DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the rub-rail of Aschenbach cannot be received in the frame channel on the second side of the frame, the Examiner disagrees and points to the following picture detailing the claim and reference interpretation:
PNG
media_image1.png
414
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Aschenbach (US 2004/0016383).
Aschenbach discloses a method of associating a frame rail assembly to an existing boat dock structure comprising the steps of: providing a frame rail member [92 or 30a-30d; Figures 1 & 9-11] comprising a body having a top, a bottom, a first side and a generally opposing second side, said first side defining a generally planar face extending upwardly from said bottom towards said top [Figures 1 & 9-11]; abutting said generally planar face of said first side of said frame rail member against a generally planar, vertically extending side face of said existing boat dock structure [Figures 1 & 9-11]; connecting said frame rail member to said generally planar, vertically extending face of said existing boat dock structure via a fastener [48]; and locating a removable resilient rub-rail member at said second side so that said resilient rub- rail member projects outward from the second side along at least a portion of the length of the frame rail member [Figures 1 & 9-11]; wherein said body of said frame rail member has a top and a bottom and said first portion of said first side which defines said generally planar face extends from below said top of said body to said bottom [Figures 1 & 9-11]; the step of locating said rub-rail member occurs after said step of extending said fastener [Figures 9- 11 show fastener (48) for rail must be installed prior to fastener (188) for rub rail]; and wherein the rub-rail member is arcuate in shape extending outwardly from said frame member a greater distance at the middle portion than the top or bottom portions [Figures 1 & 9-11].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aschenbach (US 2004/0016383) in view of Floe (US 6536922).
Aschenbach fails to disclose the frame rail member 1s welded to the dock.
Floe teaches a frame rail member [18] for a rub-rail that is welded to the side of the dock [Column 7, Lines 30-40].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Aschenbach by substituting the welded connection system as described by Floe since welding and fasteners are both well-known functional equivalent connection systems each with their own strengths/weaknesses/applications and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize either system depending on the project/design constraints.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest – either alone or in combination – a frame and rub rail is of complementary in shape with a portion of said frame rail member, thus limiting said rub-rail member to longitudinal movement with respect to said frame rail member. And due to the nature of the second side of the Asenbach frame and rub rail, it could not have been combined with the prior art to add the movement limiting shape as recited in the claims without destroying the reference.
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 KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights