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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 8, 10 - 17, and 34 - 36 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio” in lines 18 – 22. Assuming that the aforementioned limitation requires at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio simultaneously with a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio, the aforementioned limitation represents new matter because although the original disclosure describes at least one of the cables is liftably linked to at least one of the interconnected beams at a first lift ratio and at least one of the cables is linked to at least one of the interconnected beams at a second lift ratio, the original disclosure does not describe at least one of the cables is liftably linked to at least one of the interconnected beams at a first lift ratio and at least one of the cables is linked to at least one of the interconnected beams at a second lift ratio simultaneously. Claims 15, 16, and 17 contain similar errors.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 8, 10 - 17, and 34 - 36 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio” is confusing because it is unclear what arrangements are occurring simultaneously. For example, “simultaneously” can indicate that the cables are connected to their respective first and second mechanical lift ratios simultaneously with the a plurality of rotatable spindles configured to coil portions of the plurality of cables, the cables are connected to their respective first and second mechanical lift ratios simultaneously with the cradle being configured to be laterally corralled by the piling members, or at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio simultaneously with a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio. Examiner has interpreted the aforementioned limitation as requiring at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio simultaneously with a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio. Claims 15, 16, and 17 contain similar errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spindle" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the “plurality of rotatable spindles” as recited in line 10 the aforementioned limitation is referring.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 - 7, 14, 15, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (US 2012/0263533) in view of Peterson et al. (US 2020/0298948) and Wood, II (US 5,772,360).
Regarding claim 1, Heller discloses a lift for raising and lowering a watercraft relative to a body of water, the lift comprising: a cradle comprising: a plurality of interconnected beams (unlabeled cross beams located near each end of a plurality of bunks 130); and a plurality of bunks (130) connected to at least some of the plurality of interconnected beams, the plurality of bunks being configured to support the watercraft (boat, not shown); a plurality of cables (118) liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams; a plurality of rotatable spindles (drive shaft 151) configured to coil portions of the plurality of cables (118) to raise the cradle and hence the watercraft and uncoil the portions of the plurality of cables to lower the cradle and hence the watercraft; a rotary motor (motor 112) configured to rotate the spindle (151); wherein the lift is configured to be supported by pilings (140) by horizontally extending piling members (devices 114), and wherein the cradle is configured to be laterally corralled by the piling members (Devices 114 are located on either side of the cradle, thereby laterally corralling the cradle.) when the cradle is in a stowed position to prevent swaying of the cradle (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021 - 0024). Examiner notes that, as disclosed in the present application, piling members are not pilings but are structural elements that are each connected to two separate pilings. Examiner takes the position that the winding devices 114 are structural members that are each connected to two separate pilings 140 and, therefore, the apparatus as disclosed by Heller reads on the claim limitation(s). Heller fails to disclose the motor is submergible; and wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio. Peterson teaches a submergible motor (paragraph 0104) for use with a boat lifting device. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the submergible motor as taught by Peterson for the motor as disclosed by Heller as a design consideration within the skill of the art to prevent damage to the motor due to contact with seawater or other adverse conditions of a marine environment. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007). Peterson fails to teach wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio. Wood teaches wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 34) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 36) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio (Figs. 1, 4 - 6, and 8; col. 5, lines 53 - 67; col. 7, lines 24 - 41; col. 8, lines 14 - 35) to achieve overall balance of the lifting apparatus. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the first mechanical lift ratio and the second mechanical lift ratio as taught by Wood to achieve overall balance of the lift.
Regarding claim 2, Heller further discloses the plurality of cables (118) are connected to the at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (unlabeled cross beams located near each end of a plurality of bunks (130) so that the rotary motor (112) evenly lifts the cradle (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0022 - 0024, 0028, 0056, and 0057).
Regarding claim 4, Heller further discloses a programmable logic controller (PLC) configured to control the submergible rotary motor (Figs. 4 and 6; paragraphs 0025, 0028, and 0036).
Regarding claim 5, Heller further discloses an encoder (processor 202 executes operations based on instructions stored in an encrypted format (paragraph 0031; Examiner takes the position that an encryption device is functionally equivalent to an encoder.) connected to the PLC (104) for sending binary or analog signals to the logic controller, wherein the PLC (104) is configured to control the rotary motor (112) based on a position of the cradle determined via the binary or analog signals sent to the logic controller (paragraph 0057). Heller in view of Peterson and Wood fails to explicitly disclose an encoder communicatively connected to the PLC. Assuming arguendo that the encryption device as taught as Heller is not an encoder, Examiner takes the position that an encoder would obviously be required to convert the binary or analog signals to the logic controller so that is can control the rotary motor.
Regarding claim 6, Heller further discloses the PLC (104) is further configured to control the rotary motor (112) based on predetermined stop positions provided via user input (paragraphs 0039 - 0041).
Regarding claim 7, Heller further discloses the PLC (104) is further configured to decrease a speed of the rotary motor (112) when the cradle is near a stowed position (paragraphs 0008, 0059, and 0063).
Regarding claim 14, Heller further discloses a cable adjuster (pulley 132) configured to engage the one of the plurality of cables (118) at a plurality of locations on the one of the plurality of cables (Fig. 1; paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 15, Heller discloses a lift (100) for raising and lowering a watercraft (boat) relative to a body of water, the lift comprising: a plurality of interconnected beams (unlabeled cross beams located near each end of a plurality of bunks 130); and a plurality of bunks (130) connected to at least some of the plurality of interconnected beams, the plurality of bunks being configured to support the watercraft (boat, not shown); a plurality of cables (118) liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams; a plurality of rotatable spindles (151) configured to coil portions of the plurality of cables (118) to raise the cradle and hence the watercraft and uncoil the portions of the plurality of cables to lower the cradle and hence the watercraft; and a motor (112) configured to rotate the plurality of spindles so that the motor evenly lifts the cradle (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021 - 0024). Heller fails to disclose the motor is submergible; and wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio that is different than the first lift ratio. Peterson teaches a submergible motor (paragraph 0104) for use with a boat lifting device. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the submergible motor as taught by Peterson for the motor as disclosed by Heller as a design consideration within the skill of the art to prevent damage to the motor due to contact with seawater or other adverse conditions of a marine environment. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007). Peterson fails to teach wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second lift ratio that is different than the first lift ratio. Wood teaches wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 34) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 36) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio (Figs. 1, 4 - 6, and 8; col. 5, lines 53 - 67; col. 7, lines 24 - 41; col. 8, lines 14 - 35) to achieve overall balance of the lifting apparatus. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the first mechanical lift ratio and the second mechanical lift ratio as taught by Wood to achieve overall balance of the lift.
Regarding claim 34, Heller in view of Peterson and Wood discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first mechanical lift ratio is 1:2 and the second mechanical lift ratio is 1:3. Examiner takes the position that the specific mechanical lift ratios lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art based upon the size of the watercraft to be lifted by the boat lift.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Peterson et al. and Wood, II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golden (US 2022/0177089). Heller in view of Peterson and Wood discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the rotary motor is a hydraulic rotary motor. Golden teaches a rotary motor (M) is a hydraulic rotary motor (Fig. 3; paragraph 0025). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the hydraulic rotary motor as taught by Golden for the electric rotary motor as disclosed above as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Claims 10 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Peterson et al., Wood, II, and Golden as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hirota et al. (JP 2015086961).
Regarding claim 10, Heller in view of Peterson, Wood, and Golden discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a brake configured to selectively prevent the cradle from being lowered. Hirota teaches a brake (motor brake mechanism 29) configured to selectively prevent a load such as a deck crane from being lowered (Fig. 1; abstract; pages 1 - 5 of the attached translation). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the brake as taught by Hirota to provide a means for controlling the rotation of the rotary motor.
Regarding claim 11, Heller in view of Peterson, Wood, and Golden discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a pressure compensator valve fluidly connected to the hydraulic rotary motor and configured to prevent the cradle from being lowered as the brake is being engaged and disengaged. Hirota teaches a pressure compensator valve (pressure relief valve 46) fluidly connected to the hydraulic rotary motor (29) and configured to prevent the load from being lowered as the brake is being engaged and disengaged (Fig. 1; abstract; pages 1 -5 of the attached translation). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the brake and pressure compensating valve as taught by Hirota to provide a means for controlling the rotation of the rotary motor.
Regarding claim 12, Heller further discloses a programmable logic controller (PLC) (104) configured to control the rotary motor (112) according to data measured and monitored via the PLC (104) (Figs. 1, 4, and 6; paragraphs 0024, 0025, 0028 - 0036, 0040, and 0056 - 0061). Heller in view of Peterson, Wood, and Golden fails to discloses controlling a hydraulic rotary motor according to hydraulic pressure measured and monitored via the PLC. Hirota teaches controlling a hydraulic rotary motor according to measured and monitored hydraulic pressure (Fig. 1; abstract; pages 1 - 5 of the attached translation). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the programmable logic controller for controlling a rotary motor as disclosed above such that the programs and instructions executed by the PLC to control a hydraulic rotary motor according to measured and monitored hydraulic pressure as taught by Hirota as a design consideration within the skill of the art to allow a variety of rotary motors to be used by the lift, thereby increasing the number of scenarios for which the apparatus may be used. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the hydraulic rotary motor as taught by Hirota for the electric rotary motor as disclosed above as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 13, Heller in view of Peterson, Wood, and Golden discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the PLC is configured to stop the hydraulic rotary motor upon the hydraulic pressure being above a predetermined threshold. Hirota teaches an apparatus configured to stop a hydraulic rotary motor upon the hydraulic pressure being above a predetermined threshold (Fig. 1; abstract; pages 1 - 5 of the attached translation). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the programmable logic controller for controlling a rotary motor as disclosed above such that the programs and instructions executed by the PLC to stop a hydraulic rotary motor upon the hydraulic pressure being above a predetermined threshold as taught by Hirota as a design consideration within the skill of the art to allow a variety of rotary motors to be used by the lift, thereby increasing the number of scenarios for which the apparatus may be used. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the hydraulic rotary motor as taught by Hirota for the electric rotary motor as disclosed above as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Claim 16 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Wood, II.
