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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, claim 4 recites “metal cable”, and claim 18 recites “ detaching one of the ends of said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from its fixed hardware point on one side of said Raft; and with said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap still attached to a fixed hardware point on said Raft, pull said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from under said raft and use said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap to control said Raft along a shoreline or dock, as applicable.” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 12-20 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "drawing the center-disposed equipment-engagement loop forward from under the bow of the Raft; and lifting the Raft up and forward by pulling on said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop" on page 2 in lines 27-28 through page 3 lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “center-disposed equipment-engagement loop” in the claim. For examination purpose the examiner reads as the third equipment engagement loop.
Since claims 13-16 are depends from rejected claim 12, these claims are rejected as well.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " further comprising the step of coupling said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop with a hardware-attachment item that is itself attached to a winch." on page 3 in lines 5-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop” in the claim. For examination purpose the examiner reads as the third equipment engagement loop.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "… drawing the center-disposed equipment-engagement loop forward from under the bow of the Raft; and connecting said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop to a winch installed on said transport trailer; locating said transport trailer into a body of water; lowering said Raft into a body of water by unwinding said winch; and detaching said winch from said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop" on page 3 in lines 24-27 through page 4 lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop” in the claim. For examination purpose the examiner reads as the third equipment engagement loop.
Since claims 18-20 are depends from rejected claim 17, these claims are rejected as well.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andy Barrowman (Winching a whitewater raft onto a trailer- YouTube Video https://youtu.be/DEFVycFZwNA?si=w-H_pkZqt57ntdTk, Hereinafter: Andy).
Regarding claim 1, Andy teaches a n improved recreational-cargo-securement strap (see video an orange strap attached to a raft and winch hook), comprising:
a length of strap having a first end and a second end (it can be seen in video at 9-10 sec);
an equipment-engagement loop disposed at said first end (it can be seen in video at 9 sec); a second-end equipment-engagement loop disposed at said second end (it can be seen in video at 10 sec); and
a third equipment-engagement loop substantially disposed at the middle of said length of strap (it can be seen in video at 3 sec).
Regarding claim 10, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It also teaches wherein one or more of said equipment-engagement loops (see third equipment-engagement loop in video) is coupled with a high-tensile-strength hardware-attachment item (It can be seen in video).
Regarding claim 11, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 10. It also teaches wherein said hardware-attachment item is selected from the group consisting of a carabiner, snap hook, clip hook, integrated swivel, and winch hook (it can be seen in video).
Regarding claim 12, Andy teaches a method of using an improved recreational-cargo-securement strap for use with a Raft (See video), comprising the steps of:
obtaining an improved recreational-cargo-securement strap according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1);
attaching the first end of the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap via its equipment-engagement loop to a fixed hardware point on one side of a Raft, said Raft having a front (bow) end, a rear (stern) end, a port side and a starboard side (it can be seen in video at 9 sec);
attaching the second end of the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap via its equipment-engagement loop to a fixed hardware point on the opposite side of the Raft, with the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap routed below the Raft (it can be seen in video at 10 sec);
drawing the center-disposed equipment-engagement loop forward from under the bow of the Raft (it can be seen in video at 3 sec); and
lifting the Raft up and forward by pulling on said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop (it can be seen in video at 19 sec and onwards).
Regarding claim 13, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 12. It also teaches further comprising the step of moving the Raft onto a transport trailer (it can be seen in video).
Regarding claim 14, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 12. It also teaches further comprising the step of coupling said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop with a hardware-attachment item that is itself attached to a winch (it can be seen in video at 19-59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andy Barrowman (YouTube video) in view of McKay (US 8016335 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It does not explicitly teach wherein said strapping is a heavy-duty webbing or cordage.
McKay teaches said strapping is a heavy-duty webbing (Column 3, lines 62-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Andy by incorporating strapping is a heavy-duty webbing in view of McKay in order to increase the durability of strap (Column 3, line 67).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Andy and McKay teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Andy does not explicitly teach wherein said heavy-duty webbing or cordage is substantially comprised of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of nylon.
McKay teaches wherein said heavy-duty webbing or cordage is substantially comprised of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of nylon, (Column 3 line 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Andy and McKay by incorporating said heavy-duty webbing or cordage is substantially comprised of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of nylon in view of McKay in order to increase the durability of strap (Column 3, line 67).
Regarding claim 5, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It does not explicitly teach wherein each of said equipment-engagement loops is formed from by doubling-back the strap onto itself to form a loop “neck,” then securing the double-backed strapping to itself.
McKay teaches wherein each of said equipment-engagement loops (Fig. 4, elements 22, 34, 26) is formed from by doubling-back the strap onto itself to form a loop “neck,” then securing the double-backed strapping to itself (it can be seen in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Andy by incorporating each of said equipment-engagement loops is formed from by doubling-back the strap onto itself to form a loop “neck,” then securing the double-backed strapping to itself in view of McKay in order to reduces stitching points to prevent failure of joints under heavy load by forming the drag strap from single strap. (Column 4, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Andy and McKey teaches all the limitations of claim 5. Andy does not explicitly teach wherein said securement of double-backed strapping is achieved via a method selected from one or more means selected from the group consisting of heavy-duty stitching, bar tacking, adhesives, splicing, and rivets.
McKay teaches wherein said securement of double-backed strapping (It can be seen in fig. 4) is achieved via a method selected from one or more means selected from the group consisting of heavy-duty stitching (Fig. 4, elements 20, 28, 38), bar tacking (column 4, lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Andy and McKey by incorporating said securement of double-backed strapping is achieved via a method selected from one or more means selected from the group consisting of heavy-duty stitching, bar tacking in view of McKay in order to resist separation under heavy load. (Column 4, lines 39-40).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andy Barrowman (YouTube video) in view of Grayson (US 20210362812 A).
Regarding claim 4, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 1. It fails to teach wherein said strapping is comprised of metal cable.
Grayson teaches wherein said strapping (Fig. 5, element 540) is comprised of metal cable (Fig.5, element 544, see claim 10 and 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Andy by incorporating said strapping is comprised of metal cable in view of Grayson in order to increase the tensile strength and resistance to cutting and tearing of strap. (¶0039, lines 50-53).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andy Barrowman (YouTube video) in view of McKay (US 8016335 B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Spirk (US 5676288 A).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Andy and McKay teaches all the limitations of claim 6. McKay also teaches wherein if any heavy-duty stitching is used to secure said loop neck (see rejection of claim 6 for citation, combination and motivation purpose). It does not explicitly teach the heavy-duty stitching uses a material selected from the group consisting of bonded nylon thread.
Spirk teaches the heavy-duty stitching uses a material selected from the group consisting of bonded nylon thread (column 4, lines 17-18, 32-33, 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Andy and McKay by incorporating the heavy-duty stitching uses a material selected from the group consisting of bonded nylon thread in view of Spirk in order to increase the tensile strength and prevent separation of loops under heavy load. (Nylon is known for its strength and durability).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andy Barrowman (YouTube video) in view of McKay (US 8016335 B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Fuentes (US 5351654 A).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Andy and McKay teaches all the limitations of claim 6. It does not explicitly teach said third equipment-engagement loop substantially disposed at the middle of the entire length of the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap is reinforced by the use of a reinforcing strap of webbing. Fuentes teaches said third equipment-engagement loop (it can be seen in Fig.9) substantially disposed at the middle of the entire length of the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap (50) is reinforced by the use of a reinforcing strap (Fig. 5 and 9 elements 22, 24) of webbing (column 4, lines 11-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Andy and McKay by incorporating said third equipment-engagement loop substantially disposed at the middle of the entire length of the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap is reinforced by the use of a reinforcing strap of webbing in view of Fuentes in order to avoid closing of two side of straps under tension (column 4, lines 20-25) and also to provide strength to the loop under tensile load.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andy Barrowman (YouTube video) in view of McKay (US 8016335 B2) and in further view of Fuentes (US 5351654 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Spirk (US 5676288 A).
Regarding claim 9, Combination of Andy, McKay and Fuentes teaches all the limitations of claim 8. It does not explicitly teach wherein if any heavy-duty stitching is used to secure said reinforcement strap, the heavy-duty stitching uses a material selected from the group consisting of bonded nylon thread.
Spirk teaches wherein if any heavy-duty stitching is used to secure said reinforcement strap, the heavy-duty stitching uses a material selected from the group consisting of bonded nylon thread (column 4, lines 17-18, 32-33, 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified combination of Andy, McKay and Fuentes by incorporating teach wherein if any heavy-duty stitching is used to secure said reinforcement strap, the heavy-duty stitching uses a material selected from the group consisting of bonded nylon thread in view of Spirk in order to increase the tensile strength and prevent separation of loops under heavy load. (Nylon is known for its strength and durability).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andy Barrowman (YouTube video) in view of Jeffrey James Halvorson (loading your raft with a Y-rope and winch and roller-YouTube video https://youtu.be/DbV1g5c96rg?si=6ghcQrNAHDCdk75y, Hereinafter: Jeffrey).
Regrading claim 15 and 16, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Andy also teaches further comprising the step of coupling said first and second-end equipment-engagement loop with a hardware-attachment item (See Video at 9-10 sec).
It does not explicitly teach said hardware-attachment item selected from the group consisting of a carabiner, snap hook, clip hook, and winch hook.
Jeffrey teaches said hardware-attachment item selected from the group consisting of a carabiner (see video at 0.59-1.25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Andy by incorporating said hardware-attachment item selected from the group consisting of a carabiner in view of Jeffrey in order to secure the strap or rope to the raft for easy loading or launching.
Regrading claim 19 and 20, Andy teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Andy also teaches further comprising the step of coupling said first and second-end equipment-engagement loop with a hardware-attachment item (See Video at 9-10 sec).
It does not explicitly teach said hardware-attachment item selected from the group consisting of a carabiner, snap hook, clip hook, and winch hook.
Jeffrey teaches said hardware-attachment item selected from the group consisting of a carabiner (see video at 0.59-1.25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified Andy by incorporating said hardware-attachment item selected from the group consisting of a carabiner in view of Jeffrey in order to secure the strap or rope to the raft for easy loading or launching.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andy Barrowman (YouTube video).
Regarding claim 17, Andy a teaches method of using an improved recreational-cargo-securement strap for use with a Raft loaded on a transport trailer (see the Video at 2:55), comprising the steps of:
obtaining an improved recreational-cargo-securement strap according to Claim 1; attaching the first end of the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap via its equipment-engagement loop to a fixed hardware point on one side of a Raft, said Raft having a front (bow) end, a rear (stern) end, a port side and a starboard side (it can be seen in video);
attaching the second end of the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap via its equipment-engagement loop to a fixed hardware point on the opposite side of the Raft, with the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap routed below the Raft (it can be seen in video at 2:55);
drawing the center-disposed equipment-engagement loop forward from under the bow of the Raft; and connecting said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop to a winch installed on said transport trailer (it can be seen in video, (Examiners note: Video teaches how to load the raft on the trailer, these unloading or launching steps are not inventive concept since these steps can be perform by ordinary skill in art by utilizing shown structure in video).);
locating said transport trailer into a body of water (it can be seen in video).
Andy is silent about lowering said Raft into a body of water by unwinding said winch and detaching said winch from said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in art about lowering said Raft into a body of water by unwinding said winch and detaching said winch from said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have about lowering said Raft into a body of water by unwinding said winch and detaching said winch from said center-disposed equipment-engagement loop of Andy in order to allow raft to launch in to water and release the raft from the trailer.
Regarding claim 18, Andy is silent about the method step as it claimed. However, Andy teaches all required structure to perform detaching one of the ends of said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from its fixed hardware point on one side of said Raft; and with said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap still attached to a fixed hardware point on said Raft, pull said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from under said raft (Andy shows the improved recreational-cargo-securement strap is attached to other end from under the raft, when one end being detached it has to be pull away from under the raft) and use said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap to control said Raft along a shoreline or dock, as applicable.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known detaching one of the ends of said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from its fixed hardware point on one side of said Raft; and with said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap still attached to a fixed hardware point on said Raft, pull said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from under said raft and use said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap to control said Raft along a shoreline or dock, as applicable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have perform detaching one of the ends of said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from its fixed hardware point on one side of said Raft; and with said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap still attached to a fixed hardware point on said Raft, pull said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap from under said raft and use said improved recreational-cargo-securement strap to control said Raft along a shoreline or dock, as applicable of strap of Andy in order to facilitate control of the raft after launching by using existing strap as a handling line thereby reducing the number of required separate accessories.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other cited references show improved recreational-cargo-securement strap. Carpenter (US 6257163 B1) teaches use of looped strap as it claimed in 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIMIN G PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 517-272-7097. 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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/JAIMIN G PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights