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 must be shown and properly identified in the specification with a reference number, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
cam lock connector (claim 10)
a rail system (claim 19)
solar panel (claim 20)
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.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 sets forth at least two of the four legs each have a detachable connection and at least two of the four legs each have a joint connection (emphasis added), thereby suggesting an engineering design option whereby more than two of the four legs can have a detachable connection, and similarly, more than two of the four legs can have a joint connection. However, the original disclosure describes only two legs with a detachable connection and only two other legs with a joint connection.
Claims 10 sets forth a cam lock connector that enables each of the port and starboard legs to separate. However, the disclosure does not provide sufficient detail on the structure of the such cam lock connector that would allow the port and starboard legs to separate
Therefore, in absence of adequate guidance in the original specification, a person skilled in the art would not be able to make and/or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the limitation "wherein at least two of the four legs each have a detachable connection and at least two of the four legs each have a joint connection" (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite for being vague and unclear. It is not sufficiently clear if the two of the four legs with a joint connection are same or different from the two legs with a detachable connection.
Did the applicant intend this limitation to be "and at least other two of the four legs each have a joint connection"? Applicant is requested to provide a clarification and/or correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hickok (US 6,883,456 B1).
Hickok shows a boat top system (Fig 2 and Fig 6), comprising: a top plate [20] and a frame assembly comprising four legs [28, 36], wherein the four legs comprise: port front and rear legs attached at respective joints [58, 70] to a bottom surface of the top plate; and starboard front and rear legs attached at respective joints [58, 70] to the bottom surface of the top plate, wherein at least two of the four legs each have a detachable connection and at least other two of the four legs each have a joint connection (see Fig 3) configured for moving the boat top assembly between a deployed state and a stowed state.
(Examiner's Note: It is noted that the claim does not positively recite a boat. Further, the limitations "detachable connection" and "joint connection" do not necessarily require the recited connections to be pivotal or hinged connections. In absence of such characterization, any leg or strut that simply contacts the top plate, even if such contact is non-pivotal or non-hinged, can be broadly considered as having a connection with the top plate.)
Re claim 3, the first joint, the second joint, the third joint, and the fourth joint are swivel joints.
Re claim 5, the bridge and seat structure [14, 16] are broadly considered as mounting plate, wherein the port and starboard legs are attached to the respective mounting plate.
Re claim 8, the four legs are capable of attaching, and therefore configured to attach, to a center console of the boat.
Re claim 9, the detachable connection comprises starboard and port connectors [48] on the starboard and port front legs.
Re claim 11, the joint connection comprises port and starboard pivot joints [58 or 63] on the port and starboard rear legs.
Re claim 12, the joint connections comprise a rotary joint.
Re claim 13, in the stowed state the top and the bottom surfaces of the top plate are generally parallel to the front deck (Fig 6).
Re claim 15, in the deployed state the top plate is positioned over a center console of the boat.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Frabetti (US 9,592,886 B2).
Frabetti shows a boat top system (Fig 1 and Fig 15), comprising a top plate [23] and a frame assembly comprising four legs [35, 36], wherein the four legs comprise: port front and rear legs attached at respective joints to a bottom surface of the top plate; and starboard front and rear legs attached at respective joints to the bottom surface of the top plate, wherein at least two of the four legs each have a detachable connection and at least other two of the four legs each have a joint connection (see col. 4, lines 13-14, and Figures 18-19) configured for moving the boat top assembly between a deployed state and a stowed state.
Re claim 2, in the stowed state the boat top assembly lays flat on one of a front deck or an aft deck of the boat (col. 3, lines 56-58; and Fig 2).
Re claim 3, the first joint, the second joint, the third joint, and the fourth joint are swivel joints.
Re claim 5, the port and starboard legs are attached to respective mounting plates [100] of the canopy (see Fig 18).
Re claim 8, the four legs are capable of attaching, and therefore configured to attach, to a center console of the boat.
Re claim 9, the detachable connection comprises starboard and port connectors [36B] on the starboard and port front legs.
Re claim 11, the joint connection comprises port and starboard pivot joints [35B] on the port and starboard rear legs.
Re claim 12, the joint connections comprise a rotary joint.
Re claim 13, in the stowed state the top and the bottom surfaces of the top plate are generally parallel to the front deck.
Re claim 15, in the deployed state the top plate is positioned over a center console of the boat.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frabetti (US 9,592,886 B2).
Frabetti shows a boat top system comprising: a top plate [23] and a frame assembly having four legs [35, 36], as described above, wherein upper ends of the port and starboard legs are pivotally attached to horizontal mounting plates [100] (see Fig 18).