Regarding claim 16, Heller discloses a lift (100) for raising and lowering a watercraft (boat) relative to a body of water, the lift comprising: a cradle comprising: a plurality of interconnected beams (unlabeled cross beams located near each end of a plurality of bunks 130); and a plurality of bunks (130) connected to at least some of the plurality of interconnected beams, the plurality of bunks being configured to support the watercraft (boat); a plurality of cables (118) liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams; a plurality of rotatable spindles (151) configured to coil portions of the plurality of cables to raise the cradle and hence the watercraft and uncoil the portions of the plurality of cables to lower the cradle and hence the watercraft; and a motor (112) configured to rotate the plurality of spindles so that the motor evenly lifts the cradle (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021 - 0024, 0039, and 0057). Heller fails to disclose wherein at least two of the plurality of rotatable spindles coil in opposite directions; and wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio. Examiner notes that Heller teaches multiple sets of motors and associated spindles located on opposite sides of the lift (Fig. 1; paragraph 0063) and the motors and spindles perform the same task regardless of which direction they are facing. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to modify the apparatus as disclosed above such that at least two of the plurality of rotatable spindles coil in opposite directions as a design consideration within the skill of the art based upon the size and shape of the watercraft to be lifted. Wood teaches wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 34) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 36) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio (Figs. 1, 4 - 6, and 8; col. 5, lines 53 - 67; col. 7, lines 24 - 41; col. 8, lines 14 - 35) to achieve overall balance of the lifting apparatus. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the first mechanical lift ratio and the second mechanical lift ratio as taught by Wood to achieve overall balance of the lift.
Regarding claim 35, Heller in view of Wood discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first mechanical lift ratio is 1:2 and the second mechanical lift ratio is 1:3. Examiner takes the position that the specific mechanical lift ratios lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art based upon the size of the watercraft to be lifted by the boat lift.
Claims 17 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller in view of Bellatoni (US 8,070,134) and Wood. Heller discloses a lift (100) for raising and lowering a watercraft (boat, not shown) relative to a body of water, the lift comprising: a cradle comprising: a plurality of interconnected beams (unlabeled cross beams located near each end of a plurality of bunks 130); and a plurality of bunks (130) connected to at least some of the plurality of interconnected beams, the plurality of bunks being configured to support the watercraft; a plurality of cables (118) liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams; a plurality of rotatable spindles (151) configured to coil portions of the plurality of cables to raise the cradle and hence the watercraft and uncoil the portions of the plurality of cables to lower the cradle and hence the watercraft; and a motor (112) configured to rotate one of the plurality of spindles so that the motor evenly lifts the cradle (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021 - 0024, 0039, and 0057). Heller fails to disclose the motor and at least two of the plurality of rotatable spindles are coaxial relative to each other; and wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio. Bellatoni teaches the motor (14) and at least two of the plurality of rotatable spindles (spindles associated with spools 50 and 52) are coaxial relative to each other (Figs. 1 and 3; col. 6, lines 1 - 25) to allow all of the cables to be drawn at the same rate in order to prevent a platform from rotating about a horizontal axis. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the single motor and the at least two of the plurality of rotatable spindles that are coaxially aligned as taught by Bellatoni to allow the cables to be drawn at the same rate in order to prevent the cradle from rotating about a horizontal axis and to reduce the cost of materials and operation because only a single motor is required to operate the lift. Bellatoni fails to teach wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams at a second mechanical lift ratio that is different than the first mechanical lift ratio. Wood teaches wherein simultaneously at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 34) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a first mechanical lift ratio and at least one of the plurality of cables (cable means 36) is liftably linked to at least one of the plurality of interconnected beams (20) at a second mechanical lift ratio different than the first mechanical lift ratio (Figs. 1, 4 - 6, and 8; col. 5, lines 53 - 67; col. 7, lines 24 - 41; col. 8, lines 14 - 35) to achieve overall balance of the lifting apparatus. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the first mechanical lift ratio and the second mechanical lift ratio as taught by Wood to achieve overall balance of the lift.
Regarding claim 36, Heller in view of Bellatoni and Wood discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first mechanical lift ratio is 1:2 and the second mechanical lift ratio is 1:3. Examiner takes the position that the specific mechanical lift ratios lack criticality in the claims and are design considerations within the skill of the art based upon the size of the watercraft to be lifted by the boat lift.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4 - 8, 10 - 17, and 34 - 36 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights