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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 10-14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Walpurgis (WO 2019/166496). With respect to claims 1 and 19, Walpurgis discloses the claimed watersports device 24 with a buoyant deck (including top surface of 24; inherently buoyant or else the device would sink) and a cape 2 that extends rearwardly from the deck and is capable of forming a barrier with legs of a user and the water (Figures 9, 19). With respect to claims 2, 5, 10-12, 14, note Walpurgis, Figure 19 and cape holder articulation 26. With respect to claim 4, note Walpurgis, note the title. With respect to claims 6-7, note Walpurgis, handles 56. With respect to claim 8, note Walpurgis, tow eye 18. With respect to claim 13, note Walpurgis, Figure 14. With respect to claim 14, note Walpurgis, page 12, lines 10-20.
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) 3, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walpurgis (WO 2019/166496) in view of Tinkler et al (US 4649847). With respect to claims 3, 15-18 and 20, Walpurgis does not disclose a flexible cape. Tinkler et al teach a flexible cape 38 or 34. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Walpurgis with the cape being flexible as taught by Tinkler et al with a high likelihood of success for improved safety and comfort. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have years of experience in the marine arts and would be aware of various tail appendages for watersports devices.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walpurgis (WO 2019/166496) in view of Villarreal et al (US 2019/0002062). With respect to claim 9, Walpurgis does not disclose a pad. Villarreal et al teach a pad 30. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of Walpurgis with a pad as taught by Villarreal et al with a high likelihood of success for improved comfort. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Note that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have years of experience in the marine arts and would be aware of various accessories for watersports devices.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elias (5354222) teaches a water sled. Kenmuir (US 3380090) teaches a water sled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 J. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615