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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 October 2025 has been entered, where:
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended;
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 7, where Claim 7 has been amended to depend from Claim 6, has obviated the 35 USC 112(b) rejection made in the Final Rejection mailed on 14 April 2025.
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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 1,792,612 issued to Staley in view of in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,239,197 issued to Olstad (Citation No. 11 in the IDS filed on 2/5/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Staley teaches of teaches of a rotisserie, comprising:
a lower frame comprising a pair of longitudinal members (12,13) and a pair of lateral members (unlabeled shown connecting between elements 10 and 11);
a support structure (10, 11) affixed to each lateral member of the lower frame;
an upper frame comprising a pair of longitudinal members (23, 24) and a pair of lateral members (15, 16), wherein each lateral member (15, 16) of the upper frame is rotatably coupled (end brackets 17, 18; see Col. 2, lines 75-80) to the support structures (10, 11), such that the upper frame is rotatable about its longitudinal axis (Col. 2, lines 77-80); and
a locking mechanism configured to selectively secure the upper frame in a fixed position relative to the lower frame (Figure 4 shows a mechanical fastener to secure bracket 17 to support structure 10 and a mechanical fastener to secure bracket 18 to support structure 11; this enables “These end brackets are rotatably held between the standards 10 and 11 so that the frame may be revolved about its longitudinal axis” (Col. 2, lines 77-80));
wherein the upper frame includes a pair of mounting pins (the pins are the pins shown in Figures 1 and 4 that allow for brackets 17, 18 to rotate relative to the support structures 10, 11) that each extend into a mounting sleeve (see the portion where the pins are received in the mounting structures 10, 11 shown in Figure 4) affixed to each of the support structures (10, 11), such that the mounting pin is rotatable (Col. 2, lines 75-80) within the mounting sleeve.
Staley shows the locking mechanism further comprises a locking disk (elements 17 and 18) affixed to the upper frame having apertures shown in Figure 1, but Staley does not show that locking mechanism receive a locking pin that is slidably mounted to the one of the support structures, where the locking pin including a handle projection on a distal end and where the locking pin engages a spring that biases the locking pin toward the locking disk.
Olstad teaches of a rotating support device that uses a spring loaded (Col. 2, lines 32-45) locking pin (20) slideably mounted to a support structure (6). The lower end of the locking pin is manipulated by a step that is taken to be a handle, as it could be manipulated by hand or foot, projecting at the distal end of pin (20) received in a locking disk (19) for a rotating element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the locking mechanism taught by Olstad that includes a spring-loaded locking pin that can be manipulated with a handle for the device taught by Staley. One would be motivated to provide the locking mechanism to allow a user to adjust the angular portion of the rotisserie in a variety of angular positions and to safely secure the position by operating a foot handle to lock the position of the object supported by the rotisserie; further Olstad suggests that it is desirable to fix the axial position to accommodate different sized objects—see at least Col. 2, lines 14-24.
Regarding the limitation that the device is a “personal watercraft” rotisserie, this limitation is solely recited in the preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “personal watercraft” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding Claim 3, Staley teaches wheels (14) affixed to the lower frame.
Regarding Claim 4, Staley teaches each support structure (10, 11) comprises a pair of struts each affixed at a lower end to one of the lateral members (see Figure 1) of the lower frames and extending upwardly at an angle to converge at an apex, defining an A-frame (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley in view of Olstad, as disclosed above, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 2,828,036 issued to White.
Regarding Claim 6, Staley as modified disclose the claimed invention except for showing a plurality of rollers affixed to the upper frame, wherein the rollers are configured to support a personal watercraft such that a lower hull of the personal watercraft extends downwardly through an open center area defined by a perimeter of the upper frame.
White teaches of a watercraft support that includes a plurality of roller assemblies (28) to support the watercraft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of rollers, as taught by White, for the rotisserie taught by Staley. One would be motivated to provide a plurality of rollers to allow an item supported by Staley to be supported without damage, an objective taught by White in Col. 4, lines 16-30.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley in view of Olstad and White, as disclosed above, and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 5,328,161 issued to Stuck (Citation No. 17 in the IDS filed on 2/5/2024).
Regarding Claim 7, Staley as modified disclose the claimed invention except for teaching the rollers are composed of a foam material—White does teach that it is desirably to provide rollers covered with soft rubber or other similar cushioning material (Co. 4, lines 16-19).
Stuck however teaches that it is desirable to use foam for a watercraft support to cushion and prevent damage to a jet ski (see at least Col. 3, lines 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a foam covering, as taught by Stuck, for the rollers in the modified invention of Staley. One would be motivated to provide foam to cushion and prevent damage to a watercraft, as suggested by White.
Claim(s) 8-9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staley in view of Olstad, as disclosed above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0113595 issued to Hemphill (Citation No. 6 in the IDS filed on 2/5/2024).
Regarding Claim 8, Staley as modified teaches a plurality of brackets (32) to secure a device on the rotisserie, but does not explicitly disclose that the brackets (32) are strap mounts affixed to the upper frame, and in re claim 9 that the brackets include ratcheting strap lock mechanism.
Hemphill teaches that it is known to provide a ratcheting strap bracket (Figure 3) that can be used for securing a boat (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a plurality of ratcheting strap lock brackets, as taught by Hemphill, for securing an object to the rotisserie taught by Staley. One would be motivated to provide a ratcheting strap bracket to provide a mechanical fastener that that can releasably secure on object to rotisserie taught by Staley.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, page 6 of the response: “Applicant submits that none of Staley, White, Stuck, Hemphill, Olstad nor any combination thereof teach or suggest the elements of amended independent claim 1.” is not found to be persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Olstad suggests that it is desirable to fix the axial position to accommodate different sized objects—see at least Col. 2, lines 14-23. Such a modification to incorporate the locking structure with a locking pin, a handle projection and spring that biases a locking pin taught by Olsted into the rotisserie taught by Staley would be within the general level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN L SWENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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 SWENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/BRIAN L SWENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613