DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 30 July 2026.
Claims 14 and 18 are canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the original 112(b) rejection(s).
The arguments in response to the drawing objection(s) and claim objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive.
The arguments in response to the 112(f) invocation are found persuasive.
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and/or 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive.
A new rejection is included in this office action, necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office:
A. "means for connecting," first introduced in claim 16:
the means for connecting performs the function of connecting the shade top to an aft side of the personal watercraft and may comprise two or more supporting pillars assemblies configured to be attached to an aft side of the personal watercraft (see [0036], FIG. 2), or an equivalent thereof.
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, 5-13, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musacchio (US 20140026803), hereafter referred to as Musacchio, in view of Fraser et al (US 20200339227), hereafter referred to as Fraser.
Regarding Claim 1, Musacchio discloses the following:
A shade assembly for a watercraft (20) comprising:
a shade top (18; FIG. 7);
a front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) comprising two or more fasteners (16; FIG. 7) configured to attach the shade top (18; FIG. 7) to a steering control handle of the personal watercraft (20) (it is noted, the looped straps are capable of being attached to a steering control handle); and
a rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) comprising two or more supporting pillars (13; FIG. 6-7; see [0037]) assemblies configured to be attached to an aft side of the personal watercraft (20);
at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) coupled to the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) and extending at least partially from the aft side of the watercraft (20) toward a fore side of the watercraft (20), the at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) comprising a first cross member (11; FIG. 8) and a second cross member (11; FIG. 8);
wherein the shade top (18; FIG. 7) is configured to be attached to the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) and the steering control handle to form a shade that extends over a user of the personal watercraft (20) (as seen in FIG. 6).
the first cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from a port side of the watercraft (20) to a starboard side of the watercraft (20); and
the second cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from the starboard side of the watercraft (20) to the port side of the watercraft (20).
Musacchio does not disclose the following:
wherein the watercraft having a shade is a personal watercraft;
However Fraser teaches the following:
wherein the watercraft having a shade (10) is a personal watercraft (FIG. 1);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sunshade, as disclosed by Fraser, with the sunshade as taught by Musacchio, with the reasonable expectation of successfully covering the occupants of the watercraft, as taught by Musacchio (see for example [0024, 37]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the shade arrangement of Fraser with the shade arrangement of Musacchio yields the predictable result of providing shade (i.e. substituting one known means to provide shade for a watercraft for another known means to provide shade for a watercraft). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 2, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The shade assembly according to claim 1,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) include two sub-assemblies (13a, 13b; see [0036]; FIG. 6-7), wherein a first sub-assembly has a larger diameter respective to a second sub-assembly, wherein the first and second sub-assemblies are adjustable to adjust total length of the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) (see [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The shade assembly according to claim 1,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) that support the shade top (18; FIG. 7) upwardly to extend space under the shade top (18; FIG. 7)(see [0030]).
Regarding Claim 4, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following:
The shade assembly according to claim 3,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein a crossing point of the first cross member (11; FIG. 7) and second cross member (11; FIG. 7) is not centered along a length (as seen in FIG. 7 the crossing is closer to the fore of the shade) of the shade top (18; FIG. 7) between a fore end and an aft end of the shade top.
Regarding Claim 5, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The shade assembly according to claim 4,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the crossing point is closer to a front edge (as seen in FIG. 7) of the shade top (18; FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 6, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The shade assembly according to claim 4,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein a crossing point of the first cross member (11; FIG. 7) and second cross member (11; FIG. 7) is centered along a width (as seen in FIG. 7) of the shade top (18; FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 7, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The shade assembly according to claim 1,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) and the front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) are configured to be detachably attached to the personal watercraft (20) (see for example [0002]).
Regarding Claim 8, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The shade assembly according to claim 1,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein a top of the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) is attached with a pillar cap (as seen in FIG. 7-8, holes are provided in the shade to accommodate the narrower ends of the poles) that has a through hole accommodating one end of the pole assembly and a recess accommodating a metal (see [0032]) pin configured to engage and hold the shade top (18; FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
A watercraft (20) comprising:
a shade top (18; FIG. 7);
a front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) configured to attach the shade top (18; FIG. 7) to a fore side of the personal watercraft (20); and
a rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) comprising two or more supporting pillars (13; FIG. 6-7; see [0037]) configured to be attached to an aft side of the personal watercraft (20);
at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) coupled to the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) and extending at least partially from the aft side of the watercraft (20) toward the fore side of the watercraft (20), the at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) comprising a first cross member (11; FIG. 8) and a second cross member (11; FIG. 8);
wherein the shade top (18; FIG. 7) is configured to be attached to the front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) and the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7).
the first cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from a port side of the watercraft (20) to a starboard side of the watercraft (20); and
the second cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from the starboard side of the watercraft (20) to the port side of the watercraft (20).
Musacchio does not disclose the following:
wherein the watercraft having a shade is a personal watercraft;
However Fraser teaches the following:
wherein the watercraft having a shade (10) is a personal watercraft (FIG. 1);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sunshade, as disclosed by Fraser, with the sunshade as taught by Musacchio, with the reasonable expectation of successfully covering the occupants of the watercraft, as taught by Musacchio (see for example [0024, 37]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the shade arrangement of Fraser with the shade arrangement of Musacchio yields the predictable result of providing shade (i.e. substituting one known means to provide shade for a watercraft for another known means to provide shade for a watercraft). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 10, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The personal watercraft according to claim 9,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein individual supporting pillars (13; FIG. 6-7; see [0037]) of the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) include two sub-assemblies (13a, 13b; see [0036]; FIG. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 11, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The personal watercraft according to claim 10,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein a first sub-assembly has a larger diameter respective to a second sub-assembly (13a, 13b; see [0036]; FIG. 6-7), wherein the first and second sub- assemblies are adjustable to adjust total length of the rear supporting pillar (see [0036-37]; FIG. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 12, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The personal watercraft according to claim 8,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) that support the shade top (18; FIG. 7) upwardly to extend space under the shade top (18; FIG. 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The personal watercraft according to claim 9,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) includes two or more fasteners (16; FIG. 7) configured to attach (it is noted, the looped straps are capable of being attached to a steering control handle) the shade top (18; FIG. 7) to a steering control handle of the personal watercraft (20).
Regarding Claim 16, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
A kit (see MPEP 2112.01) for creating a shade assembly for a watercraft (20) comprising:
a shade top (18; FIG. 7);
a front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) comprising means for connecting the shade top (18; FIG. 7) to a fore side of the personal watercraft (20); and
a rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) comprising means for connecting the shade top (18; FIG. 7) to an aft side of the personal watercraft (20);
at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) coupled to the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) and extending at least partially from the aft side of the watercraft (20) toward the fore side of the watercraft (20), the at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) comprising a first cross member (11; FIG. 8) and a second cross member (11; FIG. 8);
wherein the shade top (18; FIG. 7) is configured to be attached to the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) and the front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) to form a shade.
the first cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from a port side of the watercraft (20) to a starboard side of the watercraft (20); and
the second cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from the starboard side of the watercraft (20) to the port side of the watercraft (20).
Musacchio does not disclose the following:
wherein the watercraft having a shade is a personal watercraft;
However Fraser teaches the following:
wherein the watercraft having a shade (10) is a personal watercraft (FIG. 1);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sunshade, as disclosed by Fraser, with the sunshade as taught by Musacchio, with the reasonable expectation of successfully covering the occupants of the watercraft, as taught by Musacchio (see for example [0024, 37]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the shade arrangement of Fraser with the shade arrangement of Musacchio yields the predictable result of providing shade (i.e. substituting one known means to provide shade for a watercraft for another known means to provide shade for a watercraft). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Regarding Claim 17 Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The kit for creating a shade assembly for a personal watercraft according to claim 16,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the front supporting structure (16 in combination with 19; FIG. 7) includes two or more fasteners (16; FIG. 7) configured to attach (it is noted, the looped straps are capable of being attached to a steering control handle) the shade top (18; FIG. 7) to a steering control handle of the personal watercraft (20).
Regarding Claim 19, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The kit for creating a shade assembly for a personal watercraft according to claim 16,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) includes two or more supporting pillars (13; FIG. 6-7; see [0037]) configured to be attached to the aft side of the personal watercraft (20).
Regarding Claim 20, Musacchio as modified by Fraser discloses the following::
The kit for creating a shade assembly for a personal watercraft according to claim 16,
Musacchio continues to teach the following:
wherein the at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) supports the shade top (18; FIG. 7) upwardly to extend space under the shade top (18; FIG. 7)(see [0030]).
Claims 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Musacchio and Watkins et al (US 20210371056), hereafter referred to as Watkins.
Regarding Claim 9, Fraser teaches the following:
A personal watercraft (FIG. 1) comprising:
a shade top (10);
a front supporting structure (20 in front of craft; FIG. 2B) configured to attach the shade top (10) to a fore side of the personal watercraft; and
a rear supporting structure (20 in the rear in combination with 65's and 80, 90; FIG. 2B) comprising two or more supporting pillars (80, 90) configured to be attached to an aft side of the personal watercraft (via 110 in combination with 120);
wherein the shade top (10) is configured to be attached to the front supporting structure (20 in front of craft; FIG. 2B) and the rear supporting structure (20 in the rear in combination with 65's and 80, 90; FIG. 2B).
Fraser does not teach the following:
at least one pole assembly coupled to the rear supporting structure and extending at least partially from the aft side of the personal watercraft toward the fore side of the personal watercraft, the at least one pole assembly comprising a first cross member and a second cross member;
the first cross member extends at least partially from a port side of the personal watercraft to a starboard side of the personal watercraft; and
the second cross member extends at least partially from the starboard side of the personal watercraft to the port side of the personal watercraft.
However Musacchio teaches the following:
at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) coupled to the rear supporting structure (15 in combination with 13; FIG. 7) and extending at least partially from the aft side of the watercraft (20) toward the fore side of the watercraft (20), the at least one pole assembly (11; FIG. 7) comprising a first cross member (11; FIG. 8) and a second cross member (11; FIG. 8);
the first cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from a port side of the watercraft (20) to a starboard side of the watercraft (20); and
the second cross member (11; FIG. 8) extends at least partially from the starboard side of the watercraft (20) to the port side of the watercraft (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shade as disclosed by Fraser, wherein the shade comprises first and second cross members, as taught by Musacchio, with the reasonable expectation of successfully keeping the shade taut (see Musacchio, [0030]).
Regarding Claims 15, Fraser as modified by Musacchio discloses the following::
The personal watercraft (FIG. 1) according to claim 9,
Fraser as modified by Musacchio does not explicitly disclose the following:
further comprising a rear deck extender accessory,
However Watkins teaches the following:
further comprising a rear deck extender accessory (100, FIG. 17),
Fraser as modified by Musacchio and Watkins teaches the following:
a pair of metal base plates (120; FIG. 2B, 7) and screws (130; FIG. 8) to attach the metal base plates (120; FIG. 2B, 7) to a rear deck extender (as modified by Watkins), wherein each of the metal base plates (120; FIG. 2B, 7) comprises a cylindrically reinforced base hole (holes that accept 110) to accommodate the rear supporting structure (portions 80, 90 via 110 portion; FIG. 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the personal watercraft, as taught by Fraser, by adding a rear deck extender accessory, as taught by Watkins, with the reasonable expectation of providing the watercraft with an extended deck as well as a boarding ladder (see Watkins Abstract, FIG. 17).
It is noted, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shade assembly as disclosed by Fraser, wherein the metal base plates for the rear supports are installed on the rear deck extender accessory and the length of the shade is extended, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing additional shade to the rear deck extender accessory. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device; in this instance locating the rear support structure(s) of Fraser relative to the modified rear deck extender accessory of Watkins and modifying the relative size of the Fraser shade to extend in size to accommodate the rear deck extender accessory results in a device that would not perform differently than the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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 CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights