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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 have been amended. No claims have been newly added nor canceled. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the present application. The previous objections to claims 1 and 6, as well as the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 4 and 5, have been withdrawn as a result of amendment. The examiner notes, however, that the changes to the scope of claim 1 have introduced a nonstatutory double patenting rejection, as detailed below. Additionally, the amendment to claim 4 has introduced a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-6 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4 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.
The term “high coefficient of friction” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high coefficient of friction” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the recitation of “high coefficient of friction” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes a “high” coefficient of friction.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12077268 B2 in view of Kern (US 20080202405 A1). See the table below for further details, where differences between claim sets are bolded.
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12077268
1. A lifeboat, comprising:A self-righting hull with a transom opening;
An aft deck, wherein the aft deck is generally U-shaped comprising a cut-out forming the transom opening to provide a low portion of a transom of the hull that is lower than a remainder of the transom, via which a casualty can haul him/herself or be hauled aboard; and
A ramp within the cut-out of the aft deck at the low portion, via which the casualty can board the lifeboat, wherein the ramp has a powered conveyor for hauling the casualty aboard without on-board crew assistance, the ramp is level with the aft deck at a forward end and slopes down to the transom, and the ramp has an open or aperture structure that allows water flow through the ramp.
1. An unmanned lifeboat, comprising:
A self-righting hull with a transom opening;
A closed onboard casualty accommodation,
A propulsion unit and a steering gear,
A navigation apparatus,
A communication apparatus having a standby mode and adapted to receive an activation signal and a casualty’s position and
A controller operatively connected to the propulsion unit, the steering gear, the navigation apparatus and the communication apparatus, the controller being for:
Activating the propulsion unit and the steering gear in response to receipt of the activation signal by the communication apparatus and
Conning the lifeboat in co-operation with the navigation apparatus towards the casualty position without on-board crew control and
An aft deck, wherein the aft deck is generally U-shaped comprising a cut-out forming the transom opening to provide a portion of the transom of the hull which is lower than the rest of a gunwale or transom of the hull via which the casualty can haul him/herself or be hauled aboard without on-board crew assistance,
Wherein:
There is a powered conveyor ramp at the portion of the transom of the hull via which the casualty can haul him/herself or be hauled aboard without on-board crew assistance within the cut-out of the aft deck, wherein the ramp is level with the aft deck at its forward end and slopes down to the transom and arranged to haul the casualty through the transom opening.
2. A lifeboat as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ramp is adapted for lowering of a distal end into the water and/or extension beyond the transom for casualty recovery.
12. A lifeboat according to claim 1, wherein the ramp is adapted for lowering of its distal end into the water and/or extension beyond the transom for casualty recovery and raising the distal end from the water and/or retraction within the transom when under way.
3. A lifeboat as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ramp is adapted for raising a distal end from the water and/or retraction within the transom when under way.
12. A lifeboat according to claim 1, wherein the ramp is adapted for lowering of its distal end into the water and/or extension beyond the transom for casualty recovery and raising the distal end from the water and/or retraction within the transom when under way.
As shown above, the primary difference between claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of the reference patent is the limitation of “[wherein] the ramp has an open or aperture structure that allows water flow through the ramp.” This limitation, however, is rendered obvious by at least [0050] of Kern, which recites, inter alia:
As shown in FIGS. 2B and 2C, the plurality of wet-traction members 55 are spaced (s) so as to form apertures that water can pass through. In certain embodiments the plurality of wet-traction members 55 are spaced (s) such that the surface area defined between the two spaced side rails 50 includes about 10% aperture area and the remaining 90% surface area is defined by the plurality of wet-traction members. In other embodiments, the plurality of wet-traction members 55 are spaced such that the surface area defined between the two space side rails includes about 60% aperture area and the remaining 40% of the surface area is defined by the plurality of wet-traction members. Other combinations are also possible, for example about 30% of the surface area may be defined by aperture area and about 70% of the surface area may be defined by wet-traction members 55. In another embodiment, about 80% of the surface area is defined by aperture area and about 20% of the surface area is defined by wet-traction members 55. (Emphasis added)
The motivation to combine is to allow the ramp to better operate under more harsh conditions, without causing the boat as a whole to be as affected by waves or other rough water.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are not being rejected under prior art at this time, though the examiner notes that claims 1-3 remain subject to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection detailed above, and claim 4 remains subject to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection detailed above.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the closest pieces of prior art are Kern (US 20080202405 A1), Kobayashi (US 5492076 A), Woodland (US 5597335 A), Woodland ‘763 (US 6269763 B1), Witbeck (US 6843198 B1), Walczyk (US 7045058 B2), Soreau (US 20130025521 A1), and Fernandez (US 20180174422 A1).
Kern teaches a recovery vehicle for surface and underwater vehicles, wherein the recovery vehicle includes a ramp comprising a plurality of wet-traction members with interspersed apertures to allow water through.
Kobayashi teaches a rescue boat having a catamaran hull with a generally open deck area of the transom.
Woodland teaches an autonomous marine vessel having a plurality of sensors enabling autonomous movement, wherein the marine vessel includes an inflatable ramp towards the rear of the vessel.
Woodland ‘763 teaches an autonomous marine vessel able to respond to emergencies of different kinds.
Witbeck teaches a recovery vessel, wherein a hinged portion of the deck is operable to lower cargo into the water and raise cargo out of the water using hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders.
Walczyk teaches a trash skimming vessel having a powered ramp, wherein the ramp is operable to skim trash off of the surface of the water using the powered ramp.
Soreau teaches a system for launching and recovering marine vehicles using a ramp, wherein the ramp is inclinable, and wherein the ramp has a free end which varies between an immersed position in water and an emerged position out of the water.
Fernandez generically teaches an autonomous rescue watercraft for fully autonomous rescue operations.
No reference, however, as a whole or in combination, teaches, discloses, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious:
A lifeboat, comprising:
A self-righting hull with a transom opening;
An aft deck, wherein the aft deck is generally U-shaped comprising a cut-out forming the transom opening to provide a low portion of a transom of the hull that is lower than a remainder of the transom, via which a casualty can haul him/herself or be hauled aboard; and
A ramp within the cut-out of the aft deck at the low portion, via which the casualty can board the lifeboat, wherein the ramp has a powered conveyor for hauling the casualty aboard without on-board crew assistance, the ramp is level with the aft deck at a forward end and slopes down to the transom, and the ramp has an open or aperture structure that allows water flow through the ramp.
Claims 2-6 are dependent on claim 1, and are similarly not being rejected under prior art at this time.
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 BLAKE A WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/BLAKE A WOOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights