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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending in the current application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12122488. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because similar subject matter is claimed.
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: #31 (see Fig. 3A) 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power, US 5822916 in view of Laster et al., US 10990622. Power discloses a livewell system for use on a boat (see Fig. 1), the livewell system comprising: a reservoir tank (1) defining a first compartment ( 30) and a second compartment (31) that are separable by a removable divider (8) located at a mid-section of the reservoir tank (the examiner considers the midsection width of the tank being less than the width of the first and second compartments to be a size/shape parameter easily adjusted by an artisan); a water supply pump (14) operable to add external water into the reservoir tank; a water drainage system comprising a valve (31, 32), wherein the water drainage system is operable for a user drain water from the livewell in a pump-assisted drain mode (using recirculation pump 12); a water recirculation system comprising a recirculation pump (12) operable to withdraw water from the first compartment and return at least some of the water the second compartment; a water level sensor (10) coupled to the reservoir tank and operable to output a high water signal when the reservoir tank becomes full or nearly full of water; and a control system arranged to receive the high water signal from the water level sensor (10) and configured to output a signal to restrict further addition of water into the reservoir tank based on receiving the high water signal.
Power does not disclose two drains located on a bottom of the reservoir tank but only a single drain (5) which connects to pump (12) located on the bottom of the reservoir tank for pump assisted drainage of the reservoir tank. Powers does not disclose wherein the water drainage system is operable for a user to select between a gravity drain mode and a pump assisted drain mode. Powers also does not explicitly disclose a recirculation timer time delay or a microprocessor. Finally, Power does not disclose a control system configured to receive the high-water signal from the water level sensor and use a time delay period to control operation of the water supply system to pump the external water into the reservoir tank.
Laster discloses a livewell with a gravity drain on the bottom of the live well (purge valve 121). Laster also discloses a marine electronic device 405 (See Column 3, line 27-Column 5, line 8) with water level sensors, a microprocessor (410) for activating water supply and recirculation pumps, timer/time delays (see Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a gravity drain as disclosed by Laster to the livewell of Powers to allow a rapid method of draining the water from the well without requiring pumping and to add a control system disclosed by Lasiter (marine electronic device 405) for providing signals to control the livewell pumps and valves to fill, drain and recirculate water at determined time intervals to ensure sufficient oxygen and temperature is maintained within the livewell.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Power in view of Laster in further view of Martin, US 4970982. Power as modified by Lasted discloses the invention set forth above but does not disclose first and second lids covering the first and second compartments, or the precise airspace between the water level and the lids based on the high-water signal.
Martin discloses a split lid covering a livewell tank comprised of baitwell compartment and a livewell compartment. Having the split lid lets the user only open the portion of the lid necessary to access the desired compartment. The examiner considers the airspace limitations of claims 8-10 between the high-water level and the lid to be a parameter easily adjusted by an artisan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Power, by providing a split lid to provide access to either compartment side of the livewell and to adjust the high-water level to provide an appropriate air gap between the water and the lid. Doing so allows access to either the bait compartment or the compartment used for storing freshly caught fish, and adjusting the air gap prevents sloshing of water out of the live well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00.
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 on 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.
/ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights