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.
Claims 7-9, 18 and 19 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 7-9 recite limitations based on the physical structure of the auxiliary component, such as “a bore configured to receive the auxiliary component” or “configured to restrict rotation of the auxiliary component,” however parent claim 1 only recites that the “attachment structure (is) for an auxiliary component.” It is unclear if the auxiliary component is being positively recited. It is further unclear how physical limitations based on an unclaimed component are to be interpreted, i.e. without features of an unspecified component, it is unclear how to judge if a device is configured to restrict its rotation.
Likewise, claim 19 also attempts to define feature based on an unclaimed component, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 recites method limitations, such as “when the first structure is inserted” and “the elastic structure moves away.” It is unclear how method limitations or the description of particular usage scenarios limit an apparatus claim.
Please note that a claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653
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 1-4, 9, 11, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Besonen US 5,307,753.
Regarding claim 1, Besonen discloses an attachment structure for an auxiliary component for a marine vessel B, comprising:
a first structure 13 configured to be attached to an attachment portion of the marine vessel (16 or whatever connects to it);
an elastic structure 20; and
a second structure 12 connected to the first structure via the elastic structure so as to allow axial movement of the first structure with respect to the second structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
135
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Besonen Figure 6
Regarding claim 2, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Besonen also discloses that the elastic structure is a tension spring 20.
Regarding claim 3, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Besonen also discloses that
the first structure comprises an inner sleeve 13,
wherein the second structure comprises an outer sleeve 12,
wherein the inner sleeve is positioned at least partially within the outer sleeve, and
wherein the elastic structure 20 is positioned at least partially within the inner sleeve.
Regarding claim 4, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Besonen also discloses that the first structure further comprises a rod 16 fixed to the inner sleeve 13, and wherein the rod is configured to be directly attached to the attachment portion of the marine vessel (ring portion of 16 or whatever connects to it).
Regarding claim 9, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Besonen also discloses that the second structure is configured to receive the auxiliary component 15.
Regarding claim 11, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Besonen also discloses that the elastic structure is a tension spring 20 that biases the inner sleeve 13 towards the outer sleeve 12 in an axial direction.
Regarding claim 18 as best understood, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Besonen also discloses that when the first structure is inserted within the attachment structure of the marine vessel (such as a deck cleat), a portion of the first structure 13 attached to a first attachment portion of the elastic structure 20 moves away in an axial direction from a portion of the second structure 12 attached to a second attachment portion of the elastic structure such that the elastic structure biases the first structure towards the second structure (if certain conditions are applied).
Regarding claim 20, Besonen discloses a marine vessel comprising:
the attachment structure of claim 1 (see above);
a hull B comprising the attachment portion (wherever the device 10 is mounted); and
the auxiliary component (the anchor or dock F cleat) attached to the attachment structure.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besonen US 5,307,753 in view of Burnett US 2,117,701.
Regarding claim 5, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Besonen does not teach that the rod comprises a threaded portion configured to engage with threading within the attachment portion of the marine vessel to attach the attachment structure to the marine vessel. Burnett teaches an attachment structure in which the connection rods 9, 10 comprise a threaded portion configured to engage with threading within the attachment portion of a marine vessel, or whatever a user desires. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with threaded rod ends as taught by Burnett in order to enable a stronger or smaller connection.
Claims 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besonen US 5,307,753 in view of Taylor US 5,694,879.
Regarding claim 6, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Besonen does not teach a housing fixed to the outer sleeve. Taylor teaches an attachment structure 10 comprising a housing 13 fixed to an outer sleeve 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with an outer housing as taught by Taylor in order to provide a softer exterior and prevent damage to the structure or other items that it may contact.
Regarding claim 7, Besonen and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Besonen also teaches that
the second structure 12 further comprises an end cap 12b fixed to the housing, and
the end cap includes a bore configured to receive the auxiliary component 15.
Regarding claim 8, Besonen and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Besonen also teaches that the bore includes at least one guide groove (any portion of the bore) configured to restrict rotation of the auxiliary component 15. Note that by insertion into the bore, rotation is restricted in at least 2 axis.
Regarding claim 17, Besonen and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. In the device as taught, the inner sleeve 13, the outer sleeve 12, and the housing (Taylor 13) are positioned radially around the elastic structure 20.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besonen US 5,307,753 in view of Taylor US 5,694,879, Jayne US 7,717,053 and Webb US 2,771,291.
Regarding claim 10, Besonen and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Neither Besonen nor Taylor teach how the housing is attached or elastic structure is attached.
Jayne teaches an attachment structure in which the outermost (housing) component 8 is attached to the sleeve 4 via a fastener, and the elastic structure 16 is also attached to the fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen and Taylor by attaching the housing to the sleeve with a fastener, and then also using the fastener to attach the elastic component as taught by Jayne in order to ensure that the housing is properly retained, and take advantage of an independent attachment point for the elastic structure in order to enable replacement of the connectors without requiring detachment of other interfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
114
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Jayne Figure 2
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3- Webb Figure 2)]
PNG
media_image3.png
603
131
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Webb teaches an attachment structure 8 in which the sleeve 10 comprises a bridge portion 20 on which a first attachment portion of the elastic structure 24 is attached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with a bridge to attach the elastic structure as taught by Webb in order to enable replacement of the connectors without requiring detachment of other interfaces.
Regarding claim 19 as best understood, Besonen discloses an attachment structure for an auxiliary component for a marine vessel B, the attachment structure defining a first axial direction and a second axial direction and comprising:
an end cap 12b disposed on a terminal end of the structure in the second axial direction and having a bore configured to accept the auxiliary component 15;
an outer sleeve 12;
an inner sleeve 13 disposed at least partially within the outer sleeve;
an elastic structure 20 having a first attachment portion attached to the inner sleeve and a second attachment portion attached to the outer sleeve so as to allow axial movement of the first structure with respect to the second structure; and
a rod 16 disposed at least partially within the inner sleeve and fixed to the inner sleeve via a second fastener 16a,
wherein the attachment structure is configured such that, when the rod is inserted into an attachment portion of the marine vessel (such as a deck cleat), the inner sleeve is moved in the first axial direction with respect to the outer sleeve, thereby generating a biasing force in the elastic structure that pulls the inner sleeve towards the outer sleeve (if certain conditions are applied).
Besonen does not teach a housing fixed to the outer sleeve. Taylor teaches an attachment structure 10 comprising a housing 13 fixed to an outer sleeve 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with an outer housing as taught by Taylor in order to provide a softer exterior and prevent damage to the structure or other items that it may contact.
Neither Besonen nor Taylor teach that the outer sleeve is fixed to the housing via a first fastener or that the second attachment portion is attached to the first fastener. Jayne teaches an attachment structure in which the outermost (housing) component 8 is attached to the sleeve 4 via a fastener, and the elastic structure 16 is also attached to the fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen and Taylor by attaching the housing to the sleeve with a fastener, and then also using the fastener to attach the elastic component as taught by Jayne in order to ensure that the housing is properly retained, and take advantage of an independent attachment point for the elastic structure in order to enable replacement of the connectors without requiring detachment of other interfaces.
Besonen does not teach that the inner sleeve comprises a bridge portion, or that the first attachment portion is attached to the bridge portion. Webb teaches an attachment structure 8 in which the sleeve 10 comprises a bridge portion 20 on which a first attachment portion of the elastic structure 24 is attached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with a bridge to attach the elastic structure as taught by Webb in order to enable replacement of the connectors without requiring detachment of other interfaces.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besonen US 5,307,753 in view of McEvoy US 9,308,969.
Regarding claim 12, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Besonen does not teach that the inner sleeve comprises a flange that abuts an axial end of the outer sleeve to limit movement of the inner sleeve with respect to the outer sleeve in the axial direction. McEvoy teaches an attachment structure comprising an inner sleeve 89a, an outer sleeve 89b, and an elastic component 84 within the inner sleeve, wherein the inner sleeve comprises a flange that abuts an axial end of the outer sleeve to limit movement of the inner sleeve with respect to the outer sleeve in the axial direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with a flange on the inner sleeve to contact the end of the outer sleeve as taught by McEvoy in order to enable a reduction of overall length of the inner sleeve (reducing material, weight and cost) while maintaining the same retracted length.
PNG
media_image4.png
239
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- McEvoy Figures 15a and 15b
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besonen US 5,307,753 in view of Muttart US 4,754,957.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Besonen discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 3. Besonen does not teach that the second structure/outer sleeve is not rotatable with respect to the first structure/inner sleeve. Muttart teaches an attachment structure in which the inner sliding components 12, 13 are not rotatable with respect to the outer structure/sleeve 10, 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with inner sliders and an outer structure which are not round/rotatable as taught by Muttart in order to maintain a specific orientation of the inner slider, ease handling by providing an exterior with features and/or reduce the overall size of the device by removing unneeded material.
Regarding claim 15, Besonen and Muttart teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Neither Besonen nor Muttart teach that the inner sleeve and a bore within the outer sleeve have a hexagonal cross-sectional shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the sleeve and bore hexagonal or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to give the device the desired form factor/appearance or fit in a desired space. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besonen US 5,307,753 in view of Webb US 2,771,291.
Regarding claim 16, Besonen and Taylor teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Besonen also teaches that at least a portion of the rod 16 is positioned within the inner sleeve 13 in a first axial direction of the elastic structure attachment, and wherein at least a portion of the elastic structure 20 is disposed within the inner sleeve in a second axial direction of the elastic structure attachment. Besonen does not teach that the inner sleeve comprises a bridge portion, wherein the elastic structure is attached to the bridge portion. Webb teaches an attachment structure 8 in which the sleeve 10 comprises a bridge portion 20 on which a first attachment portion of the elastic structure 24 is attached. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the attachment structure of Besonen with a bridge in the sleeve to attach the elastic structure as taught by Webb in order to enable replacement of the connectors without requiring detachment of other interfaces.
Examiner Note
The examiner notes that while the current invention is intended for rigidly securing accessories such as a seat to a marine vessel, the claims as written are made obvious in view of various line tensioning/shock absorbing devices (as shown above). However, if the detailed structure (including the specific arrangement of the cover, inner and outer sleeves, the elastic element and all fasteners/bridges) was distinctly recited, allowable subject matter could be found. The examiner is open to communication with the applicant after consideration of this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roux US 3,306,600 and Gilmore US 5,803,439 teach tensioning devices comprising a tension spring inside a housing.
Duncanson US 957,315 teaches a tensioning device in which fixtures are attached via pins through slots in the outer housing.
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