DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-9, 14, 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2026.
Please note that while applicant did not indicate claim 19 as reading on the elected species, it appears to (as does claim 20), so it has been examined.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the current drawings are hand-drawn, not proper black and white line drawings. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first reed switch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dickinson US 12,208,866.
PNG
media_image1.png
219
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Dickinson Figure 11
Regarding claim 1, Dickinson discloses a water sports apparatus 10 comprising a water vehicle 30 having a motorized electric drive 40, wherein the water vehicle does not have an onboard steering device, wherein the water sports apparatus comprises a tether 115 for towing a water sports enthusiast 20 and/or a second water sports apparatus behind the water vehicle, wherein the water vehicle comprises a fastening device 110 to which the tether is fastened at a first end 112, wherein the fastening device is arranged in a stern-side half of the water vehicle, and wherein a handle 119 for the water sports enthusiast and/or for the second water sports apparatus is fastened to a second end 118 of the tether.
Regarding claim 16, Dickinson discloses the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Dickinson also discloses that the water vehicle 30 has an upper face, wherein the fastening device 110 of the water vehicle comprises a connection region of the tether to the fastening device for fastening the tether, wherein the fastening device is mounted in an elevated position on the upper face of the water vehicle in such a way that a predetermined lever effect is producible on the water vehicle by means of the tether.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen US 5,167,550 alone, or alternatively in view of Dickinson US 12,208,866.
Regarding claim 1, Nielsen teaches a water sports apparatus comprising a water vehicle 10 having a motorized drive (abstract), wherein the water vehicle has an onboard steering device 18, wherein the water sports apparatus comprises a tether 160 for towing a water sports enthusiast and/or a second water sports apparatus behind the water vehicle, wherein the water vehicle comprises a fastening device 64 to which the tether is fastened at a first end, wherein the fastening device is arranged in a stern-side half of the water vehicle, and wherein a handle 170 for the water sports enthusiast and/or for the second water sports apparatus is fastened to a second end of the tether.
Nielsen does not teach that the drive is electric, however it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute an electric motor in for the engine in order to make the device more efficient and cleaner, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
PNG
media_image2.png
257
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Nielsen Figure 5
Alternatively, Dickinson teaches a water sports apparatus 10 comprising a water vehicle 30 having a motorized electric drive 40, wherein the water vehicle does not have an onboard steering device, wherein the water sports apparatus comprises a tether 115 for towing a water sports enthusiast 20 and/or a second water sports apparatus behind the water vehicle, wherein the water vehicle comprises a fastening device 110 to which the tether is fastened at a first end 112, wherein the fastening device is arranged in a stern-side half of the water vehicle, and wherein a handle 119 for the water sports enthusiast and/or for the second water sports apparatus is fastened to a second end 118 of the tether. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Nielsen with an electric drive as taught by Dickenson in order to make the device more efficient and cleaner.
Nielsen does not teach that the water vehicle does not have an onboard steering device, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the handlebars in order to reduce complexity and prevent inadvertent actuation, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the handlebars removeable in order to prevent inadvertent actuation while still allowing steering on board the vehicle when desired, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Alternatively, Dickinson teaches a water sports apparatus 10 comprising a water vehicle 30 having a motorized electric drive 40, wherein the water vehicle does not have an onboard steering device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Nielsen by omitting the handlebars as taught by Dickenson in order to reduce complexity and prevent inadvertent actuation.
Regarding claim 2, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Nielsen also teaches that the water sports apparatus comprises an emergency stop device for stopping the water vehicle, wherein the emergency stop device comprises an emergency detector, wherein the emergency stop device is configured to stop the drive when the emergency detector is tripped (Handle 170 preferably includes a lanyard-type kill switch, which incorporates a small reed switch epoxyed just above and in the core center area. Also epoxyed in the rear of the insertion hole is a metal slug. A lanyard including a wristband with a coiled line securing a key-like device that contains a magnet in its leading end. In operation, the key is inserted into the switch hole and held in place via the magnetic attraction to the in place metal slug. However, while in place, the magnetic force causes reed switch to close, thus providing a signal to microprocessor 100 that the operator safety interlock device is in place, column 10 line 65-column 11 line 8).
Regarding claim 3, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Nielsen also teaches that the emergency detector is configured to be tripped when a safety element is removed from a recess of the handle provided for said safety element (column 10 line 65-column 11 line 8).
Regarding claim 4, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Nielsen also teaches that the emergency detector is arranged on or in the handle 170, wherein the emergency detector comprises a magnet having an effective range and a first reed switch, wherein the magnet is releasably arranged on the handle, wherein the first reed switch is arranged within the effective range of the magnet, wherein the first reed switch is contained in an emergency stop electrical circuit, wherein the first reed switch is configured to open the emergency stop electrical circuit when the magnet is removed from the first reed switch (column 10 line 65-column 11 line 8).
Regarding claim 5, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Nielsen also teaches that the magnet is coupled to a fastening line that is configured to be fastenable to a wrist or item of clothing of the water sports enthusiast (column 10 line 65-column 11 line 8).
Regarding claim 10, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Nielsen also teaches that the emergency stop device comprises an emergency stop effecting unit arranged on or in the water vehicle or in the handle, and wherein the emergency stop effecting unit is configured to detect whether the emergency detector has been tripped and to stop the drive when the emergency detector is tripped (column 10 line 65-column 11 line 8).
Regarding claim 15, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Nielsen also teaches that the emergency stop effecting unit is designed to receive a continuous emergency stop safety signal (the closed reed switch), wherein the emergency stop safety signal is sent from a safety signal sending unit contained in the emergency stop electrical circuit, and wherein the emergency stop effecting unit is configured to stop the drive when no emergency stop safety signal (the open reed switch) has been received for a predetermined period of time (column 10 line 65-column 11 line 8).
Regarding claim 16, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Nielsen also teaches that the water vehicle 10 has an upper face, wherein the fastening device 64 of the water vehicle comprises a connection region of the tether to the fastening device for fastening the tether, wherein the fastening device is mounted in an elevated position on the upper face of the water vehicle in such a way that a predetermined lever effect is producible on the water vehicle by means of the tether. Please note that as the fastening device is not on the very bottom, it can be considered an elevated position that produces a lever effect. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to attach the tether at an elevated location in order to reduce interference with the water surface, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Alternatively, Dickinson teaches that the water vehicle 30 has an upper face, wherein the fastening device 110 of the water vehicle comprises a connection region of the tether to the fastening device for fastening the tether, wherein the fastening device is mounted in an elevated position on the upper face of the water vehicle in such a way that a predetermined lever effect is producible on the water vehicle by means of the tether. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the drive system of Nielsen with an elevated tether as taught by Dickenson in order to reduce interference with the water surface.
Claims 11, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen US 5,167,550 alone, or alternatively in view of Dickinson US 12,208,866, and further in view of Gillespie US 2015/0214729.
Regarding claim 11, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Nielsen does not teach details of the emergency stop effecting unit. Gillespie teaches a circuit monitoring system which comprises an electromagnet 57, wherein the electromagnet is contained in the monitoring electrical circuit 100, wherein the circuit monitoring system comprises a reed sensor 59 for the magnetic field of the electromagnet in order to detect when the monitoring electrical circuit is open, and wherein the circuit monitoring system unit is configured to signal when the monitoring electrical circuit is detected to be open [0067]. In this case, Gillespie teaches that an electrical component 100 has an electromagnet 57 wired in to the circuitry. If there is a failure, the circuit is opened and the electromagnet is disabled. This results in the opening of a reed switch 59 in a monitoring unit, which sends a signal that the circuit is open. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the emergency stop effecting unit of Nielsen with an electromagnet that imposes a magnetic field on a reed switch as taught by Gillespie in order to provide a clear indication of a circuit interruption while maintaining electrical isolation.
Regarding claim 12, Nielsen and Gillespie, together or in view of Dickinson teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. As modified, the electromagnet (Gillespie 57) is connected to the first reed switch by means of an emergency stop signal cable (Nielsen 166), wherein the emergency stop signal cable extends through the handle (Nielsen 170) along the tether (Nielsen 160) to the water vehicle (Nielsen 10).
Regarding claim 19, Nielsen alone or in view of Dickinson teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Nielsen also teaches that the tether 160/166 comprises a transmitter unit (cable connector) configured to transmit control signals to a receiver unit 100 of the water vehicle, and wherein the transmitter unit is configured to rest against the receiver unit of the water vehicle.
Nielsen does not teach that the transmitter unit is configured to transmit control signals wirelessly to the receiver unit. Gillespie teaches a circuit monitoring system which comprises a transmitter unit 100 configured to transmit control signals wirelessly to a receiver unit 200 of the water vehicle, and wherein the transmitter unit is configured to rest against the receiver unit of the water vehicle. In this case, the transmitter transmits a magnetic field from electromagnet 57, which is received by reed switch 59. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the emergency stop effecting unit of Nielsen with an electromagnet that imposes a magnetic field on a reed switch as taught by Gillespie in order to provide a clear indication of a circuit interruption while maintaining electrical isolation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen US 5,167,550 and Gillespie US 2015/0214729, alternatively also in view of Dickinson US 12,208,866, and further in view of Cullen US 2004/0184353.
Regarding claim 13, Nielsen and Gillespie, together or in view of Dickinson teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Neither Nielsen nor Gillespie teach how the electromagnet is fastened to or in the water vehicle. Cullen teaches an instrument mount for a marine vehicle, wherein the instrument is fastened to the water vehicle by means of a flexible retaining lip 32, 34. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the emergency stop effecting unit of Nielsen with a flexible retaining lip as taught by Cullen in order to securely snap the unit in place while allowing for release when desired.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen US 5,167,550 and Gillespie US 2015/0214729, alternatively also in view of Dickinson US 12,208,866, and further in view of Leijssen US 2021/0346922.
Regarding claim 20, Nielsen and Gillespie, together or in view of Dickinson teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 19. Neither Nielsen nor Gillespie explicitly teach how the transmitter unit is supplied with power. Leijssen teaches an external marine device 10 which comprises an induction unit 12, and wherein the induction unit is configured to supply an attached unit 20, which rests against the device, with electric current by means of induction (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transmitter/receiver of Nielsen and Gillespie with induction power supply as taught by Leijssen in order to provide power to the handle/emergency circuit while maintaining physical isolation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jones US 5,041,040, Merrill US 2016/0009350 and Sells US 8,465,333 teach skier-controlled water craft with fall detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights