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 has elected claims 1-6 without traverse. Claims 7-13 are hereby withdrawn. Claims 1-6 will be further considered on the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/302,213, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim 6 of the present application details how the “watercraft further includes a GPS unit”, and “wherein said alarm device is operatively connected to said GPS unit, so that said alarm device is programmed to provide said notification on said video display screen indicating that said ladder is in said extended position when said GPS unit detects that the watercraft is traveling at a predetermined speed”. There is insufficient support for these limitations. There is no GPS unit part of the boat system, nor is there a teaching of providing a notification based on a detection of the GPS unit as presently claimed, in the disclosure of Application No. 17/302,213. Therefore, claim 6 is not entitled to the earlier effective filing date. The effective filing date for claim 6 will be the filing date of this application, August 7th, 2024.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Neibert et al. (US 11440627 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Neibert teaches a watercraft safety system comprising:
a watercraft having a ladder, wherein said ladder may be disposed in an extended position downwardly for ingress and egress, or said ladder may be disposed in a retracted, stowed position (Col. 2, lines 53-69: boat has foldable boat ladder 100);
a sensor for determining whether said ladder is disposed in said extended position or said retracted position (Col. 4, lines 5-13: sensor system “is configured to trigger an alarm…when the foldable boat ladder system 200 is unfolded”); and
an alarm device operatively connected to said sensor, wherein said alarm provides a notification that said ladder is disposed in said extended position (Col. 4, lines 5-15: alarm is triggered by the sensor system to “warn the operator of the boat that the foldable boat ladder system 200 is unfolded”).
Regarding claim 4, Neibert teaches:
wherein said alarm device emits an audio warning (Col. 4, lines 60-62: alarm advice operates by emitting a sound, and does not sound when ladder is attached).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neibert et al. (US 11440627 B1).
Regarding claim 2, the primary embodiment of Neibert does not explicitly teach that the watercraft includes a kill switch, and wherein said ladder sensor is operatively connected to said kill switch so that upon detection of said ladder being in said retracted position, said kill switch moves to said off position.
However, Neibert does teach an alternate embodiment, where:
the watercraft includes a kill switch, and wherein said ladder sensor is operatively connected to said kill switch so that upon detection of said ladder being in said retracted position, said kill switch moves to said off position (Col. 4, lines 15-23: “the sensor system 206 may be connected to the starter system of the boat to prevent the boat from starting if…the ladder is in the deployed position”, which is the retracted position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine the embodiments of Neibert based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring safety. As Neibert teaches and as is well understood in the art, the ladder of the watercraft is unfolded so that someone can climb onboard the watercraft (Col. 2, lines 54-56). Therefore, ensuring that an operator does not start moving the boat while someone is climbing said ladder is advantageous to guarantee safe onboarding.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neibert as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Loibner ("Boarding Ladder Sensor." Soundings Online, 21 June 2016, soundingsonline.com/gear/boarding-ladder-sensor/. Accessed 23 Mar. 2026. [Year: 2016]).
Regarding claim 3, Neibert teaches:
wherein said ladder sensor communicates with said kill switch (Col. 4, lines 15-23: “the sensor system 206 may be connected to the starter system…similar to a ‘kill switch’ for a boat”).
Neibert does not teach that this communication is done wirelessly.
In the field of watercraft sensors, ladder sensors are well known. Loibner details one such ladder sensor (see Figure 1 included below) that is configured to operate wirelessly (Para. 2: the system is “wireless”).
PNG
media_image1.png
221
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Intelliboat Wireless Ladder Sensor
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have the ladder sensor be wirelessly connected with the watercraft systems based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of increasing the ease of installation and operation compared to wired sensors that must be installed in the watercraft by those with a more technical skill in this field. This further allows the sensors to be easily replaceable by the owner of the watercraft without the need for expensive and/or time consuming repairs.
Regarding claim 5, Neibert does not teach wherein said alarm device displays a visual warning.
In the field of watercraft sensors, ladder sensors are well known. Loibner details one such ladder sensor (see Figure 1 included above) that is configured to display a visual warning (Para. 2: the system is configured to give “visual alarms”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have the system give a visual alarm based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that people who are otherwise hard of hearing can also be made aware of the alarm as opposed to a purely audible one.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neibert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trotter et al. (US 11691698 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Neibert does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Trotter teaches a watercraft, wherein:
said watercraft further includes a GPS unit (Col. 6, line 63) and a video display screen (Col. 7, line 39);
and wherein said alarm device is operatively connected to said GPS unit, so that said alarm device is programmed to provide said notification on said video display screen indicating when said GPS unit detects that the watercraft is traveling at a predetermined speed. (Col. 6, lines 54-64 and Col. 7, lines 2-6 and 36-41: when a condition for activating the alarm– such as the docking lights being on– is recognized, and the speed of the boat has reached a predetermined speed, the alarm is activated).
A skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate this GPS unit and additional determination into the alarm activation operations of the primary. As the alarm of Neibert is activated based on the ladder being in said extended position, this combination would predictably result in the alarm being activated if the ladder is extended when the GPS unit determines that the vehicle is traveling over a predetermined speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to perform this modification based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation of not activating the alarm when a captain has intentionally started a boat with the ladder being extended. The concept of idling an engine while is well known in the art of boats, and is performed for engine health, optimal performance, to warm up the engine, for boats that have electronic systems that are otherwise not powered unless the boat is started, or some combination of these other benefits not mentioned herein. It is advantageous if the alarm indicating that the ladder is down is not activated in these scenarios as this will otherwise embitter the users of the boat when the ladder is intentionally down while the boat is started.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights