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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, the recitation of “claim 1” is wrong, since claim 1 has been cancelled. It appears that claim 14 should depend from claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 6-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann et al (US 4,854,258) in view of Kramer (US 5,095,840)
As to claim 6, Hausmann et al discloses all that is claimed except for an array of boat landing fender assemblies, for mounting to a landing platform, comprising a plurality of boat landing fender assembly.
Hausmann et al discloses the boat fender assembly 5 for mounting to a landing platform, the assembly comprising: a fender unit, said fender unit having a compressible layer 6 intermediate a first 9 and second 12 rigid plate; a bracket 10 capable of mounting to a frame of the landing platform, said bracket connected to the fender unit on a first surface of the first rigid surface; wherein, on mounting to the landing platform, a second surface of the second rigid plate 12 is directed outwards from the landing platform.
Hausmann et al does not explicitly discloses an array. Kramer discloses an array of boat landing fender assemblies (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an array of boat fender assemblies, since doing so provides the expected benefit of protecting a desired surface area.
As to claim 7, Hausmann et al discloses all that is claimed except wherein co-planar arrangement forms a flush contact plane for receiving an impact from a vessel. Kramer (see figure 1) discloses that array wherein a coplanar arrangement is formed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coplanar arrangement, since doing so provides the expected benefit of protecting a desired surface area.
As to claim 8, Hausmann et al in view of Kramer are silent to wherein individual fender assemblies are selectively removable from the array; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively remove a fender assembly, since doing so provides the expected benefit of repairing and replacing damage fender assemblies.
As to claim 9, Hausmann et al in view of Kramer are silent to wherein individual fender units are selectively removable from the array; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selectively remove a fender unit, since doing so provides the expected benefit of repairing and replacing damage fender unit.
As to claim 10, Hausmann discloses a pad 23 attachable to the second surface, said pad arranged to receive an impact from a vessel.
As to claim 11, Hausmann discloses (see col. 2, lines 13-20) wherein the pad includes a polymer material.
As to claim 12, Hausmann et al discloses all that is claimed except for a plurality of fender units attached to said bracket, said plurality of fender units arranged to have respective second surfaces in a co-planar arrangement. Kramer discloses a plurality of fenders units 15 wherein second surfaces are coplanar (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of fender units as disclosed by Kramer, since doing so provides the expected benefit of protecting a desired surface area.
As to claim 13, Hausmann et al discloses all that is claimed except for a plurality of fender units attached to a plurality of brackets, said plurality of fender units arranged to have respective second surfaces in a co-planar arrangement. Kramer discloses a plurality of fenders units 15 wherein second surfaces are coplanar (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plurality of fender units as disclosed by Kramer, since doing so provides the expected benefit of protecting a desired surface area
As to claim 15, Kramer further discloses wherein the frame comprises vertical member 34, the brackets arranged to be mounted to said members. Furthermore, the provision of horizontal members would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since depending on the configuration of a platform structure the provision of horizontal members would be decided.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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 14, the prior art of record fails to show or suggest the array of boat landing fender assemblies further including at least one anti-rotational pad on at least one bracket, said anti-rotational pads arranged to prevent rotation following impact on the fender unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hausmann nor Kramer discloses that the fender units and brackets are mounted to a frame. Hausmann discloses brackets 10 that are capable of being mounted to any type member including a frame. Kramer also discloses fender units mounted to a frame 34.
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