DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 11/10/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the word “join” at the end of the claims was assumed to be a misspelling of “joint”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harmsen in US Design Patent 215141 (hereinafter “Harmsen”).
Regarding claim 1, Harmsen discloses a mounting bracket (“for mounting a fish detection system to a kayak” is intended use), the mounting bracket comprising: a base (see Fig. 1; “configured to be secured to the kayak” is intended use; regardless, Harmsen discloses a structure is capable of being mounted to a kayak); and a body that extends substantially perpendicular to the base (Fig. 1; the base is at the bottom of the figure and the main body of the bracket may be said to extend perpendicularly from it), wherein the body comprises: a wall that forms a substantially U-shaped hook (Fig. 1); and a sidewall that forms a substantially L-shaped support along a center line of the wall, wherein the sidewall extends substantially perpendicular to the wall (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the base is configured to be secured to a periphery of the kayak (the bracket of Harmsen is capable of being attached to a kayak).
Regarding claim 3, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 2, wherein the base is configured to be secured to the periphery of the kayak by one or more fasteners (such as by the fastener holes visible in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the body is configured to be joined with a transducer assembly of the fish detection system to mount the fish detection system to the kayak (it is capable of being joined to a transducer).
Regarding claim 5, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein one or more junctions in the wall forming the substantially U-shaped hook are rounded (see the rounded shape between different wall sections in Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 6, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 5, wherein the wall comprises a plurality of wall segments, and wherein the junctions in the wall are between adjacent wall segments (Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the wall comprises a plurality of wall segments, the plurality of wall segments comprising a proximate wall segment joined to the base of the mounting bracket at a wall join (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 7, wherein the plurality of wall segments further comprises a distal wall segment comprising a curved end at an opposite end of the substantially U-shaped hook from the wall join (Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 1, wherein the base comprises a mounting plate, the mounting plate comprising a groove to receive one or more fasteners to secure the base to the kayak (see Fig. 1-2, particularly Fig. 1 where the holes in the base may be equated to the claimed grooves).
Regarding claim 10, Harmsen discloses the mounting bracket of claim 9, wherein the mounting plate extends substantially parallel to and in face-to-face contact with the base (simply, the bottom of the bracket in 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges in US Patent Application Publication 2021/0120796 (hereinafter “Hodges”) in view of Wille in US Patent 4811310 (“Wille”), further in view of Botting in US Patent 6595471 (“Botting”).
Regarding claim 11, Hodges discloses a fish detection system comprising: a transducer 156 (Fig. 1); and a mounting bracket 110 configured to mount the transducer to a kayak (the device of Hodges is capable of being mounted to a kayak), the mounting bracket comprising: a body that extends substantially perpendicular to the base, wherein the body comprises a wall that forms a substantially U-shaped hook (Fig. 1-3). Hodges is silent to a base that is substantially perpendicular to the body configured to be secured to the kayak. Wille teaches analogous art related to mounting sensors on water vessels. Specifically, Wille teaches that it is desirable to employ a mount that has a base member, particularly a base member that is perpendicular to a bracket 50 holding a sensor structure and the base having slots for receiving fasteners, to attach the transducer to the water vessel because such a structure securely fastens the transducer but is also easily adjustable (column 2 lines 5-28). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fish detection system of Hodges by employing the mounting structure of Wille to attach to the bracket of Hodges because such a structure securely fastens the transducer but is also easily adjustable, as taught by Wille, and the result would have been predictable. Hodges as modified by Wille is silent to a sidewall that forms a substantially L-shaped support along a center line of the wall, wherein the sidewall extends substantially perpendicular to the wall. Botting teaches a mounting bracket analogous to the bracket of the fish detection system of Hodges. Like Hodges, Botting’s bracket comprises a U-shaped body configured to be attached to something and support something further. Specifically, Botting teaches that with such brackets, a flange or a rib may be placed along the length of the U-shaped bracket in order to provide further stiffening and structural support to the bracket (see rib 150 in Fig. 3 and 4 and column 6 lines 4-7). The rib forms what may be said to be a substantially L-shaped support on the bracket. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bracket of the fish detection system of Hodges by utilizing a rib like that taught by Hodges because it helps improve the structural stiffness of the bracket to carry loads, and the result would have been predictable.
Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises all of the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 11, wherein the base is configured to be secured to a periphery of the kayak (the combination of art employs the convenient adjustable mounting base plate of Wille which is capable of being attached to a kayak).
Regarding claim 13, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 12, wherein the base is configured to be secured to the periphery of the kayak by one or more fasteners (per the modification taught by Wille).
Regarding claim 14, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 11, wherein one or more junctions in the wall forming the substantially U-shaped hook are rounded (see the rounded edges of the U-shaped bracket of Hodges Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 14, wherein the wall comprises a plurality of wall segments, and wherein the junctions in the wall are between adjacent wall segments (see the rounded edges between wall segments of the U-shaped bracket of Hodges Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 11, wherein the wall comprises a plurality of wall segments (see Hodges Fig. 1 segments 112, 114, 116), the plurality of wall segments comprising a proximate wall segment joined to the base of the mounting bracket at a wall joint (the modification based on Wille employs an adjustable plate attached to wall segment 116 of Hodges).
Regarding claim 17, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of wall segments further comprises a distal wall segment comprising a curved end at an opposite end of the substantially U-shaped hook from the wall joint (see Hodges Fig. 1, the bottom of wall segment 112 down by reference numeral 124 has a curved edge).
Regarding claim 18, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 11, wherein the base comprises a mounting plate, the mounting plate comprising a groove to receive one or more fasteners to secure the base to the kayak (see Wille Fig. 1; element 50 is equivalent to the wall 116 in Fig. 1 of Hodges; the base of Wille has grooves 16 for fasteners).
Regarding claim 19, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting comprises the fish detection system of claim 18, wherein the mounting plate extends substantially parallel to and in face-to-face contact with the base (see Wille Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, this claim introduces no limitations beyond what has been addressed above with respect to claims 11-19. The rejection will not be repeated verbatim so at to not unnecessarily belabor the record.
Further, speaking to claims 1-10, Hodges as modified by Wille and further by Botting and applied above against claims 11-20 comprises a mounting bracket having all of the limitations required of claims 1-10.
Conclusion
Notable Prior Art:
US5168473 discloses a transducer mount with a U-shaped bracket and fasteners. US9650116 discloses an adjustable rail mounting system with fasteners. US6928948 discloses a rail mounted transducer block. US5529727 discloses a transducer mount with a U-shaped bracket and fasteners. US7182032 discloses a paddle mount having much of the same structure as the instantly claimed invention. US5016225 discloses a U-shaped transducer mount for boat. US3989213 discloses a portable transducer mount with a U-shaped bracket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799