Although Frabetti generally discloses pivotally attaching lower ends of the four legs to the boat, it fails to expressly disclose any specific attachment mechanism.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to pivotally attach the lower ends of the four legs on a deck of the boat using horizontal mounting plates that were substantially identical to the mounting plates used for attaching the upper ends of the legs. Having such an arrangement would have provided a simple and efficient mechanism for pivotally attaching the four legs to the boat. Regarding claim 7, it is noted that the claim does not positively recite attachment to a center console of the boat. In the present case, the four legs are considered capable of attaching, and therefore configured to, attach to a center console of the boat.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastor et al. (US 6,666,163 B2).
Pastor et al. show a boat top system (Fig 1 and Fig 3), comprising: a top plate [30] and a frame assembly comprising four legs [20, 50], wherein the four legs comprise: port front and rear legs attached at respective joints to a bottom surface of the top plate; and starboard front and rear legs attached at respective joints to the bottom surface of the top plate (Fig 2 and 2A), wherein the four legs each have a pivotal or joint connection configured for moving the boat top assembly between a deployed state and a stowed state.
Although Figure 2 of Pastor et al. suggests that the legs are detachably connected to the boat at lower ends, the specification fails to expressly disclose the legs as having detachable connections.
However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the four legs detachably connected to the boat at respective lower ends. Having such an arrangement would have allowed one to selectively detach any leg for easy and quick replacement and/or repair in the event of damage to the leg.
Re claim 2, the boat top assembly lays flat on one of a front deck or an aft deck of the boat (Fig 5).
Re claim 3, the first joint, the second joint, the third joint, and the fourth joint are swivel joints.
Re claim 4, the bottom surface of the top plate comprises a recess configured to receive the four legs when the boat top assembly is in the stowed state (Fig 4 and Fig 5).
Re claim 5, the port and starboard legs are attached to respective mounting plates of the canopy (see the horizontal plate structure at the lower ends of the legs in Fig 2).
Re claim 6, the mounting plate generally horizontal and are capable of, and therefore configured to attach to a deck of the boat.
Re claims 7 and 8, the four legs are capable of attaching, and therefore configured to attach, to a center console of the boat.
Re claim 9, with the above modification in place, the detachable connection on the lower ends of the starboard and port front legs would comprise connectors [32, 44] (see Fig 2).
Re claim 11, the joint connection comprises port and starboard pivot joints on the port and starboard rear legs.
Re claim 12, the joint connections comprise a rotary joint.
Re claim 13, in the stowed state the top and the bottom surfaces of the top plate are generally parallel to the front deck.
Re claim 14, when in the stowed state, the lower end portions of the four legs would remain on, and therefore rest, on a front deck.
Re claim 15, in the deployed state the top plate is positioned over a center console of the boat.
Re claim 16, the frame assembly comprises port and starboard piston gas shocks connecting the respective front and rear legs (col. 3, lines 57-60).
Re claim 17, although Pastor et al. does not disclose any mechanism of powering the piston gas shocks, use of motors for pressurizing hydraulic or pneumatic fluid to activate such gas shocks is old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ a motor for pressurizing the pneumatic fluid to power the gas shocks of Pastor et al. Having such an arrangement would have provided a simple and efficient system of operating the gas shocks.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastor et al. (US 6,666,163 B2), as modified above, and further in view of Pepper et al. (US 5,044,298 A).
Pastor et al., as modified above, shows a boat top system, comprising a top plate [30] and a frame assembly comprising four legs. The top plate comprises a cloth (see col. 2, lines 46-47).
Pastor et al. however does not disclose an insert located in the top plate (claim 18) or a rail system into which the insert slides (claim 19).
Pepper et al. discloses a boat top system, comprising a top plate having a retractable insert [70], and a rail system [78] into which the insert slides (see Fig 5 and Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the top plate of Pastor et al. with a slidable insert, as taught by Pepper et al. Having such an arrangement would have allowed one to selectively adjust the shade according to personal preference to enhance comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the same cloth material for the insert as used in the top plate. Having such an arrangement would have resulted in a top plate assembly that was aesthetically attractive and inexpensive to manufacture.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Willis (US 6799529), Hommel (US 6557922), Hastings (US 6349666), Bitelli (US 6126227) and Mitsuishi et al. (US 3912297) each shows a top system that is capable of being installed on a boat, wherein the top system comprises four legs pivotally attached to a top plate.
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 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights