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 .
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 4-14 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 and 5-16 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 § 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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford (US 4,919,631 A) in view of Meyer (US 1,631,047 A).
Stafford shows an inflatable watercraft, comprising: a bottom panel [14, 16, 42] having port and starboard sides, and bow and stern ends (Fig 4); port and starboard side freeboard panels [2] each having a bow end and a stern end, and each being connected to the 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), and an open transom defined by a stern end of the bottom panel, the stern end of the port side panel, and the stern end of the starboard side panel (Fig 1).
Stafford however does not 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 provide the inflatable watercraft of Stafford with a rigid plate, as taught by Meyer. Having such an arrangement would have reinforced the inflatable panels of Stafford and protected them from damage in the event of collision with underwater obstacles. Re claim 17, it would also have been obvious to a skilled person to construct the plate with a plastic material, which would have yielded a plate that was inexpensive, lightweight and durable.
Claims 10, 14 and 17 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 Meyer (US 1,631,047 A).
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 modified above by Austin, 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 once modified by Austin) 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.
Re claim 14, Applicant may note that 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 17, it would also have been obvious to a skilled person to construct the plate in modified CN ‘428 with a plastic material, which would have yielded a plate that was inexpensive, lightweight and durable.
Claims 12-13 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 Meyer (US 1,631,047 A), and further in view of Lewis (US 2,999,253 A).
CN ‘428, as modified above by Austin and Meyer, shows an inflatable watercraft, comprising a bottom panel; port and starboard side freeboard panels, and an open transom
Modified CN ‘428, however, does not disclose an inflatable deck panel detachably connected to and extending between the port and starboard side freeboard panels.
Lewis shows an inflatable watercraft comprising multiple inflatable deck panels [26, 28] detachably connected between the port and starboard side freeboard panels to protect a user from water spray. 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 modified above by Austin and Meyer, with a detachable and inflatable deck panels and a seat back panel, as further taught by Lewis. Using a detachable and inflatable deck panels would have protected the watercraft occupants from water spray during rough water conditions (claim 11), and using a seat back panel that is able to pivot would have improved the comfort of the user (claim 13).
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), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of McCrory et al. (US 4,251,893 A).
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 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.
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 10-14 and 16-17 have been considered, but they are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
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 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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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