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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 12 November 2024. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at www.uspto.gov/FindPatentAttorney.
U.S. Rule in part 1 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners to be represented by a registered patent practitioner. This U.S. Rule is effective on 20 July 2026.
More information about this US Rule is available at www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/03/20/2026-05564/required-use-by-foreign-applicants-and-patent-owners-of-a-patent-practitioner.
Examiner note: The above U.S. Rule directly affects this application as it requires a registered patent practitioner to represent you and your application which includes any amendment.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. SE2230158-4, filed on 21 May 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed for this application. However, applicant’s file includes prior art in the International Search Report (ISR) and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority.
Examiner notes: MPEP § 609 is the section for the IDS where 37 C.F.R. 1.98 recites “A list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office. U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications must be listed in a section separately from citations of other documents.” The Examiner will add all cited prior art on form PTO-892.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figs. 10-11 recite reference character “23”; however, “23” is not found in the spec. (See at least: spec. page 2 of 3 where at least “extra boat” which is interpreted to include “hull” is cited without any reference character). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 11 recites reference character “23” three times (See at least: fig. 11 where the examiner interprets the two extra “23”to be in error).
Fig. 12 does not show properly in view of the spec. page 2 of 3 description for the fig. (See at least: spec. page 2 of 3 where the Examiner interprets the spec to have a copy/paste error; this should be described as shown for Fig. 14).
Figs. 13-14 are not provided (See at least: spec. page 2 of 3 which recites “Fig 14” where the Examiner interprets the spec to be in error).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2 of 3 recites “Fig 12...” however the description listed in the spec does not match fig. 12. This should be the description recited for “Fig 14”.
Page 2 of 3 recites “Fig 14...” however no figs. 13-14 are found in the drawings.
Page 2 of 3 recites “Fig. 14 shows 2 foldable cradles...” and should be “Fig. 12 shows 2 foldable cradles...”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 preamble recites “Foldable cradle for extra boat...” and should be “A foldable cradle for an extra boat...”.
Claim 1 line 3 recites “an second shaft (9)” and should be “a second shaft (9)”.
Claims 2-5 preamble recites “Foldable cradle for extra boat...” and should be “The foldable cradle for the extra boat...”. Examiner interpreted this as a copy and paste error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hull (23)” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 does not previously recite “a hull (23)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 to recite “a hull (23)”. Examiner notes: “(23)” is unclear in view of at least the spec. however the correction of the spec. and drawing objections above shall be sufficient for proper understanding.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “...cradlewalls (2) where at least one is...” in line 2. Claim 1 line 1 recites “at least two cradlewalls (2)”. Therefore, it is not clear if “cradlewalls (2)” of line 2 is the same or different than “at least two cradlewalls (2)” of line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 line 2 to recite “...the at least two cradlewalls (2) where at least one of the at least two cradlewalls (2)...”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “...is stored in a shaft (8) where all the cradlewalls (2) are stored in an second shaft (9) and those that are not stored in the shaft (8) are stored in a sliding shaft (10) that slides through a track (5)”. However, the claim language is not clear in view of at least disclosed by figs. 1-8. The phrase “stored in” is causing most of the confusion as the figures show shafts (8, 9, 10) are inserted through cradlewalls (2) and frame construction (3) configured for a pivot point or pinned connection. The figures show that the cradlewalls (2) are stored in the frame construction (3) in a stowed position. It is not clear which of the two above the Applicant is intending to claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “...those...” in line 4. It is unclear as to what structure to assign “those” as it is not clear in the claim language (one) how many cradlewalls (2) there are in the foldable cradle and (two) the arrangement of the cradle walls (2) in relation to other structure disclosed by the applicant. Fig. 8 shows the following:
Three cradlewalls (2) are pinned together by shaft (9) at approx. a center of a longitudinal length of each cradlewalls (2).
Two of the three cradlewalls (2) are pinned together by shaft (10) on a first side of a frame construction (3) where each of the two of the three cradlewalls (2) touch a respective longitudinal side of the frame construction (3) wherein a space is formed in between the two of the three cradlewalls (2).
One of the three cradlewalls (2) is pinned by shaft (8) to a second side of the frame construction, wherein the second side is opposite the first side, and the one of the three cradlewalls (2) is centered to occupy the space.
Examiner notes: the description above is not interpreted to apply to claim 1 and is only presented as the specific arrangement requires additional details not claimed for proper understanding.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “...at least one strut (12)...” in lines 1-2. However, the claim language is not clear in view of the spec. page. 2 of 3 which recites “stay (12)”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 2 lines 1-2 to recite “...at least one stay (12)...”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “...is stored in the sliding shaft (10)...”. However, the claim language is not clear in view of at least disclosed by figs. 1-8. The phrase “stored in” is causing most of the confusion as the figures show shaft (10) is inserted through stay (12).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “...the stay (12)...” in line 2. Claim 2 lines 1-2 recites “at least one strut (12)”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the stay (12)” of line 2 is the same or different than “at least one strut (12)” of lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 2 line 2 to recite “...the at least one stay (12)...”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “...the stayshaft (18)...” in line 2. Claims 4 and 1 do not introduce “a stayshaft (18)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 4 line 2 to recite “...a stayshaft (18)...”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “...the stay (12)...” in line 4. Claim 4 and 1 do not introduce “a stay (12)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 4 line 4 to recite either “...at least one stay (12)...” or “a stay (12)”.
Regarding claim 4, the sentence "When the button (1) has been pressed down so much that the lock shaft (7) has passed edge (14), the cradlewalls (2) fall down into position." renders the claim indefinite because the claim must be in the form of a single complete sentence. Therefore, all claim language after the end of the first sentence is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 4 to recite at least the following “The foldable cradle for the extra boat according to claim 1, characterized in that a button (1) presses on a lowering yoke (24) which in turn presses on a stayshaft (18) which is firmly connected to at least one stay (12), wherein the button (1) is configured to stow the foldable cradle when the foldable cradle is a deployed position by moving the lock shaft (7) has passed an edge (14), the at least one cradlewalls (2) fall down into a stowed position.”. Examiner notes: the sentence above has additional issues with the phrase “so much” along with the structure of “edge (14)”, “cradlewalls (2)” and “position”; where all would be rejected as they are indefinite, however is shown corrected in the interpretation above.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “...the cradlewalls (2)...” in lines1-2. Claim 1 line 1 recites “at least two cradlewalls (2)”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the cradlewalls (2)” of claim 5 is the same or different than “at least two cradlewalls (2)” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 5 lines 1-2 to recite “...the at least two cradlewalls (2)...”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Gunnell (US 1048068 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Gunnell discloses foldable cradle (collapsible boat saddle; See at least: Page 2 of 4 lines 13-14) for extra boat (ships' boats; See at least: Page 2 of 4 line 11, Fig.1) characterized by at least two cradlewalls (2) (two diagonally disposed angle irons 1 and 1'; See at least: Page 2 of 4 line 52, Fig.1) where the hull (23) of the extra boat (See at least: Page 2 of 4 line 11, Fig.1) is placed between the cradlewalls (2) (See at least: fig. 1) where at least one is stored in a shaft (8) ( “4”; See at least: figs. 1-2 where best to the Examiners understanding is a pin support “4” and is similar structure to that of “2” cited below) where all the cradlewalls (2) are stored in an second shaft (9) (loose pin or rivet 2; See at least: figs. 1-2 and page 2 of 4 lines 43-46 “two diagonally disposed angle irons 1 and 1' which are pivotally connected to each other at a point intermediate their ends by the loose pin or rivet 2”) and those that are not stored in the shaft (8) are stored in a sliding shaft (10) (pivot point of rocking link 7 to angle iron 1’; See at least: figs.1-2 and page 2 of 4 lines 59-60 “rocking link 7 which is pivotally connected at 8 to the raised portion 5”) that slides through a track (5) (See at least: figs. 1-2 where the lateral movement of rocking link 7 is the track and page 2 of 4 lines 57-62 “crosspiece 1' is connected at a point adjacent one of its ends to the other side of the base 3 by means of the rocking link 7 which is pivotally connected at 8 to the raised portion 5, thus affording the lateral movement necessary in operating the support.”).
Regarding claim 2, Gunnell discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gunnell discloses characterized in that at least one strut (12) (rocking link 7; See at least: figs. 1-2) is stored in the sliding shaft (10) at one end and at the other end the stay (12) is connected to a lock shaft (7) (pivotal point 12; See at least: figs. 1-2 and page 2 of 4 lines 109-112 “upright and steady position which is also maintained by the locking means af- n1o forded by the elbow joint 11 and the link 13, the pivotal point 12” where rocking link 7 is connected to elbow joint 11 through base 3) which is moved in a lock block (4) (base 3 and point 10; See at least: figs. 1-2 where rocking link 7 moves in base 3) which, through its design, locks the lock shaft (7) in a locking path (11) (See at least: position of fig. 1 which shows locked in the supporting position or raised position) in the lock block (4) (See at least: figs. 1-2 where best to the Examiners understanding the combination of figs. 1 and 2 show that elbow joint 11 is locked to the base 3 by the point 10).
Regarding claim 5, Gunnell discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gunnell discloses characterized in that the cradlewalls (2) are coated with a replaceable wear surface (17) (blocks 9 and 9'; See at least: figs. 1-2 and page 2 of 4 “blocks 9 and 9' bolted on the upper flanged surface of the crosspieces 1 and 1' and shaped to conform to the contour of a ship's boat sides.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…characterized by a button (1) pressing a lifting yoke (6) which in turn presses on a cradle wall (2), causing all the cradlewalls (2) to be pushed up in order to be able to lift the cradlewalls (2) manually…”. The closest prior art is Gunnell (US 1048068 A). Gunnell discloses a manual boat saddle where a handle 15 is used to change the position. Therefore, a single button that manually repositions the foldable cradle from a deployed to a stowed position along with the associated structure and arrangement for the mechanism to work is novel in view of the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element {Examiner note: the interpreted claim 4 is recite here} “…characterized in that a button (1) presses on a lowering yoke (24) which in turn presses on a stayshaft (18) which is firmly connected to at least one stay (12), wherein the button (1) is configured to stow the foldable cradle when the foldable cradle is a deployed position by moving the lock shaft (7) has passed an edge (14), the at least one cradlewalls (2) fall down into a stowed position…”. The closest prior art is Gunnell (US 1048068 A). Gunnell discloses a manual boat saddle where a handle 15 is used to change the position. Therefore, a single button that manually repositions the foldable cradle from a deployed to a stowed position along with the associated structure and arrangement for the mechanism to work is novel in view of the prior art.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Buck (US 20140060414 A1) teaches a pair of watercraft cradles (0311) are mounted to the top of the lifting platform. The cradles secure and stabilize the watercraft mounted on the lifting platform while the platform is in the raised position and also when in the lowered position. When the lifting platform is lowered, the watercraft will eventually begin floating as the lifting platform submerges into the water. When not in use, the watercraft cradles may be lowered and are configured for resting within the lifting platform. (See at least: para. [0027] and fig. 3).
Robertson (US 20130340668 A1) teaches chock assembly 906 may fold into channel 904 when chock assembly 906 is not in use. Chock assembly 906 and channel 904 are configured such that the top surface of chock assembly 906 is flush with the top surface of platform 502 when chock assembly is stowed (See at least: figs. 9-10). This is applicable to at least claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights