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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Etherington (WO 2016/120599). With respect to claim 1, Etherington discloses the claimed shallow draft float 2 providing intact stability to a marine structure with a lower portion having an inverted conical section 10 having a pointed bottom transitioning to a circular top which is engaged with a short cylindrical portion (7; Figure 4), an upper portion being a tall cylindrical portion 8 engaged at an end atop the short cylindrical portion, the float supports a marine structure 14 and the lower portion resides at least partially beneath the water surface and the upper portion resides above the water surface until a tipping force is applied to the marine structure forcing the lower portion beneath the water surface with the upper surface proving additional floatation to counter tipping forces and increase stability of the structure (inherently). With respect to claim 4, note Etherington, note claim 30.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etherington (WO 2016/120599) in view of Todter et al (US 10029773). With respect to claim 2, Etherington does not disclose an inflatable upper portion. Todter et al teach an inflatable upper portion 104. 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 upper portion of Etherington to be inflatable as taught by Todter et al with a high likelihood of success for improved safety. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. It is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is designing complex offshore floatation devices would have years of experience and advanced degrees and such a person would be familiar with stability enhancing features.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etherington (WO 2016/120599) in view of Whittle (US 3285213). With respect to claim 5, 8, Etherington discloses the claimed shallow draft float 2 providing intact stability to a marine structure with a lower portion having an inverted conical section 10 having a pointed bottom transitioning to a circular top which is engaged with a short cylindrical portion (7; Figure 4) and the float supports a marine structure 14. Etherington does not disclose an inverted parachute. Wittle teaches a structure with an inverted parachute (column 7, lines 30-40) including storage. 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 Etherington with an inverted parachute including storage as taught by Whittle with a high likelihood of success for improved safety by providing increased stability. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. It is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is designing complex offshore floatation devices would have years of experience and advanced degrees and such a person would be familiar with stability enhancing features. With respect to claim 7, note Etherington, note claim 30.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Etherington (WO 2016/120599) in view of Whittle (US 3285213), and further in view of Rutten et al (US 4481900). With respect to claim 6, Etherington does not disclose a textile parachute. Rutten teaches a textile parachute 16. 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 Etherington with a textile parachute as taught by Rutten with a high likelihood of success for improved storage and economy. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. It is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is designing complex offshore floatation devices would have years of experience and advanced degrees and such a person would be familiar with stability enhancing features. With respect to claim 7, note Etherington, note claim 30.
Claim 3 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.
Claims 9-13 are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schmitz, Sr. (US 2007/0028822) show a vessel.
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
Prosecution Insights