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
In light of the amendments to the claims filed December 17, 2025 the objection to the drawings set forth in the non-final office action mailed October 2, 2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
In light of the amendments to the claims filed December 17, 2025 the objection to the claims set forth in the non-final office action mailed October 2, 2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendments to the claims filed December 17, 2025 wherein claim 21 was cancelled, the 112a rejection of claim 21 set forth in the non-final office action mailed October 2, 2025 is withdrawn.
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 23 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.
Claim 23 recites “an adjustable mechanism” and “a bracket” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 22, from which claim 23 depends, already introduces an adjustable mechanism and a bracket. It is unclear if new, second adjustable mechanisms and brackets are being introduced or if the previous bracket and adjustable mechanism recited in claim 22 is being referred to. For purposes of examination, examiner interprets “an adjustable mechanism” and “a bracket” in claim 23 to refer to the same adjustable mechanism and bracket as recited in claim 22.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples (US 2021/0001764 A1, previously cited) in view of Sprague (US 4623161).
In regards to claim 1: Staples teaches an adjustable bow stop for a boat trailer, comprising:
a frame (44);
a bracket (46); and
an adjustable mechanism (47, as well as holes in 44 shown in Figure 5) configured to move the bracket in a fore and aft direction relative to the boat trailer (Examiner notes that when the bracket rotates about bolt 47 it is can move both for or towards the boat and aft or away from the boat, additionally paragraph 0056 refers to 44 as an “extension post” which is shown with adjustment holes in Figure 5); and a mounting system (42 and 43) configured to attach the adjustable bow stop to the boat trailer, wherein the mounting system is configured to removably mount the adjustable bow stop to an existing winch post (40) of the boat trailer with respect to a surface the boat trailer is on (See Figure 5).
Staples fails to teach wherein the adjustable bow stop is mounted directly to an apex of the existing winch post. However, Sprague teaches an adjustable bow stop (12) mounted directly to the apex of a post (14) to allow for vertical adjustment of the bow stop (Paragraph 1 of description). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally adjust the mounting system of Staples to mount the bow stop directly to the apex as in Sprague of the winch post so as to allow for a user to adjust the height of the bow stop to accommodate for the size and/or shape of the boat thereby creating a more versatile boat stop.
Claims 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples in view of Sprague and further in view of Nelson (US 3414149, previously cited).
In regards to claim 2: The adjustable bow stop of claim 1 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague. The combination further teaches wherein the adjustable mechanism is connected to the bracket (47 is connected to 46). The combination fails to teach wherein the adjustable mechanism is a jack screw. However, Nelson teaches a jack screw (55) with a hand crank (58) for use on a boat trailer as a linear actuator and adjustment mechanism. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a jack screw as in Nelson for the adjustment mechanism of Staples in view of Sprague to allow for more control over the adjustment of the bow stop position thereby creating a more efficient and versatile bow stop for various watercraft.
In regards to claim 8: The adjustable bow stop of claim 2 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague and Nelson. The combination further teaches wherein the bracket is removable (Paragraph 0056 of Staples. Bow stop 46 is attached via bolt 47, examiner notes that bolts are removable).
In regards to claim 9: The adjustable bow stop of claim 8 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague and Nelson. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the bracket is u shaped. However, Staples teaches the advantages of a concave bow stop (Abstract and Paragraph 0005) and then defines concave as “to include a pair of surfaces that incline, either linearly or in a curve, to or towards an apex” (Paragraph 0018). Examiner notes that in a curve would result in a U-shape though not shown in the relied upon embodiment of Staples. Furthermore, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.) See MPEP 2144.04 Paragraph IV. Section B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bracket be U shaped as a matter of obvious design choice based on the boat to be towed by the trailer thereby creating a bracket more tailored to its particular or intended use and thereby more efficient.
In regards to claim 10: The adjustable bow stop of claim 8 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague and Nelson. The combination further teaches wherein the bracket is v shaped (Paragraphs 0057 and 0058 of Staples refer to 48 as the Vee portion of the bracket 46).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples in view of Sprague and further in view of Skutnik (US 2022/0355910 A1, previously cited). The adjustable bow stop of claim 1 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague. The combination does not explicitly state wherein the bow stop is secured to the winch by friction fit. However, it appears as though the friction caused by the tightening of U-bolts 42 of Staples around post 40 of Staples to plate 43 of Staples causes the mounting system and bracket to be held in place by friction. Nevertheless, Skutnik also teaches members (120, 125, and 130) of a support assembly (110) fitted with a friction fit (Paragraph 0041) to allow for detachment and storage (Paragraph 0042 lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to fit the mounting mechanism of Staples in view of Sprague to the post via friction fit as in Skutnik to account for manufacturing availability and to allow for the bow stop to be more easily removed and stored thereby creating a cheaper and more user friendly bow stop assembly.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples in view of Sprague and Nelson and further in view of Williams (US 2018/0319470 A1, previously cited).
In regards to claim 11: The adjustable bow stop of claim 2 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague and Nelson. The combination fails to teach wherein the adjustable bow stop includes one or more sensors. However, Williams teaches contact sensors (410) on the surface of a trailer to determine the position of a boat (Paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally have a contact sensor as in Williams on the bow stop of the combination of Staples in view of Sprague and Nelson so as to determine and signal the impact of the boat with the bow stop thereby allowing the user to better control the attachment of the boat to the trailer and to prevent damage to the boat and the vehicle.
In regards to claim 12: The adjustable bow stop of claim 11 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague, Nelson, and Williams. The combination further teaches wherein the one or more sensors are impact sensors (examiner notes that Williams describes the sensors as contact sensors and contact does require an initial impact. Examiner is considering the contact sensors of Williams to be impact sensors. Examiner also points to paragraph 0037 of applicant’s specification describing that impact sensors are triggered when the bow stop comes into contact with the boat.).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staples in view of Sprague and further in view of Velton (US 8590916 B2, previously cited).
In regards to claim 14: The adjustable bow stop of claim 1 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague. While Staples in view of Sprague teaches that arm 44 of Staples is extendable and shows adjustment holes for lateral extension, it is silent as the exact mechanism of extension. However, Velton teaches an adjustable arm comprising an inner component, an outer component movably coupled to the inner component, wherein relative motion between the inner component and the outer component adjusts a length of the adjustable bow stop (Column 2 lines 26-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the extendable arm (44) of Staples in view of Sprague use a telescoping extension mechanism with an inner component and an outer component as in Velton to allow for a simple to manufacture and user friendly extension thereby creating a cheaper and more easily adjustable bow stop for the user.
In regards to claim 15: The adjustable bow stop of claim 14 is taught by Staples in view of Sprague and Velton. The combination further teaches wherein the adjustable mechanism has a latch mechanism (Shown not labeled in Figure 2 of Velton protruding from outer sleeve of 107) configured to secure the outer component relative to the inner component at a selected length.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priesgen (US 5823559) in view of Velton.
In regards to claim 22: Priesgen teaches an adjustable bow stop for a boat trailer, comprising: a frame (66, 88, and 90); a bracket (92); a mounting system (Paragraph 10: “First 88 and second 90 bow guard support brackets are mounted to opposite sides of winch stand 72.”, see also what appears to be mounting holes on 88 and 90 in Figures 1 and 2) configured to attach the adjustable bow stop to the boat trailer (10), wherein the mounting system is configured to mount the adjustable bow stop to an existing winch post (72); and an adjustable mechanism (98, 94, 100) with an adjuster configured to move the bracket in a fore and aft direction relative to the boat trailer from a first configuration to a second configuration that closes a formed gap between a bow of a boat and the adjustable bow stop by moving the adjustable bow stop towards the boat (Paragraph 11: “In order to accommodate personal watercraft of various lengths, bow stop assembly 66 must be allowed to slide longitudinally along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of trailer 10. As such, bow stop 66 includes a slot 94 which extends longitudinally along its underside 96. As best seen in FIGS. 2-8, a generally U-shaped channel 98 is secured to each angled side portion 40 and 42 of frame structure 12. Each channel 98 extends along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of trailer 10 and is adapted for slidably receiving bow stop 66 therein.” See also paragraphs 12 and 13).
Priesgen does not explicitly teach wherein the bow stop is removably mounted to the winch post. Priesgen is silent as to whether the mounting of 88 and 90 is removable or permanent, but does appear to show bolt holes along 88 and 90 in Figures 1 and 2. Nevertheless, Velton teaches bolts (shown not labeled at 108 in Figure 2) for connecting a bow stop to a winch post. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use bolts as in Velton for the mount of 88 and 90 to winch post 72 in Priesgen according to manufacturing cost, availability, and simplicity as well as to allow for removal and maintenance or replacement of the bow stop thereby creating a more cost effective and user friendly bow stop.
In regards to claim 23: The adjustable bow stop of claim 22 is taught by Priesgen in view of Velton. The combination further teaches wherein the adjustable mechanism moves the bracket in a lateral direction (Refer to paragraph 11 of Priesgen quoted above as well as Figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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 subject matter of claim 13 was previously indicated allowable.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are allowed for the reasons indicated in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ABIGAIL R HYMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0389. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/A.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611