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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B in the reply filed on 07 November 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Currently no claims are withdrawn. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “engagement member” in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 21-27; “drive mechanism” in claim 1, 6 and 14; and “receiver” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 15, Lines 7-10 lacks antecedent basis; Claims 16-21 lacks antecedent basis; Claim 22, Lines 9-12 lack antecedent basis; and Claim 23 lacks antecedent basis.
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 “elastically deformable cover” (claim 15) and “controller” (claim 22) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claim 1, 9, 19 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, “an first” should read --a first--
Claim 1, line 9, “waster” should read --water--
Claim 9, line 2, “first second rods” should read --first and second rods--
Claim 9, line 4, “first rod” should read --the first rod--
Claim 19, line 6, “on” should read --one--
Claim 21, line 5, “elastically deformable” should read --elastically deformable cover--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hellweg (US Pat. No. 10,870,468 B1). Note: Claims 8-21 encompass subject matter not disclosed in parent US App. No. 17/747,401, such that the effective filing date of claims 8-21 is 12 July 2024. Therefore, Hellweg qualifies as prior art under 34 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
In regards to claim 8, Hellweg teaches a water sports equipment storage rack, comprising: a recess (205, Fig. 2) configured to receive a water sport device (210); an engagement member (110, 405) configured to move between a first position where the engagement member abuts the water sport device thereby preventing the water sport device from being removed from the recess and a second position where the engagement member is spaced from the water sports device thereby allowing removal of the water sport device from the recess (Col 4, Lines 62-67; Col 5, Lines 1-9); and a lock member (820, Fig. 10) configured to move between a locked position wherein the lock member engages the engagement member thereby preventing the engagement member form moving from the first portion to the second position and an unlocked position where the lock member is disengaged from the engagement member thereby allowing the engagement member to move from the first position to the second position (Col 5, Lines 56-67; Col 6, Lines 1-42).
In regards to claim 9, Hellweg teaches an actuator including a housing (102), a first rod (810) and a second rod (405), wherein the first second rods are each telescoping received within the housing and operably coupled to the engagement member (110) and the lock member (820), wherein first rod (810) has a first length of full travel from within the housing and the second rod (405) has a second length of full travel this is less than the first length of full travel (i.e.; the first rod 810 is longer than the second rod 405, and the first rod 810 travels additionally via actuator lever 505).
In regards to claim 10, Hellweg teaches a first spring (1105) configured to bias the engagement member from the second position toward the first position.
In regards to claim 12, Hellweg teaches a seat (120) which forms a portion of the recess and is configured to receive a portion of the water sport device, wherein the engagement member is configured to linearly move in an outward direction away from the seat and in an inward direction toward the seat between an extended position and a retracted position (Col 4, Lines 62-67; Col 5, Lines 1-9).
In regards to claim 13, Hellweg teaches the engagement member is configured to rotatably move between the first and second positions (Col 4, Lines 62-67; Col 5, Lines 1-9).
In regards to claim 14, Hellweg teaches a drive mechanism (actuator 505) configured to move the engagement member both linearly and rotatably.
In regards to claim 15, Hellweg teaches a water sports equipment storage rack, comprising: a seat (205) configured to receive a first portion of a water sport device (210); an engagement member (110, 212) that is configured to linearly move between a first position where the engagement member is spaced from a second portion of the water sport device and a second position where the engagement member abuts the second portion of the water sports device thereby securing the water sport device within the water sports equipment storage rack (Col 4, Lines 62-67; Col 5, Lines 1-9); an elastically deformable cover on at least one of a portion of the seat and a portion of the engagement member such that the elastically deformable cover abuts at least one of the first portion of the water sport device and the second portion of the water sport device when the engagement member is in the second position (Col 3, Lines 53-67; Col 4, Lines 1-8).
The claim is a product by process claim and the storage rack does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation "overmolded onto" in lines 7-8 would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the rack. Therefore, the claimed rack is not a different and unobvious rack from the rack of Hellweg. See MPEP 2113.
In regards to claim 17, Hellweg teaches the elastically deformable cover is overmolded onto the seat (205) and the engagement member (110, 212) (Col 3, Lines 53-67; Col 4, Lines 1-8).
In regards to claim 19, Hellweg teaches an arm (102) and hook portion (120) that cooperate to define the first seat (205), where the arm extends between the hook portion and the engagement member (110, 212); and where the elastically deformable cover is overmolded onto at least one of the portion of the seat, the portion of the engagement member and a portion of the arm such that the elastically deformable cover abuts at least one of the first portion of the water sport device and the second portion of the water sport device when the engagement member is in the second position (Col 3, Lines 53-67; Col 4, Lines 1-8).
In regards to claim 21, Hellweg teaches an arm (102) and hook portion (120) that cooperate to define the first seat (205), where the arm extends between the hook portion and the engagement member (110, 212); and where the elastically deformable cover is overmolded onto the seat, engagement member and the arm such that the elastically deformable abuts at least one of the first portion of the water sport device and the second portion of the water sport device when the engagement member is in the second position (Col 3, Lines 53-67; Col 4, Lines 1-8).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsdell et al. (US Pat. No. 12,071,204 B1) in view of Stuckey et al. (US Pat. No. 12,116,089 B1). Note: Claims 1-7 encompass subject matter not disclosed in parent US App. No. 17/747,401, such that the effective filing date of claims 1-7 is 12 July 2024. Therefore, Ramsdell and Stuckey qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
In regards to claim 1, Ramsdell teaches a water sports equipment storage rack, comprising: a first seat (108) and second seat (110) laterally spaced from one another and each configured to receive a first portion of a water sport device (2000); an first engagement member (102, 112) configured to linearly move in an outward direction away from the seat and in an inward direction toward the seat between an extended position and a retracted position and to rotatably move about a pivot axis (284, Fig. 16B) between an open position where the engagement member is spaced from a second portion of the first water sport device thereby securing the first water sport device within the water sports equipment storage rack; and a first drive mechanism (114) configured to at least one of linearly move the first engagement member between the extended and retracted positions and rotatably move the first engagement member between the open and closed positions (Col 5, Lines 56-67; Col 6, Lines 1-2).
Ramsdell does not teach the first engagement member aligned with the first seat and a second engagement member aligned with the second seat. Stuckey teaches a first engagement member (130a) aligned with a first seat (150) and a second engagement member (130c) aligned with a second seat (150).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Ramsdell’s rack such that the first engagement member aligned with the first seat and a second engagement member is aligned with the second seat. The motivation would be for the purpose of securing additional portions of the sports board as taught by Stuckey (Col 7, Lines 33-35).
In regards to claim 2, in modifying Ramsdell, Stuckey teaches a first arm (Stuckey: 110) and a first hook portion (Stuckey: 156) that cooperate to define the first seat; and a second arm (Stuckey: 110) and a second hook portion (Stuckey: 156) that cooperate to define the second seat.
In regards to claim 3, modified Ramsdell teaches the first arm, the first hook and the engagement member cooperate to define an upwardly disposed first opening (i.e.; a U-shape) configured to receive the first water sport device (Ramsdell: 2000) when the first engagement member is in the open position.
In regards to claim 4, modified Ramsdell teaches a third seat (Ramsdell: 108) and a fourth seat (Ramsdell: 110) laterally spaced from one another and each configured to receive a first portion of a second water sport device; an third engagement member (Ramsdell: 104, 112) configured to linearly move in an outward direction away from the third and fourth seats and in an inward direction toward the third and fourth seats between an extended position and a retracted position and to rotatably move about a pivot axis between an open position where the third engagement member is spaced from a second portion of the second water sport device and a closed position where the third engagement member abut the second portion of the second water sport device thereby securing the second water sport device within the water sports equipment storage rack (Ramsdell: Col 5, Lines 56-67; Col 6, Lines 1-2).
Ramsdell does not teach the third engagement member aligned with the third seat and a fourth engagement member aligned with the fourth seat. Stuckey teaches a third engagement member (130b) aligned with a first seat (150) and a second engagement member (130d) aligned with a second seat (150).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Ramsdell’s rack such that the third engagement member is aligned with the third seat and a fourth engagement member is aligned with the fourth seat. The motivation would be for the purpose of securing additional portions of the sports board as taught by Stuckey (Col 7, Lines 33-35).
In regards to claim 5, in modifying Ramsdell, Stuckey teaches the third seat (Stuckey: 150) is vertically aligned with the first seat (Stuckey: 150) and the fourth seat (Stuckey: 150) is vertically aligned with the second seat (Stuckey: 150) (see Fig. 2 of Stuckey).
In regards to claim 6, modified Ramsdell teaches the drive mechanism (Ramsdell: 114) is configured to linearly move the first engagement member between the extended and retracted positions and rotatably move the first engagement member between the open and closed positions ((Ramsdell: Col 5, Lines 56-67; Col 6, Lines 1-2).
In regards to claim 7, modified Ramsdell teaches the first water sport device includes a wakeboard (e.g.; see Background in Ramsdell).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellweg (US Pat. No. 10,870,468 B1) in view of Evans et al. (US Pat. No. 4,863,082).
In regards to claim 16, Hellweg does not teach the elastically deformable cover comprises foam. Evans teaches a foam elastically deformable cover (38)(Col 3, Lines 56-59).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Hellweg’s cover to be foam. The motivation would be for the purpose of selecting from a variety of materials suitable as a protective liner as taught by Evans (Col 3, Lines 56-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 18 and 20 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. Claims 22-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is discussed above. Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach modifying Hellweg to include a second spring configured to bias the lock member from the unlocked position toward the locked position. Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach modifying Hellweg such that at least one of the seat and the engagement member includes a plurality of reliefs, and wherein the elastically deformable cover is molded to the plurality of reliefs. In regards to claim 20, the prior art of record does not teach modifying Hellweg such that at least one of the seat, the engagement member and the arm includes a plurality of reliefs, and wherein the elastically deformable cover is molded to the plurality of reliefs.
In regards to claim 22, Hellweg (US Pat. No. 10,870,468 B1) teaches a water sports equipment storage rack, comprising: a receiver (205) configured to receive a water sport device (210) therein; an engagement member (110, 212) movable between a first position where the engagement member is spaced from the water sport device and a second position where the engagement member abuts the water sport device thereby preventing the water sport device from being removed from within the receiver; and a drive mechanism (505, 405, 810) configured to move the engagement member between the first and second positions. The prior art or record does not teach modifying Hellweg such that the drive mechanism includes an electric motor; and a controller configured to activate the electric motor to move the engagement member between the first and second positions, wherein the controller is configured to deactivate the electric motor in response to an increase in current draw by the electric motor when the engagement member reaches at least one of the first position and the second position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631