Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 2-23-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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)(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.
(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 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR Patent No. 10-1483738 to Yong.
Referring to claim 1, Yong discloses a system comprising, a support structure – at 100, extending along a main axis – see vertical axis in figure 1, the support structure – at 100, having a first end and a second end – see top and bottom ends and also left and right side ends in figure 1, the support structure – at 100, configured to be deployed in water such that, when in a deployed position, the second end is submerged in water and the first end remains above water – see at 100 in figures 7a-7d, a carriage – at 300, configured to travel along a first side of the support structure – at 100 – see figures 7a-7d, and to engage with a cage – at 500, floating in water – see figures 7a-7d and page 6 of the English translation provided by applicant detailing the carriage 300 moves the cage 500 from the water, and a lifting device – at 400, configured to move the carriage – see figures 7a-7d and page 5 of the English translation provided by applicant. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed lifting device, Yong discloses a motor and cable – at 400-420 which is at least a substantial equivalent to applicant’s disclosed winch and cable since the motor and cable of Yong provides similar functionality to applicant’s winch and cable of using a motor to move the cable and attached carriage. Yong further discloses the carriage comprises, a carriage guide – at 530, moveably attached to the support structure – at 100,110, on the first side of the support structure – see at 530 in figure 1, a lift arm – at 222, attached to the carriage guide – see in the position of figures 7b-7c, at a proximal end of the lift arm – at 222 – see figures 7b-7c, extending in a direction away from the first side of the support structure – see 222 having each end extending away in the horizontal direction from the support structure first side – at 110 as seen in figure 1, a balance bar – at 520, attached at the distal end of the lift arm – see via items 300,540 in figures 7b-7c, a middle section of the balance bar – the elbow portion of 520, attached such that the balance bar extends on both sides of the lift arm – at 220 – see on both the top and bottom sides of 220 in figures 1 and 7a-7d, is arranged substantially perpendicular to the lift arm – vertical portion of the elbow of 520 – see figure 1, and substantially perpendicular to the main axis of the support structure – horizontal portion of 520 – see figure 1, and a flipping apparatus – at 540, coupled to the lift arm – at 220 – see figures 7a-7b. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed flipping apparatus, item 540 of Yong is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed flipping apparatus being a flip arm or a carriage foot in that item 540 of Yong provides for and arm like member and also provides for a foot like structure at the bottom of the carriage 300 and therefore has similar structure and function to applicant’s disclosed flipping apparatus.
Referring to claim 7, Yong further discloses guide bars – at 110, that extend outward on the first side of the support structure – see at 100 in figure 1, the guide bars configured to center and stabilize the cage – see figures 1 and 7a-7d – where items 110 extend outwardly from the sidewalls of 100 to which they are respectively attached and applicant has not defined the outward direction in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0396968 to Docker et al.
Referring to claim 9, Yong does not disclose a boat brace attached to the support structure on a second side of the support structure opposite to the first side of the support structure. Docker et al. does disclose a boat brace – at support posts of 400 (not labeled), attached to the support structure – at 400, on a second side of the support structure opposite to the first side of the support structure – see either set of two posts opposite the other side of support structure and posts as seen in figures 4a-8. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Yong and add the boat coupler of Docker et al., so to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be easily moved to different locations as desired during use.
Referring to claim 10, Yong as modified by Docker et al. further discloses the boat brace has a portion that is adjustable – see adjustment holes in the support posts of 400 (not labeled) in figures 4a-8 of Docker et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Yong and add the boat coupler of Docker et al., so to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be easily moved to different locations as desired during use.
Referring to claim 11, Yong does not disclose a boat attachment coupler comprising a first portion of the coupler attached to the support structure and a second portion of the coupler is attached to a portion of a boat, the coupler configured to detachably attach the support structure to the boat in a secure manner, the coupler configured to allow movement of the support structure between a stowed position to the deployed position. Docker et al. does disclose a boat attachment coupler – at support posts of 400 (not labeled) and see item 605, comprising a first portion of the coupler – support posts of 400, attached to the support structure – at 400 – see figure 4a, and a second portion of the coupler – at 605, is attached to a portion of a boat – at 600 – see figure 6, the coupler configured to detachably attach the support structure – at 400, to the boat – at 600, in a secure manner – see figures 4a-8 and paragraph [0047], the coupler configured to allow movement of the support structure – at 400, between a stowed position – when not attached at 605, to the deployed position – see figure 8. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Yong and add the boat coupler of Docker et al., so to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be easily moved to different locations as desired during use. Yong as modified by Docker et al. further discloses the support structure comprises a support beam – at 200,l to which the carriage guide – at 530, is moveably attached – see figures 1 and 7a-7d.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 3-6, 13 and 15-16 are allowed.
Claim 12 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.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-23-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections detailed in the last office action dated 12-1-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Yong reference KR Patent No. 10-1483738 discloses a lift arm – at 222, attached to the carriage guide – at 530, see in the position of figures 7b-7c, at a proximal end of the lift arm – at 222 – see figures 7b-7c, extending in a direction away from the first side of the support structure – see 222 having each end extending away in the horizontal direction from the support structure first side – at 110 as seen in figure 1, a balance bar – at 520, attached at the distal end of the lift arm – see via items 300,540 in figures 7b-7c, in that the lift arm – at 222, is attached to the carriage guide – at 530 at least indirectly via item 540 as seen in figures 7a-7c and applicant has not claimed direct attachment between the carriage guide and lift arm. Further, applicant has not claimed the carriage guide in specific structural detail so that a shaft/bar component such as item 530 cannot read on the claimed carriage guide. Further, the contact of items 222 and 540 as disclosed in figures 7a-7c of Yong does provide for an attachment between these two components in that they are attached at the portions of the these components that contact each other in that applicant has not detailed in the claim how the lift arm and carriage guide are attached. Further, item 540 of Yong is not being used to disclose the carriage guide as detailed in paragraph 2 of this office action and as detailed in the last office action dated 12-1-25. Further, items 220,222 can disclose the claimed lift arm in that item 222 is part of the assembly – at item 220 and applicant has not specifically detailed the claimed lift arm so that it cannot be comprised of two connected components as items 220,222 of Yong. Further, the balance bar – at 520 of Yong, is attached to the lift arm – at 222 indirectly via items 300,514,540 as seen in figures 7a-7c of Yong, in that applicant has not specifically claimed a direct attachment between these claimed components.
Regarding claims 7 and 9-11, applicant relies upon the same remarks/arguments with respect to parent claim 1 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643