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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claimed features must be shown and properly identified by a reference number, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
the port side freeboard panel comprising one or more connectors (claim 10)
the starboard side freeboard panel comprising one or more connectors (claim 10)
the deck panel coupled to the connectors of the port and starboard side freeboard panels (claim 10)
the connectors comprising one or more of straps, buckles, or D-rings (claim 18)
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the port and starboard side freeboard panels each comprising one or more connectors, and the deck panel coupled to the connectors of the port and starboard side freeboard panels, as set forth in claim 10.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,401,008 B2 (‘008).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application are encompassed in claims 1-20 of the ‘008 Patent.
Claims 1-2, 5-9 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,006,006 B2 (‘006).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application are encompassed in claims 1-20 of the ‘006 Patent.
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.
Claims 12-13 and 17 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.
Claim 12 depends from the canceled claim 11, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 depends from the canceled claim 11, which renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 17, the limitation “the plate” lacks proper antecedent, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
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 10, 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205854428 U (‘428) in view of Austin (US 2007/0051293 A1), and further in view of Lewis (US 2,999,253 A), all previously cited.
CN ‘428 shows an inflatable watercraft, comprising a bottom panel [1] with port and starboard sides; port and starboard side freeboard panels [2] each having a bow end and a stern end, and each being connected to a port and starboard sides of the bottom panel, respectively; the port and starboard side freeboard panels converging at their respective bow ends to define a bow of the inflatable watercraft (Fig 2).
CN ‘428, however, does not expressly disclose whether the watercraft has an open transom.
Austin shows an inflatable watercraft, comprising: port and starboard side freeboard panels connected to port and starboard sides of a bottom panel, respectively; and an open transom defined by a stern end of the bottom panel and stern ends of the side panels.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the inflatable watercraft of CN ‘428 with an open transom, as taught by Austin. Having such an arrangement would have enabled the watercraft to be used effectively for rescue operations.
CN ‘428, as once modified above by Austin, however still fails to disclose an inflatable deck panel extending between and detachably connected to connectors of the port and starboard side freeboard panels (claim 10); or an opening in the inflatable deck panel (claim 12); or the watercraft having a seat back panel pivotably connected to an upper surface of the deck panel (claim 13), or all of the panels being made of a drop stitch material.
Regarding claims 10 and 12-13, Lewis shows an inflatable watercraft comprising multiple inflatable deck panels [26, 28] that are detachably connected to port and starboard side freeboard panels to protect a user from water spray. The inflatable deck panels are detachably connected to the connectors [35, 42] disposed on the port and starboard side freeboard panels (see Fig 7). The deck panels together define an opening [82] that is capable of accommodating a container resting on the bottom panel and extending through the opening in the deck panel. A seat back panel [18] is detachable and movably connected to an upper surface of the deck panel with flexible straps [20], which would allow the seat back panel to be pivotably connected to the deck panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the modified watercraft of CN ‘428, as once modified above by Austin, with detachable and inflatable deck panels and a seat back panel, as further taught by Lewis. Employing detachable inflatable deck panels connected to connectors of the port and starboard side freeboard panels would have allowed an occupant of the watercraft to be protected from water spray during rough water conditions, and using a pivotable seat back panel would have improved the comfort of the user.
Re claim 14, as noted in the previous Office actions, the use of a drop stitch material in inflatable articles is well known in the marine art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to construct the side freeboard and bottom panels of modified CN ‘428 with a drop stitch material. Having such an arrangement would have allowed the panels to be inflated at a higher pressure for greater rigidity, while still maintaining their desired shape without allowing any distension.
Re claim 18, the fastening connectors disclosed by Lewis are considered as equivalents of straps, buckles, or D-rings, all of which are well known and commonly used in the marine art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the modified watercraft of CN ‘428 with one of straps, buckles, or D-rings as a matter of routine design choice, which would have performed with equal efficiency.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205854428 U (‘428) in view of Austin (US 2007/0051293 A1) and Lewis (US 2,999,253 A), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of McCrory et al. (US 4,251,893 A), all previously cited.
CN ‘428, as modified above by Austin and Meyer, shows an inflatable watercraft with port and starboard side freeboard panels connected to the sides of a bottom panel, as described above.
Modified CN ‘428, as modified above by Austin and Lewis, however does not disclose first and second fabric strips overlapping a span between a bottom surface of the bottom panel and lower outside surfaces of the side freeboard panels.
McCrory et al. shows an inflatable watercraft, comprising port and starboard side freeboard panels connected to port and starboard sides of a bottom panel, and first and second fabric strips [44] overlapping a span between a bottom surface [30] of the bottom panel [24] and lower outside surfaces of the side freeboard panels (see Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide overlapping fabric strips between the bottom surface of the bottom panel and the lower outside surfaces of the side freeboard panels of modified CN ‘428, as further taught by McCrory et al. Having such an arrangement would have further reinforced the existing connection between the abutting edges of the bottom panel and the side freeboard panels, thereby improving the durability and operational life of the inflatable watercraft.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 205854428 U (‘428) in view of Austin (US 2007/0051293 A1) and Lewis (US 2,999,253 A), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Meyer (US 1,631,047 A), all previously cited.
CN ‘428, as modified above by Austin and Meyer, shows an inflatable watercraft with port and starboard side freeboard panels connected to the sides of a bottom panel, as described above.
Modified CN ‘428, as modified above by Austin and Lewis, however still fails to disclose a rigid plate disposed at the bow.
Meyer shows an inflatable watercraft, comprising a rigid plate [7] disposed at the bow and connected between port and starboard sides, extending from a gunwale of the bow to at least the waterline of the watercraft and then rearwardly at least partially along a centerline of a keel of the watercraft.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further provide the modified watercraft of CN ‘428 (as first modified by Austin and Lewis) with a rigid plate, as further taught by Meyer. Having such an arrangement would have reinforced the inflatable panels of modified CN ‘428 and protected them from damage in the event of collision with underwater obstacles. it would also have been obvious to a skilled person to construct the plate with a rigid plastic material, which would have yielded a plate that was inexpensive, lightweight and durable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 15 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10, 12-14 and 16-18 have been considered, but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s Argument: Regarding the previous rejection based on CN '428 in view of Austin and Meyer, applicant has argued that neither Austin nor Meyer teach or suggest a watercraft with port and starboard side freeboard panels as having one or more connectors, or an inflatable deck panel extending between the top side of the port side freeboard panel and the top side of the starboard side freeboard panel and coupled to the connectors of the port side freeboard panel and the connectors of the starboard side freeboard panel, as recited in the newly amended claim 10.
Response: The new rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 modifies CN '428 with the teachings of Austin (US 2007/0051293 A1) and Lewis (US 2,999,253 A), wherein Lewis teaches inflatable deck panels that are detachably connected to the connectors [35, 42] disposed on the port and starboard side freeboard panels (see Fig 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights