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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: Please replace “which tiller comprises” in line 1 of the claim with “the tiller comprising”.
Claim 1: Please include “a” before the first instance of “Tiller” in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 2-15: Please include a “The” before the first instance of “Tiller” in each claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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) 1-3, 5-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Drew (US Patent No. 118176).
Examiner’s note: Claim 1 is written broadly such that the claims would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over at least the following documents:
Vidach (US Patent No. 3221699)- Figures 1-3
Regarding claim 1, Drew teaches a Tiller for a boat and in particular a sailboat (Figure 3), which tiller comprises - a base section arranged to be attached to a rudder or a rudder stock of a boat (Figure 3, element B), - a tiller extension provided with a free end that a person will grip when steering the boat (Figure 3, lever D) , - an articulated section provided between the base section and the tiller extension and having a generally vertical turning axis (as depicted in Figure 3), in order to angle the tiller extension in relation to the base section (Figure 3, represented by drum C that is unlabeled in Figure 3, but shown in Figure 1), and - a releasable locking mechanism for releasably locking the tiller extension in different angles in relation to the base section (Figure 3, cog and pawl F’ and f, and ratchet and pawl E and b).
Regarding claim 2, Drew teaches the invention in claim 1, comprising at least two elements (Figures 1-3), wherein one element provided with the turning axis is attached to the base section (Elements D, E, engagement teeth b, unlabeled wheel comprising cog and pawl, tiller cables F, pully system H as explained in Page 2, right column-Page 3, left column), and one element provided with the turning axis is attached to the tiller extension (Figure 3, elements E, b, , unlabeled wheel comprising cog and pawl, tiller cables F, pully system H), wherein the releasable locking mechanism comprises a number of form-locking elements provided on the two elements (both elements b and F’ comprises teeth), and comprises a movable locking element arranged to releasably engage with the form-locking elements (elements E and f).
Regarding claim 3, Drew teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein one element provided with the turning axis comprises two parts attached to one of the base section and the tiller extension (Elements D, E, unlabeled wheel comprising cog and pawl, tiller cables F, pully system H as explained in Page 2, right column-Page 3, left column), and one element provided with the turning axis comprises one part positioned between the two parts and attached to the other of the base section and the tiller extension (as depicted in Figure 3 and explained in Page 2, right column-Page 3, left column inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Drew teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the form- locking elements comprise conical protrusions and/or conical recesses (elements b and F’), and wherein the locking element (E, f) comprise conical protrusions (Figure 3) and/or conical recesses (Figure 3), which locking element is movable between a locked position wherein the form-locking elements are in engagement with the locking element and a released position wherein the form-locking elements are out of engagement with the locking element (as depicted in Figure 3 and explained in Page 2, right column-Page 3, left column inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Drew teaches the invention in claim 5, wherein the locking element is movable in the direction of the turning axis (as depicted in Figure 3 and explained in Page 2, right column-Page 3, left column inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Drew teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the movable locking element is provided with spring means for urging the locking element in engagement with the form-locking elements (Page 2, left column regarding D, D’, D2).
Regarding claim 8, Drew teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a release mechanism operably connected to the locking mechanism and provided with a maneuvering element (as depicted in Figure 3 and explained in Page 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Drew teaches the invention in claim 8, wherein the maneuvering element is positioned at the free end of the tiller extension (as depicted in Figure 3 and explained in Page 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Drew teaches the invention in claim 8, wherein the release mechanism is arranged to act on the locking element (as depicted in Figure 3 and explained in Page 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 13, Drew teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a handle attached to the free end of the tiller extension (element D).
Regarding claim 14, Drew teaches the invention in claim 13, wherein the attachment of the handle provides a releasable locking of the handle in different angular positions in relation to the tiller extension (inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew (US Patent No. 118176) in view of Mihailovic (FR 2736035 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Drew teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the tiller extension comprises two sections slidable in relation to each other for adjusting the length of the tiller extension. However, use of a plurality sliding sections comprising pins, balls, notches, or friction to lock a tiller extension into place is well known in the art as is evidenced by Page 5, line 23- Page 7, line 5 and Figures 1-3 of Mihailovic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a sliding tiller extension, in order to adjust for seated or standing operation, or overall height of the operator.
Regarding claim 12, Drew teaches the invention in claim 11, wherein the tiller extension further comprises a locking mechanism for releasably locking the two sections to each other (see cited response to claim 11).
Regarding claim 15, Drew teaches the invention in claim 13, but fails to specifically teach wherein the handle is ring-shaped. However, use of a ring shaped tiller extension handle comprising an articulating lock and lock-release mechanism is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-3 of Mihailovic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the ring-shaped handle into Drew’s system, in order to improve operable comfort of the handle such that the grip may be handled from 360 degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights