/2026.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shaw (United States Patent 3,758,897).
With respect to Claim 1: Shaw discloses “A watercraft having a quick connect system for attaching a watercraft hull to a deck of the watercraft” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65, Claim 3 with Figure 2];
“said quick connect system comprising: a series of loops attached to a top surf ace of said watercraft hull” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65 with Figure 2 (32)];
“a plurality of rigid tube receivers attached to the deck” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65, Col 5 lines 3-14 with Figure 2 (14, 15)];
“wherein said series of loops and said series of rigid tube receivers are aligned when said boat deck is positioned on said boat hull” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65, Col 5 lines 3-14 with Figure 2 (14, 15, 32)];
“and a plurality of elongate rails extending through the aligned rigid tube receivers and loops to connect said boat deck to said boat hull” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65, Col 5 lines 3-14 with Figure 2 (31, 23b, 23a)];
“wherein said plurality of elongate rails are configured to slide out of said rigid tube receivers and loops to release said boat deck from said boat hull” [Shaw, Col 4 line 47-65, Col 5 line 3-14 with Figure 2 (31, 23b, 23a)].
With respect to Claim 7: Shaw discloses “The watercraft of claim 1 wherein said boat hull comprises a left hull and a right hull, wherein said left hull and right hull are symmetrical and are positioned in parallel” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65, Claim 3 with Figure 2].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (United States Patent 3,758,897) in view of Hanlon (United States Patent 4,938,162).
With respect to Claims 2-3: While Shaw discloses “The watercraft of claim 1 wherein said boat hull comprises an hull” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65 with Figure 2];
“wherein said boat hull comprises a left hull and a right hull positioned in a spaced apart and parallel orientation” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65 with Figure 2];
“wherein said left hull and said right hull are symmetrical” [Shaw, Col 4 lines 47-65 with Figure 2];
Shaw does not specifically state that the pontoons are inflatable.,
Hanlon, which is in the same field of invention of watercraft control and design teaches “inflatable pontoons” [Hanlon, Col 1 lines 5-24 with Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hanlon into the invention of Shaw to not only include using tubes and sleeves to connect a deck to air filled pontoon rafts as Shaw discloses but to also have pontoons that are inflatable with a deck being attached as taught by Hanlon with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Hanlon into Shaw to create a more dynamic system that can have a smaller size, since inflatables can be deflated. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements connecting decks to hulls and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (United States Patent 3,758,897) in view of Horton (United States Patent 4,537,144).
With respect to Claims 9-11: While Shaw discloses “The quick connect system of claim 1 wherein said deck comprises an elevated seat” [Shaw, Col 3 lines 12-47 with Figure 1 (10 Camper Body)];
“wherein said deck comprises a motor mount” [Shaw, Col 3 lines 12-47 with Figure 1 (M Outboard motor)];
“wherein said deck comprises a grasping handle” [Shaw, Col 3 lines 12-47 with Figure 1 (railings)];
Shaw does not specifically state an elevated sear, rather a camper, where one could sit and be elevated.
Horton, which is in the same field of invention watercraft control and design teaches “elevated seats” [Horton, Col 3 lines 3-16 with Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Horton into the invention of Shaw to not only include using tubes and sleeves to connect a deck to pontoon to support a structure like a camper as Shaw discloses but to also use the deck to attach elevated seats as taught by Horton with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Horton into Shaw to create a more dynamic system that can “permit an excellent view of stumps and logs which may be in the general proximity of the water craft to facilitate avoiding becoming lodged on such obstacles” [Horton, Col 7 lines 25-30]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements connecting decks to hulls and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (United States Patent 3,758,897) in view of Garnier (United States Patent 5,642,685).
With respect to Claim 12: While Shaw discloses “The quick connect system of claim 1 wherein said hull with two pontoons in parallel” [Shaw, Col 3 lines 12-47 with Figure 1];
Shaw does not specifically state a series of inflatable tubes as the hull or pontoon.
Garnier, which is in the same field of invention watercraft control and design teaches “wherein said hull comprises a series of inflatable tubes” [Garnier, Col 3 lines 16-40 with Figures 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the 8
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Garnier into the invention of Shaw to not only include using two pontoons to holdup a deck as Shaw discloses but to also use a series of tubes to hold up a deck as taught by Garnier with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Garnier into Shaw to create a more dynamic system that can provides auxiliary floatation [Garnier, Col 3 lines 16-40]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements connecting decks to hulls and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 and 8 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c