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 .
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16, line 1, the phrase "can" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 2514965 herein referred to as Christ-Escherich.
As to claim 1, Christ-Escherich discloses (see figures and translated abstract, spine is zig-zagged) a marina including: a spine that is zig-zagged or corrugated in shape; and vessel berths extending along the spine and for enabling vessels to berth obliquely to the spine.
As to claim 2, Christ-Escherich discloses wherein the vessels are berthed obliquely on either side of the spine to form a series of chevrons, avoiding tight 90° or acute turns, for safer berthing of the vessels.
As to claim 4, Christ-Escherich discloses wherein the vessels berth obliquely to a longitudinal central axis of the spine facing away from a wharf from which the spine extends.
As to claim 5, Christ-Escherich discloses wherein the vessels berth at between about 30° and 60° to the spine, or about 45° to the spine.
As to claim 15, Christ-Escherich discloses wherein the berths are located on either side of the spine and misaligned, each berth including a docking bay with a squarish portion proximal the spine.
Insofar as understood, as to claim 16, Christ-Escherich discloses wherein each berth can berth a respective vessel, a pair of vessels or three vessels with an intervening rib.
As to claim 17, Christ-Escherich discloses the method for berthing a vessel at a marina, the method including: receiving the vessel in a vessel berth so that the vessel is berthed obliquely to a spine extending from a wharf; and receiving another vessel in another vessel berth so that the another vessel is berthed obliquely to the spine on an opposite side of the spine, the vessel and the another vessel not being berthed in parallel. The figures of Christ-Escherich disclose a zig-zagged spine, as such the the vessel (not shown) is berthed obliquely to a spine extending from a wharf; and receiving another vessel in another vessel berth so that the another vessel is berthed obliquely to the spine on an opposite side of the spine, the vessel and the another vessel not being berthed in parallel.
As to claim 18, Christ-Escherich discloses (see figures and translated abstract, spine is zig-zagged) marina including:
a wharf;
one or more spines extending from the wharf; and
vessel berths extending along opposite sides of each spine and for enabling vessels
to berth obliquely to the spine and/or the wharf, the vessels not being berthed in parallel. Due to the zig-zagged spine, the vessels (not shown) are berthed obliquely, but not parallel.
As to claim 20, Christ-Escherich discloses (see figure 4) wherein the marina includes a herringbone pattern.
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 2514965 herein referred to as Christ-Escherich.
As to claim 3, Christ-Escherich does not disclose wherein berths are
independently reconfigured to accommodate vessels of different size, on a needs basis, for improved berthing efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to resize a berth because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 6, Christ-Escherich discloses spine having arranged sections angled to each other; however, does not disclose wherein the spine includes orthogonally arranged sections giving the zig-zagged or corrugated in shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure an angle of a spine because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 and 19 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:
As to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein each berth includes at least one rib extending from a single side of the spine.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein each berth has an internal perimeter defined by three orthogonal edges, the edges obliquely aligned with a wharf from which the spine extends.
As to claim 19, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest wherein the wharf defines protrusions from which respective spines extend and/or cutouts to receive vessels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 10/14/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as stated above.
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 FREDERICK L LAGMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7043. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday 8am-6:00pm.
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.
/FREDERICK L LAGMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678