DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits of application 18466738.
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1, recites “a line 22 coupling” 22 needs to be removed from claim language or bracketed (22).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Geiger DE 102020121513.
Claim 1, Geiger discloses a system [100] for forming artificial waves for wake-surfing on surface of water, the system comprising: a pulling apparatus [11/12] installed on a stationary surface; a pulled apparatus [20] being a floating structure having a shape configured to form waves when the pulled apparatus [20] moves on the surface of water; and a line [141/142] coupling the pulled apparatus with the pulling apparatus for pulling the pulled apparatus to form the artificial waves. See fig. 1 [0059]
Claim 2, Geiger discloses wherein the pulling apparatus [11/12] is configured to pull the pulled apparatus [20] in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction. See fig. 1 [0059]
Claim 3, Geiger discloses one or more anchors [13] guide is on a stationary surface] installed on the stationary surface to support and guide the line.
Claim 4, Geiger discloses one or more pulleys attached to the anchors [13] to support and guide the line. The pulleys are inherent since pulling apparatuses are winches as seen in fig. 1 [11/12] though not explicitly stated in the reference.
Claim 5, Geiger discloses wherein the pulling apparatus [11/12] is an electric winch. [0059]
Claim 8, Geiger discloses wherein the electric winch [11/12] is operated by an automatic control system [111/121]. Fig. 1 [0059]
Claim 14, Geiger discloses wherein the line comprises: a track line [122] directly coupled with the pulling apparatus for pulling the track line, the track line running along the direction of movement of the pulled apparatus ; and a haul line [142] having a first end and a second end, the second end directly coupled with the pulled apparatus [20] and the first end of the haul line coupled to the track line for pulling the pulled apparatus when the track line is pulled. See fig. 1
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger et al.
Claims 6-7, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the limitations of wherein the line is submerged in the water or the anchors are submerged in the water. Geiger disclose the line and anchors are above the waterline and since it can only be above or below the waterline it is not given significant patentable weight. It has been held that a change of location is of ordinary skill. Thus, it 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 to have said line and anchor submerged in the water based on only a few options of preferred placement.
Claim(s) 9-13, 16-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger
et al. in further view of Lochtefeld US 5664910. [Fig. 3]
Claims 9, 11-12, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the pulled apparatus comprises a hull and a ballast or a bow and stern. Lochtefeld discloses [col. 2 lines 7-11] a vessel with a hull, bow, stern and ballast to change trim. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the said pulled apparatus to create artificial waves using the said vessel limitations.
Claim 10, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose wherein the pulled apparatus is substantially hollow. Lochtefeld discloses [col. 8 lines 45-53] the pulled apparatus (vessel) is hollow. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the said pulled apparatus to create artificial waves using the said vessel limitations.
Claim 13, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose wherein a bottom of the hull has a concave surface between bilges of the hull. Lochtefeld discloses [col. 6 lines 9-20] wherein a bottom of the hull has a concave surface and bilges are obvious and well known in hull construction. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration since it is well known in shipbuilding for creating wakes.
Claim 16, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the pulled apparatus having hull shaped as a boat with a portion of the hull configured for submerging into water comprising: a bow; a stern being substantially flat; a longitudinal length between the bow and the stern; sides that are substantially parallel to each other; and a bottom with a concave surface extending from the stern to a part of longitudinal length of the pulled apparatus. Lochtefeld discloses these limitations as described in the above rejected claims and thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration since it is well known in shipbuilding for creating wave making vessels.
Claim 17-21, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the limitations of the concave surface extends from the stern to about a third of the longitudinal length of the pulled apparatus or the bow has a sharp leading edge that is orthogonal to the bottom or the sharp leading edge of the bow widens upto a third of the longitudinal length of the pulled apparatus or the breadth and cheekbones. Lochtefeld discloses the general hull shapes [figs 1-7], he does not explicitly disclose all the above limitations but it has been held that finding an optimal value dimension or a change in shape is of ordinary skill in the art and thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration based on design preference for desired wave characteristics.
Claim 22, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the bottom includes a V-shape. Lochtefeld discloses this in fig. 3a at the bow. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration of the vessel since it is conventional.
Claim 23-24, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose wherein an angle of the bottom with respect to horizontal within a front portion of the pulled apparatus is about eighteen degrees or the hull has a middle portion, wherein the angle of the bottom with respect to horizontal within the middle portion of the pulled apparatus is about five degrees. Lochtefeld discloses the general hull shapes [figs 1-7], he does not explicitly disclose all the above limitations but it has been held that finding an optimal value dimension or a change in shape is of ordinary skill in the art and thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration based on design preference for desired wave characteristics.
Claim 25-27, Geiger discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose the concave surface has a depth of about a tenth part of a breadth of the pulled apparatus or wherein an angle formed between the bottom and the stern is between eighty and one-hundred degrees or wherein an angle formed between the sides and the stern is between eighty and one-hundred degrees. Lochtefeld discloses the general hull shapes [figs 1-7], he does not explicitly disclose all the above limitations but it has been held that finding an optimal value dimension or an optimal range is of ordinary skill in the art and thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to attain the above configuration based on design preference for desired wave characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615