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 .
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)(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, 3-4, 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by McKenney et al (US 6230642). With respect to claims 1, 15, McKenney et al disclose the claimed watercraft (note all the Figures) propelled by a jet stream with a boat body 10, a jet pump (12) including an impeller disposed at a rear portion of the boat body to generate a propulsive force, an impeller shaft (inherently; note the Figures) to rotate the impeller¸ a tunnel (at 16) extending in the boat body, a tunnel opening located at one end of the tunnel, disposed in front of the jet pump (note the Figures), directed in a thrust direction intersecting a front-rear direction of the boat body, and opened in the boat body at a position equal to or lower than a virtual plane extending in a horizontal direction along a rotation axis of the impeller and thrust propulsion device (impeller, note the Figures) that generates a propulsive force in the thrust direction by causing a fluid to flow from an inside the tunnel to an outside of the boat body through the tunnel opening. With respect to the preamble of a personal watercraft. Note that the boat disclosed by McKenney et al is capable of being operated by a single person. Also there is no claimed structure to define a personal watercraft over the watercraft disclosed by McKenney et al. With respect to claims 3-4, 6, note McKenney et al, Figure 1.
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) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenney et al (US 6230642) in view of Anderson et al (US 2016/0016651). With respect to claims 7-8, 10, Mckenney et al do not disclose an electric motor and battery. Anderson et al teach a bow thruster with electric motor, transmission (inherently) and battery. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to form the bow thruster of McKenney et al with an electric motor, transmission and battery as taught by Anderson et al with a high likelihood of success for improved propulsion and low noise and emissions. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have some years of experience and would have been familiar with various impeller drive systems including electric. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious. With respect to the location of the mounting it is noted that the mounting position would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a high likelihood of success for ease of installation.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenney et al (US 6230642) in view of Gasper et al (US 2013/0228115). With respect to claim 15, Mckenney et al do not disclose stabilizers. Gasper et al teach stabilizers 33a, 33b, 106. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to form the device of McKenney et al with a stabilizer as taught by Gasper et al with a high likelihood of success for improved safety via stability. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have some years of experience and would have been familiar with various vessel stability system. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 11-14 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Clarkson (US 6361387) show a bow thruster. Lecours (US 6419533) show a jet boat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 Q. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights