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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim 1 rejection of Gillespie have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments that:
The hook (21) of Smith can not be used as a retention feature because it extends from pivot point (29) instead of a leg of the eye.
The eye (12) of Gillespie does not teach a retention feature arranged at an exterior of the watercraft or hull.
The clearance of the retention feature (inside of 34, eye-bolt) of Gillespie is not between the retention feature and an adjacent surface of the ”another component”.
Arguments found not persuasive because claim 1 states that the retention feature extends from “the second leg or connector portion of the body”. The hook (21) of Smith extends directly from the connector portion (29, pivot point). Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the connector portion is part of the body and therefore extends from it. See MPEP 2111.
The amended claim 1 states that the retention feature is arranged “at an exterior of the watercraft”. Although this amendment overcomes the previous rejection of claim 1 under Gillespie, it does not overcome the rejection of claim 1 under Smith. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, the device of Smith is used on the exterior of the watercraft. See MPEP 2111.
The amended claim 1 states that the clearance of the retention feature is “positioned between the retention feature and an adjacent surface of the another component”. Figure 4 of Smith clearly displays the clearance (22, opening) being positioned between the retention feature (21, hook) and an adjacent surface of the another component (3, forestay).
Regarding claim 12, applicant did not appear to fully present a response the to the claim’s previous rejection under Gillespie. The previous rejection stands because the eye body (12) of Gillespie is arranged at an exterior of the hull as required by the amended claim 12.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments that:
The slot (7) of Hull is not configured to receive a tension member.
Adjusting the reference Hull to fit the constraints of the claim limitations teaches away from the reference.
The combination of references Hull in view of Gillespie, further in view of Jannausch does not fully match the claim limitations provided.
Arguments found not persuasive because the tying ends of a watercraft cover could easily fit within the slot (7) of Hull. The ends can be held with bolt (11) just as the pin (5) is and tucked into or around the recess (6) for extra security. The thin chord ends (93, 94) of Jannausch would fit within the recess (6) or be held by the bolt (11) of Hull.
No reply to the specification objection was given so the previous objection stands.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (US 5115755 A).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses an eye (sail hank) for a watercraft (boat) comprising: a body (figure 3) including a first leg (25, arm), a second leg (27, arm), and a connector portion (29, pivot point) extending between and coupled to a first end of both the first leg and the second leg (figure 3), wherein an opening (26) is defined between the first leg (25, arm), the second leg (27, arm), and the connector portion (29, pivot point) in combination, the first leg (25, arm) and the second leg (27, arm) being connectable to another component (column 6, lines 34-35); and a retention feature (21, hook) extending from the second leg (27, arm) or the connector portion (29, pivot point) of the body (figure 4), the retention feature (21, hook) being arranged at an exterior (figure 1) of the watercraft (boat), wherein a clearance (22, opening) for receiving a tension member (3, stay) is defined by the retention feature (21, hook), the clearance (22, opening) being positioned between the retention feature (21, hook) and an adjacent surface of the another component (3, stay).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the retention feature (21, hook) is a separate component affixed to the body (figure 5C-5D).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses the retention feature (21, hook) is positioned at an interface between the first end of the second leg (27, arm) and the connector portion (29, pivot point) (column 6, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses the retention feature (21, hook) protrudes radially outward (figure 4) from the second leg (27, arm).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses the retention feature (21, hook) extends about only a portion of a periphery of the body (figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses the retention feature is a rib (figure 5D).
Claims 12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gillespie (US 3863588 A).
Regarding claim 12, Gillespie discloses a watercraft (boat) comprising: a hull (10); and an eye (eye assembly) mounted to the hull (10), the eye having a body (12, 14, eye) arranged at an exterior (figure 1) of the hull (10) and a retention feature (34, eye bolt) protruding radially outward from the body (figure 12), wherein a clearance (inner loop of eye bolt, 34) is formed between a surface of the hull (10) and the retention feature (34, eye bolt) for receiving a tension member (42, chain).
Regarding claim 15, Gillespie discloses the retention feature (34, eye-bolt) extends about an entire periphery of the body. Examiner interpreted the plate means 30 which extends about an entire periphery of the body, as part of the retention feature assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Gillespie discloses the retention feature (34, eye-bolt) includes a plurality of pieces connectable to one another about the body (12, eye) via a fastener (32, clamp nuts).
Regarding claim 17, Gillespie discloses the retention feature (34, eye-bolt) includes a retaining member (inner space of eye-bolt 34) oriented parallel to a leg of the body (figure 2), the retaining member being radially spaced from a surface of the body.
Regarding claim 18, Gillespie discloses the retention feature is a collar. The examiner interpreted the plate means 30 and eye-bolt 34, as parts of the retention feature assembly, and considered both to be collars.
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, 2, 4-7, 10-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull (US 0520110 A) in view of Gillespie (US 3863588 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hull discloses an eye (1, clevis) comprising: a body including a first leg (2, upper terminal), a second leg (3, lower terminal), and a connector portion extending between and coupled to (figure 1) a first end of both the first leg (2, upper terminal) and the second leg (3, lower terminal), wherein an opening (figure 1) is defined between the first leg (2, upper terminal), the second leg (3, lower terminal), and the connector portion in combination, the first leg (2, upper terminal) and the second leg (3, lower terminal) being connectable to another component (5, pin); and a retention feature (7, slot) extending from the second leg (3, lower terminal) of the body (figure 1), wherein a clearance (8, openings) for receiving a tension member (11, bolt) is defined by the retention feature (7, slot), the clearance (8, openings) being positioned between the retention feature (7, slot) and an adjacent surface of the another component (5, pin).
Hull does not explicitly disclose the eye (1, clevis) being on a watercraft.
Regarding claim 1, Gillespie teaches an eye (eye assembly) for a watercraft (boat) that is on the exterior of the watercraft.
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 used the clevis of Hull on the exterior of a boat as taught Gillespie in order to have a clevis that locks in a convenient and quick manner while still remaining safe from being accidentally or prematurely withdrawn (lines 9-13 of Hull). Hull teaches a clevis that is simple to use and securely lock (lines 81-83), which is important to ensure it is installed and used correctly.
Regarding claim 2, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot of Hull) is integrally formed with the body (lines 37-40 of Hull).
Regarding claim 4, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) is positioned at an interface between the first end of the second leg (3, lower terminal) and the connector portion (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) protrudes radially outward from the second leg (slot, 7 extends through openings, 8; lines 37-42).
Regarding claim 6, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) extends about only a portion of a periphery of the body (figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature is a rib (figure 2). Examiner has interpreted the slot, 7 combined with the cover, 10 as generally rib shaped.
Regarding claim 10, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) includes a plurality of pieces connectable to one another about the body via a fastener (11, bolt) (lines 44-54).
Regarding claim 11, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) includes a retaining member (openings, 8 with cover, 10) oriented parallel to a leg (3, lower terminal) of the body, the retaining member (openings, 8 with cover, 10) being radially spaced from a surface of the body (figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses a watercraft (boat of Gillespie) comprising: a hull (10 of Gillespie); and an eye (1, clevis of Hull) mounted to the hull (10, of Gillespie), the eye (1, clevis) having a body arranged at an exterior of the hull (figure 1 of Gillespie) and a retention feature protruding radially outward from the body (slot, 7 extending through openings, 8; lines 37-42), wherein a clearance (8, openings) is formed between a surface of the hull (10, of Gillespie) and the retention feature (7, slot) for receiving a tension member.
Regarding claim 13, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) extends about only a portion of a periphery of the body (figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature is a rib (figure 2). Examiner has interpreted the slot, 7 combined with the cover, 10 as generally rib shaped.
Regarding claim 16, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) includes a plurality of pieces connectable to one another about the body via a fastener (11, bolt) (lines 44-54).
Regarding claim 17, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses the retention feature (7, slot) includes a retaining member (openings, 8 with cover, 10) oriented parallel to a leg (3, lower terminal) of the body, the retaining member (openings, 8 with cover, 10) being radially spaced from a surface of the body (figure 2).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull/Gillespie as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Petzl et al (US 8322003 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Hull in view of Gillespie discloses an eye (1, clevis of Hull) for a watercraft (boat of Gillespie) having a body (figure 1 of Hull) and a retention feature (7, slot of Hull).
Hull in view of Gillespie does not explicitly disclose the retention feature extending about an entire periphery of the body.
Regarding claim 8, Petzl teaches an eye (10, attachment shackle) having a retention feature (20, ferrule), wherein the retention feature (20, ferrule) extends about an entire periphery (figure 3) of the body (11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the clevis of Hull to include the tubular ferrule as taught by Petzl. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to have a clevis with a secure safety lock (column 2, lines 18-30 of Petzl).
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of Hull/Gillespie in view of Petzl discloses the retention feature (20, ferrule of Petzl) is a collar (figure 2 of Petzl).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hull/Gillespie as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Jannausch (US 5228408 A).
Regarding claim 19, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie discloses a watercraft (boat) but does not explicitly disclose the watercraft (boat) having a cover or an affixing system for that cover.
Jannausch discloses a watercraft (boat), further comprising a cover (12) having an affixing system (boat cover assembly) for coupling the cover to the hull (11), wherein a portion of the affixing system is received (boat cover assembly) when the cover is in a tightened configuration (tightened around the hull).
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 watercraft of Hull/Gillespie with the cover as taught by Jannausch to protect the watercraft and to keep it from being damaged from the elements especially during storage during the wintertime or otherwise (column 1, lines 10-17). Jannausch teaches the importance of covering a watercraft with a durable, reusable cover. It is reasonable to assume that one could use the affixing system of the cover from Jannausch (column 4, lines 54-58) to secure the cover to the watercraft of Hull/Gillespie.
The result is the watercraft of Hull/Gillespie as applied to claim 12 above, further comprising a cover (12) having an affixing system for coupling the cover to the hull (column 4, lines 54-58), wherein a portion of the affixing system (93, 94, ends) is received within the clearance (8, openings) when the cover is in a tightened configuration.
Regarding claim 20, the previously made combination of Hull/Gillespie/Jannausch discloses, the portion of the affixing system received within the clearance (8, opening of Hull) when the cover (12 of Jannausch) is in the tightened configuration is at least one tension member (93, 94, ends of Jannausch).
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 KARA BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)272-9484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am-5pm.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/K.J.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights