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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by McCoy (US 4230060; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 1, 12, McCoy discloses the claimed mast 14 stayed by a shroud (78, 122) separated transversely from the mast by a spreader, the mast having a pre-tension cable anchored with pretension on the mast on an opposite side to the shroud, with a top attachment and a bottom attachment to the mast, on either side of a region of the mast experiencing the maximum stresses (note Figure 2, for example), including induced by the bending moment and a means (plate 84; note also Figure 7-9) for transferring at least some transverse forces from the shroud (78, 122) to the pre-tensioning cable (76, 124) anchored with pretension. With respect to claims 3-5, note McCoy.
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy (US 4230060; cited by Applicant) in view of Boog (NL 9101443 A; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 3-5, McCoy does not disclose the details of the tensioning means and the cable system. Boog teaches a spreader cable 24 including details of the tensioning means and cable system (Figures 2-3. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of McCoy with the tensioning means and cable system as taught by Boog with a high likelihood of success for sail control. The combinations combine known features to achieve predictable results. Note also that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would be familiar with various tensioning and cable systems for sail control. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious. With respect to claim 2, it would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the system with a high likelihood of success with hydraulics for improved sail control.
Claims 6-11 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jackson (US 3835804) shows a sail system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 Q. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights