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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "105" (figure 4) and "106" (figure 3) have both been used to designate hull fairing case halves although not in specification but clearly shown in the figures to be the same. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 106 (figure 3), 107 (figure 3-4), 108 (figure 3-4), 109 (figure 4), 112. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 112. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for “curtain wall”. There is no support for such a wall to prevent water intrusion and the only support for water intrusion is in para. 21 which describes water intrusion not being a concern. Examiner asks the Applicant to provide support and explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clegg (U.S. Patent No. 11,332,227) in view of Baumberger (WO 2016/166331).
As per claim 1, Clegg teaches a human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism comprising:
-a hull with a vertically disposed aperture to accommodate passage of the driving end of said drive mechanism (Clegg: figure 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
489
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
-a lift mechanism mounted to said hull to constrain the travel of the drive mechanism such that its driving end follows a linear or arcuate path (Clegg: figure 7).
PNG
media_image2.png
785
711
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Clegg does not explicitly teach the following, however, Baumberger teaches a hull fairing with a contoured lower surface, vertically constrained to a point on said drive mechanism at an elevation suitable to bring the lower contour in close proximity to the lower contour of said hull when the drive mechanism is fully deployed (Baumberger: pg. 3; The thruster is connected to the boat by the fairing portion.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the watercraft as taught by Clegg with the hull fairing constrained to the drive mechanism as taught by Baumberger in order to provide proper guidance of a watercraft.
As per claim 2, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 1. Clegg further teaches wherein said lift mechanism is a four bar arrangement (Clegg: figure 7).
As per claim 3, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 1. Clegg further teaches wherein said lift mechanism is a linear slide arrangement (Clegg: figure 7).
As per claim 5, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 1. Clegg does not explicitly teach the following, however, Baumberger teaches wherein said hull fairing is constructed of an elastomeric material (Baumberger: pg. 3; Hull fairing portion provided elastomeric spacer.).
As per claim 7, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 1. Clegg does not explicitly teach the following, however, Baumberger teaches wherein said hull is of single wall construction, and further comprising, an elastomeric bellows seal connecting said hull to said hull fairing thus presenting a curtain wall to prevent water intrusion (Baumberger: pg. 3; Hull fairing portion provided elastomeric spacer.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have hull fairing out of elastomeric materials as taught by Baumberger within the watercraft of Clegg. It would have been obvious to provide a boat that wouldn’t be structurally weak as it ages and provide a dependable watercraft.
As per claim 8, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 1. Clegg further teaches wherein said vertically disposed aperture includes vertically orientated walls that bridge a gap between upper and lower hull surfaces (Clegg: figure 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
539
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claim 9, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 8. Clegg further teaches wherein said vertically disposed walls include a draft angle causing the upper opening of the aperture to be larger than the lower (Clegg: figure 4).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clegg (U.S. Patent No. 11,332,227) in view of Baumberger (WO 2016/166331) and further in view of Seemann, III (U.S. Patent No. 4,483,267).
As per claim 4, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 1. Clegg and Baumberger do not teach the following, however, Seeman teaches wherein said hull fairing is constructed of a rigid plastic material (Seemann: abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have hull fairing out of plastic as taught by Seeman within the watercraft of Clegg and Baumberger. It would have been obvious to provide a boat that wouldn’t be structurally weak as it ages and provide a dependable watercraft.
As per claim 6, the human powered watercraft with a retractable drive mechanism is as described in claim 1. Clegg and Baumberger do not teach the following, however, Seeman teaches wherein said hull fairing is constructed of fabric and resin (Seemann: abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have hull fairing out of fabric and resin as taught by Seeman within the watercraft of Clegg and Baumberger. It would have been obvious to provide a boat that wouldn’t be structurally weak as it ages and provide a dependable watercraft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boyer et al. – U.S. Patent No. 11,447,221 – Teaches a watercraft with a particular propulsion mechanism.
Kemp – U.S. Publication No. 2019/0202533 – Teaches a powered watercraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615