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 08 November 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 November 2024 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 2 reference characters “102”, “104” and “106” are unclear in view of spec. para. [0023] the first and second pontoons (102, 104) and the hull (106) and figs. 3-5 (See at least: Examiner modified Fig. 2 below for markups).
Figs. 3-5 are unclear in view of the spec. para. [0031] “The actuator 202 extends to deploy the pontoons 102, 104 outward from the hull 106, increasing the workboat 100's effective surface area. Conversely, the actuator 202 retracts to bring the pontoons 102, 104 back into their stowed position on the deck 110...” (Emphasis added by Examiner). Where the figs. 3-5 are shown to work opposite {Examiner note: 202 retracts to deploy and 202 extends to stow} of recited in the spec. para. [0031]. It is not clear to the Examiner which of the two (spec. or fig.) is the disclosed invention (See at least: claims 16 and 18 which matches the operation as shown in the figs.).
Fig. 6 is not clear in view of spec. para. [0044] “...FIG. 6 illustrates a control unit 402 in communication with an operator interface 404, an actuator sensor 406, operational sensors 408...” (Emphasis added by Examiner). Where fig. 6 recites “Controller 402” and “Operation Systems 408”. The spec. and figs. are not clear as they do not match, matching the two will correct this.
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:
Spec. para. [0029] “pontoon stowage mechanism 200” is not clear in view of at least para. [0032] “the flipping mechanism 200”. The spec. uses inconsistent terms to define “200”.
Spec. para. [0031] “The actuator 202 extends to deploy the pontoons 102, 104 outward from the hull 106, increasing the workboat 100's effective surface area. Conversely, the actuator 202 retracts to bring the pontoons 102, 104 back into their stowed position on the deck 110...” (Emphasis added by Examiner) is unclear in view of Figs. 3-5. Where the figs. 3-5 are shown to work opposite {Examiner note: 202 retracts to deploy and 202 extends to stow} of recited in the spec. para. [0031]. It is not clear to the Examiner which of the two (spec. or fig.) is the disclosed invention.
Spec. para. [0044] “...FIG. 6 illustrates a control unit 402 in communication with an operator interface 404, an actuator sensor 406, operational sensors 408...” (Emphasis added by Examiner) is not clear in view of Fig. 6. Where fig. 6 recites “Controller 402” and “Operation Systems 408”. Matching the spec. and figs. will correct this.
Spec. para. [0045] “pontoon stowage system 400” is not clear in view of at least para. [0059] “the pontoon flipping systems 400”. The spec. uses inconsistent terms to define “400”. (See at least: claim 10 “a pontoon stowage system” and claim 11 “the flipping system”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Spec. para. [0045]-[0048] pertain to the control unit 402, operator interface 404 and commands. Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the operator interface provides real-time status updates on the pontoon position and system diagnostics”. However, the spec. para. [0045]-[0048] does not recite “system diagnostics”. Spec. para. [0048] recites “The control unit 402 also monitors the status of the actuator 202 and pivotal brackets 204, providing real-time feedback to the operator interface 404. This feedback allows the operator to monitor the progress of the pontoon deployment or retraction and ensures that any potential issues are immediately flagged for the operator’s attention...”. Where spec. para. [0048] “potential issues are immediately flagged” is not interpreted as “system diagnostics”. It is not clear that the applicant spec. and figs. support possession of the claimed “system diagnostics” as the applicant did not disclose any details on how the control unit 402 is performing diagnostics on the pontoon stowage system. Applicant may change the claim language to match a disclosed embodiment recited in the spec. to overcome this rejection.
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 10-20 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 10 recites the limitation “a second pontoon” in line 9. Claim 10 line 2 recites “a second pontoon”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a second pontoon” of line 9 is the same or different than line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 line 9 to recite “the second pontoon”.
Claims 11-15 are rejected based on the independent claim 10 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the flipping system” in line 5. Claim 10 line 1 recites “a pontoon stowage system”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the flipping system” of claim 11 is the same or different than “a pontoon stowage system” of claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 11 to recite “the pontoon stowage system”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a workboat” in line 2. Claim 16 line 1 recites “a workboat”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a workboat” of line 2 is the same or different than “a workboat” of line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 16 line 2 to recite “the workboat”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “activating the actuator to extend the first pontoon from a deployed position of the workboat to a stowed position on the deck” in lines 5-6 (Emphasis added by Examiner). The limitation is unclear in view of spec. para. [0031] “Conversely, the actuator 202 retracts to bring the pontoons 102, 104 back into their stowed position on the deck 110...” (Emphasis added by Examiner). It is not clear if the claim or the spec. is the correct embodiment to search for in the prior art. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be the correct embodiment.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “pivotal brackets” in line 7. Claim 16 line 4 recites “pivotal brackets”. Therefore, it is not clear if “pivotal brackets” of line 7 is the same or different than “pivotal brackets” of line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 16 line 4 to recite “pivotal brackets” and claim 16 line 7 to recite “a first pivotal bracket”. {Examiner note: Fig. 3 shows “204” pointing to a triangular member however is not clear if the triangular member includes the linkage arms to the right of the fig. However, Fig. 3 shows one bracket set where each pontoon would have its own specific pivotal bracket, as the pivotal bracket is not connected to both the first and second pontoon.}
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the stowage position” in line 7. Claim 16 line 6 recites “a stowed position”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the stowage position” of line 7 is the same or different than “a stowed position” line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 16 line 7 to recite “the stowed position”.
Claims 17-20 are rejected based on the independent claim 16 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “pivotal brackets” in line 3. Claim 16 line 7 recites “pivotal brackets”. Therefore, it is not clear if “pivotal brackets” of claim 17 is the same or different than “pivotal brackets” of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 16 to recite “a first pivotal bracket” and claim 17 to recite “a second pivotal bracket”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the stowage position” in line 3-4. Claim 16 line 6 recites “a stowed position”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the stowage position” of claim 17 is the same or different than “a stowed position” of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 17 to recite “the stowed position”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “retracting the actuator to return the first pontoon and the second pontoon to the deployed position” in lines 5-6 (Emphasis added by Examiner). The limitation is unclear in view of spec. para. [0031] “The actuator 202 extends to deploy the pontoons 102, 104 outward from the hull 106, increasing the workboat 100's effective surface area. Conversely, the actuator 202 retracts to bring the pontoons 102, 104 back into their stowed position on the deck 110...” (Emphasis added by Examiner). It is not clear if the claim or the spec. is the correct embodiment to search for in the prior art. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claim language to be the correct embodiment.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the pontoon position” in line 4. Claim 16 line 5-6 recites “a deployed position... a stowed position”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the pontoon position” of claim 19 is the same or different than either one of or both of “a deployed position... a stowed position” of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 19 to recite “a pontoon position”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the position” in line 1. Claim 16, lines 5-6 recites “a deployed position... a stowed position”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the position” of claim 20 is the same or different than either one of or both of “a deployed position... a stowed position” of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 20 to recite “a position”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the deployment or retraction process” in line 4. Claim 20 and 16 do not previous recite “a deployment process or a retraction process”. It is not clear to the Examiner how to assign “the deployment or retraction process” as the method of at least claim 16 is “of stowing a pontoon” and claim 18 includes the method of “the deployed position”. Therefore claim 20 as it is currently written is improper for requiring claim 18 for understanding. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. {Examiner notes: The Applicant may split up claim 20 into two different claims, where the first one for “the deployment... process” would be for “The method of claim 18... during the step of retracting the actuator...” and the second one for “the... retraction process” would be for “The method of claim 16... during the step of activating the actuator to extend...”. Applicant may elect other solutions to this claim language as the Examiner provides the above for better understanding of this rejection.}
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Laubscher (US 20190322334 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
808
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
722
1118
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Laubscher discloses a workboat (watercraft (1); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) comprising: a hull (two primary buoyant members, such as pontoons (5, 7) ; See at least: figs.3-4 and abstract); a first pontoon (auxiliary buoyant member (25) or buoyant member (25); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) attached to a first side (opposing sides; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0012] “...a pair of deck extensions articulately connected to opposing sides of the primary deck...”) of the hull; a second pontoon (auxiliary buoyant member (25) or buoyant member (25); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) attached to a second side (opposing sides; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0012] recited above) of the hull; a deck (primary deck (3); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) on an upper surface (See at least: fig. 1) of the hull; a pontoon stowage system (motorized means; See at least: para. [0025] “...include motorized means for operating the watercraft between the stowed and deployed conditions, and motorized means for adjusting a length of each telescopic member, thereby adjusting the height of the canopy. The motorized means may be electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or a combination thereof...”) configured to deploy the first pontoon and second pontoon from a stowed position atop the deck (stowed condition; See at least: figs. 9-10, abstract and para. [0021] “...the stowed condition, each first extension segment rests atop the primary deck...”) to a deployed position extending outward from the hull (deployed condition; See at least: figs. 1-4, abstract and para. [0016] “the watercraft is in the deployed condition, the extension segments and the primary deck are coplanar...”); an actuator (hydraulic actuators (not shown); See at least: para. [0025] “electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or a combination thereof” and para. [0069] “Hydraulic actuators (not shown) are provided to control the deployment and stowing of the deck extensions 13, 15 as well as to adjust the height of the canopy 31, the controls of which are also provided on the control console 43.”) operatively connected to the pontoons and configured to actuate the movement between the stowed position and the deployed position (See at least: para. [0025] “motorized means for operating the watercraft between the stowed and deployed conditions” and para. [0069] cited above); a control unit (on-board control system; See at least: para. [0075]) operatively connected to the actuator to regulate the deployment and stowage of the pontoons (See at least: para. [0069] “...the controls of which are also provided on the control console 43” and para. [0075] “...an automated deployment and stowing sequence that is executed by an on-board control system...”); and an operator interface (control console 43 or remote control; See at least: para. [0092] “The controls that are operable from the control console 43 may furthermore be operable by remote control.”) for controlling the operation of the pontoon stowage system.
Regarding claim 8, Laubscher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Laubscher discloses wherein the deck is dimensioned to accommodate the first pontoon and second pontoon in the stowed position (See at least: figs. 9-11).
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubscher (US 20190322334 A1) in view of Butler (US 9586655 B1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
543
739
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Laubscher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not disclose further comprising an actuator sensor operatively connected to the control unit (on-board control system; See at least: para. [0096] “an automated deployment and stowing sequence that is executed by an on-board control system.”).
Butler, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising an actuator sensor (limit switch; See at least: col. 7 lines 59-61 “wiring harness can be plugged into the actuator 40 and limit switch. The other end goes thru the deck 6 of the boat to a switch panel that gets mounted on or near the actuator control 50.”) operatively connected to the control unit (actuator control 50; See at least: col. 7 lines 59-61 cited above and figs. 8 and 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified hydraulic actuators of Laubscher with limit switch(s) of Butler with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a limit switch to notify the user when the actuator is in motion during transition from stowed position to deployed position and vice versa (See at least: Butler col. 2 lines 66-67 to col. 3 lines 1-3 “There is a limit switch mounted on the rear of the frame which allows a beeper to sound when the key is used to start the engine and will sound alarm until platform is fully stowed. The same beeper will also sound when the platform is in motion.”)
Regarding claim 4, Laubscher in view of Butler teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Laubscher discloses wherein the operator interface includes a mobile remote (“purpose built remote control unit or by means of an application that is executed on a mobile device of a user”; See at least: para. [0092]-[0093]) in communication with the control unit to regulate the deployment and stowage of the pontoons (See at least: para. [0075] “an automated deployment and stowing sequence that is executed by an on-board control system” and para. [0092]-[0093] “The remote control and control console would be configured to facilitate bi-directional communication between the remote control and a communication module of the control console”).
Claims 3, 6, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubscher (US 20190322334 A1) in view Guild et al. (US 11066136 B1) {Cited by Applicant on IDS of 08 November 2024}. See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image4.png
948
1255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Laubscher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Laubscher discloses wherein the pontoon stowage system further comprises pivotal brackets (“foldably connected”; See at least: para. [0028] “The watercraft includes a floatable deck with a steering console, and one or more pontoons foldably connected to the deck, wherein the watercraft is operable between a folded condition in which the one or more pontoons extend upwards from the deck and one or more sides of the deck are folded inward and a second, unfolded position in which an operatively upper surface of the pontoons are aligned with the deck so as to extend the deck.”) attached to the first pontoon and second pontoon.
Guild et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the pontoon stowage system (deployment system 110; See at least: fig. 1) further comprises pivotal brackets (lift arm 140, links 150, 156; See at least: figs. 1-7 where figs. 5-7 best shows the pivot(s) 181, 144, 154 and 153) attached to the first pontoon and second pontoon (See at least: figs. 1-3 and col. 4 line 42-44 “The deployment system 110 in turn supports the deck extensions 200, 200′ and additional pontoons 210 via pontoon attachment connecting shafts 190 and connecting shafts 195.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified foldably connected of Laubscher with lift arm 140, links 150, 156 of Guild et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having the adjustable pontoon deploy by a rotation point with optional locking mechanism that secures the adjustable ponton in at least the stowed and deployed positions (See at least: Guild et al. col. 2 lines 46-52 “...activated or facilitated by a piston capable of activating the deployment system thereby facilitating rotation of the deployment system about at least one rotation point. The adjustable pontoon system may also have a locking mechanism capable of securely locking, holding, and maintaining the adjustable pontoon system in at least one of the first and second configurations.”).
Regarding claim 6, Laubscher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not disclose claim 6.
Guild et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the pivotable brackets is configured to lock (locking mechanism 160; See at least: figs. 4 and 8-9 and col. 7 lines 44-48 “During use, the locking mechanism 160 is attached to the lift arm 140 through apertures 145 along the uppermost surface of the lift arm adjacent the second end 142. When locked, this prevents inadvertent pressure from the links 150 to push the pontoons 210 out of place during use.”) when the first pontoon and second pontoon are in the stowed position and the deployed position (See at least: col. 2 lines 50-52 “a locking mechanism capable of securely locking, holding, and maintaining the adjustable pontoon system in at least one of the first and second configurations”).
Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 10, Laubscher discloses a pontoon stowage system (See at least: figs. 1-13) for a workboat (watercraft (1); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract), the system comprising: a first pontoon (auxiliary buoyant member (25) or buoyant member (25); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) and a second pontoon (auxiliary buoyant member (25) or buoyant member (25); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract), each attached to opposite sides (opposing sides; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0012] “...a pair of deck extensions articulately connected to opposing sides of the primary deck...”) of a hull (two primary buoyant members, such as pontoons (5, 7) ; See at least: figs.3-4 and abstract) of the workboat; a hydraulic actuator (hydraulic actuators (not shown); See at least: para. [0025] “electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or a combination thereof” and para. [0069] “Hydraulic actuators (not shown) are provided to control the deployment and stowing of the deck extensions 13, 15 as well as to adjust the height of the canopy 31, the controls of which are also provided on the control console 43.”) configured to move each pontoon between a stowed position on a deck of the workboat (stowed condition; See at least: figs. 9-10, abstract and para. [0021] “...the stowed condition, each first extension segment rests atop the primary deck...”) and a deployed position extending outward from the hull (deployed condition; See at least: figs. 1-4, abstract and para. [0016] “the watercraft is in the deployed condition, the extension segments and the primary deck are coplanar...”); pivotal brackets (“foldably connected”; See at least: para. [0028]) connecting the first pontoon and the second pontoon to the hull, the pivotal brackets allowing for the rotation of the first pontoon and a second pontoon between the stowed and deployed positions (“foldably connected”; See at least: para. [0028]).
However, Laubscher does not explicitly disclose pivotal brackets.
Guild et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches pivotal brackets (lift arm 140, links 150, 156; See at least: figs. 1-7 where figs. 5-7 best shows the pivot(s) 181, 144, 154 and 153) connecting the first pontoon and the second pontoon to the hull (See at least: figs. 1-2), the pivotal brackets allowing for the rotation of the first pontoon and a second pontoon between the stowed and deployed positions (See at least: figs. 1-2).
Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, Laubscher in view Guild teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not disclose claim 15.
Guild et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the pivotable brackets is configured to lock (locking mechanism 160; See at least: figs. 4 and 8-9 and col. 7 lines 44-48 “During use, the locking mechanism 160 is attached to the lift arm 140 through apertures 145 along the uppermost surface of the lift arm adjacent the second end 142. When locked, this prevents inadvertent pressure from the links 150 to push the pontoons 210 out of place during use.”) when the first pontoon and second pontoon are in the stowed position and the deployed position (See at least: col. 2 lines 50-52 “a locking mechanism capable of securely locking, holding, and maintaining the adjustable pontoon system in at least one of the first and second configurations”).
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, Laubscher discloses a method of stowing a pontoon (auxiliary buoyant member (25) or buoyant member (25); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) of a workboat (watercraft (1); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract), the method comprising: providing a workboat having a hull (two primary buoyant members, such as pontoons (5, 7) ; See at least: figs.3-4 and abstract), a first pontoon (auxiliary buoyant member (25) or buoyant member (25); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) pivotally connected to the hull, a deck (primary deck (3); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract), and a pontoon stowage mechanism (motorized means; See at least: para. [0025] “...include motorized means for operating the watercraft between the stowed and deployed conditions, and motorized means for adjusting a length of each telescopic member, thereby adjusting the height of the canopy. The motorized means may be electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or a combination thereof...”) in the hull comprising an actuator (hydraulic actuators (not shown); See at least: para. [0025] “electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or a combination thereof” and para. [0069] “Hydraulic actuators (not shown) are provided to control the deployment and stowing of the deck extensions 13, 15 as well as to adjust the height of the canopy 31, the controls of which are also provided on the control console 43.”) and pivotal brackets (“foldably connected”; See at least: para. [0028]); activating the actuator to extend the first pontoon from a deployed position (deployed condition; See at least: figs. 1-4, abstract and para. [0016] “the watercraft is in the deployed condition, the extension segments and the primary deck are coplanar...”) of the workboat to a stowed position (stowed condition; See at least: figs. 9-10, abstract and para. [0021] “...the stowed condition, each first extension segment rests atop the primary deck...”) on the deck; and pivoting the first pontoon via pivotal brackets to the stowage position relative to the hull.
However, Laubscher does not explicitly disclose pivotal brackets.
Guild et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches and a pontoon stowage mechanism (deployment system 110; See at least: fig. 1) in the hull comprising an actuator (piston 180; See at least: fig. 4 and col. 9 lines 3-17) and pivotal brackets (lift arm 140, links 150, 156; See at least: figs. 1-7 where figs. 5-7 best shows the pivot(s) 181, 144, 154 and 153); activating the actuator (See at least: figs. 4-7 where figs. 5-7 best show the movement of the piston 180) to extend the first pontoon from a deployed position (“second use configuration for use”; See at least: fig. 2 and col 3 lines 44-46) of the workboat to a stowed position (“first traveling configuration for traveling”; See at least: fig. 1and col. 3 lines 41-43) on the deck; and pivoting (See at least: figs. 5-7) the first pontoon via pivotal brackets to the stowage position relative to the hull.
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, Laubscher in view Guild teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, Laubscher discloses further comprising: providing a second pontoon (auxiliary buoyant member (25) or buoyant member (25); See at least: fig. 1 and abstract) pivotally connected to the hull; and pivoting the second pontoon via pivotal brackets (“foldably connected”; See at least: para. [0028]) to the stowage position relative to the hull.
However, Laubscher does not explicitly disclose pivotal brackets.
Guild et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches pivoting the second pontoon via pivotal brackets (lift arm 140, links 150, 156; See at least: figs. 1-7 where figs. 5-7 best shows the pivot(s) 181, 144, 154 and 153) to the stowage position relative to the hull (“first traveling configuration for traveling”; See at least: fig. 1and col. 3 lines 41-43).
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubscher (US 20190322334 A1) in view of Curtis (US 20170334523 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image5.png
409
486
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Laubscher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not disclose wherein the actuator is configured to adjust the speed of deployment and retraction based on input from the control unit.
Curtis, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the actuator (hull deployment means 14; See at least: fig. 14) is configured to adjust the speed of deployment and retraction (See at least: para. [0042] “it is desirable that the deployment and retraction be controlled. To accomplish this, the hull deployment means is in electronic communication with a control panel through which a user is capable of controlling the deployment and retraction of the hull members 2. To aid in this endeavor, sensors can be mounted onto the hull members 2 or to the support columns 7 so that the user or automated control panel will be able to detect the location and speed of the hull member 2 during deployment and retraction so as to allow for correction to ensure proper deployment or proper retraction.) based on input from the control unit (control panel 12; See at least: para. [0052] “captain of the landing vessel 0 can operate the control panel 12 to controllable deploy the hull members 2 such that they extend outwards from the primary hull 1” {Examiner note: Curtis uses reference character “12” twice one for “control panel 12” and another for “optional tension members 12” as seen in fig. 14 above}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified on-board control system of Laubscher with sensors and programing of Curtis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of allowing the user to control the deployment and retraction to allow for correction to ensure proper deployment or proper retraction (See at least: Curtis para. [0042] cited above).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubscher (US 20190322334 A1) in view of Butler (US 9586655 B1) and in further in view of Ramsdell et al. (US 11932356 B1).
PNG
media_image6.png
889
603
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
446
625
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Laubscher in view of Butler teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not disclose, nor does Butler teach claim 7.
Ramsdell et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit (controller 301 or control system 300; See at least: fig. 19 and col. 23 lines 2-10) is configured to stop the deployment or retraction of the pontoons if an obstruction is detected (See at least: fig. 19 step 1106 and col. 23 lines 2-10 “platform 202 will not stow or deploy because an object(s) is in the movement path of the platform 202.”), and to provide a warning alert (“alert”; See at least: col. 23 lines 2-10 “the controller 301 or control system 300 can generate an alert, which can be provided via the light(s) 334, speaker(s) 336, display(s) 304, phone(s) 356, and/or other feature...”) to the operator via the operator interface (“provided via the light(s) 334, speaker(s) 336, display(s) 304, phone(s) 356, and/or other feature”; See at least: col. 23 lines 2-10) and actuator sensor (“camera(s) 324 and/or another sensor(s)”; See at least: col. 22 lines 60-66 “At block 1104, the controller 301 or control system 300 can determine if the expected movement path of the platform 202 is free of object(s). The controller 301 or control system 300 can receive data from the camera(s) 324 and/or another sensor(s) that is indicative of the presence and/or absence of object(s) in the expected movement path of the platform 202.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified on-board control system of Laubscher with camera(s) 324 and/or another sensor(s) and fig. 19 programing of Ramsdell et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of alerting the user that the movement path is obstructed (See at least: col. 22 lines 59-66 “In some variants, the controller 301 or control system 300 can generate an alert, which can be provided via the light(s) 334, speaker(s) 336, display(s) 304, phone(s) 356, and/or other feature, that the platform 202 will not stow or deploy because an object(s) is in the movement path of the platform 202.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubscher (US 20190322334 A1) in view of Butler (US 9586655 B1) in further in view of Ramsdell et al. (US 11932356 B1) and in further in view of NPL: Actuator. wiki [online]. wikipedia.org, 29 November 2024 [retrieved on 2026-09-01]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20241129091324/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuator>.
Regarding claim 9, Laubscher in view of Butler in further in view of Ramsdell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator is configured to operate under variable hydraulic pressure.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an actuator that is configured to operate under variable hydraulic pressure. Applicant has not disclosed that a variable pressure range provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with a hydraulic actuator because they can operate continuously over a relatively large working range {i.e. force or pressure} (See at least: NPL Actuator pages 1-2 of 9 section “Hydraulic”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify hydraulic actuators of Laubscher with a hydraulic actuator that operates continuously over a relatively large working range to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 11-14 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubscher (US 20190322334 A1) in view Guild (US 11066136 B1) and in further view of Ramsdell et al. (US 11932356 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Laubscher in view Guild teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Laubscher discloses further comprising: an actuator sensor configured to monitor the movement of the hydraulic actuator and provide feedback on the pontoon position; a control unit (on-board control system; See at least: para. [0075]) operatively connected to the hydraulic actuator for regulating the flipping system (See at least: para. [0069] “Hydraulic actuators (not shown) are provided to control the deployment and stowing of the deck extensions 13, 15 as well as to adjust the height of the canopy 31, the controls of which are also provided on the control console 43...” with [0075] “...an automated deployment and stowing sequence that is executed by an on-board control system”); and an operator interface (control console 43 or remote control; See at least: para. [0092] “The controls that are operable from the control console 43 may furthermore be operable by remote control.”) allowing for the control of the deployment and stowage of the first pontoon and the second pontoon (See at least: para. [0092] “...entire deployment and stowing sequence may be performed by remote control...”).
However, Laubscher does not disclose claim language in bold italics above.
Ramsdell et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an actuator sensor (feedback sensor 212; See at least; col. 12 lines 18-32) configured to monitor the movement of the hydraulic actuator and provide feedback sensor (feedback sensor 212; See at least; col. 12 lines 18-32 “...feedback sensor 212 can sense if the actuator 206 is under a level of resistance and/or stress that exceeds a predetermined amount, which can indicate that the movement pathway of the platform 202 is obstructed...”) on the pontoon position (platform 202) ...
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the watercraft (1) of Laubscher with feedback sensor 212 and programing of Ramsdell et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a level of resistance or stress with a predetermined amount to safely operate the system and provide alerting the user on the issue (See at least: Ramsdell et al. col. 12 lines 18-32 “The feedback sensor 212 can sense if the actuator 206 is under a level of resistance and/or stress that exceeds a predetermined amount, which can indicate that the movement pathway of the platform 202 is obstructed. For example, the actuator 206 can experience a range of resistances depending on the circumstances of deployment/stowage. The resistance may be higher if the water-sports boat 100 is sitting lower in the water such that the platform 202 travels a larger distance through water, to or from a deeper depth, etc. If the resistance, however, exceeds a predetermined amount, the control system 300 can initiate operations, such as stopping deployment/stowage of the platform 202, alerting the operator and/or user 101 with the light(s) 334, speaker(s) 336, and/or display(s) 304, and/or starting deployment/stowage of the platform 202.”).
Regarding claim 12, Laubscher in view Guild and in further view of Ramsdell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not disclose claim 12.
Ramsdell et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control unit (control system 300; See at least: col. 1 line 28-32) is configured to reverse the hydraulic actuator automatically in response to detecting an obstruction (See at least: col. 35 lines12-21 “In some embodiments, a sensor can output the current draw (e.g., amperage) of the actuator that moves the platform. If an object blocks movement of the platform, the current drawn by the actuator can increase. The system can monitor the current draw of the actuator. If the monitored current drawn increases (e.g., above a threshold value or at a threshold rate of increase) the system can provide a command to disable or reverse the actuator. The actuator can have a current sensor incorporated therewith so that the actuator outputs its current draw (e.g., amperage).” Emphasis added by examiner where the control program or algorithm is programed to include reversing the actuator.).
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, Laubscher in view Guild and in further view of Ramsdell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Laubscher discloses wherein the deck is dimensioned to accommodate the first pontoon and second pontoon in the stowed position (See at least: figs. 9-10).
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Laubscher in view Guild and in further view of Ramsdell et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Laubscher discloses further comprising a mobile remote (“purpose built remote control unit or by means of an application that is executed on a mobile device of a user”; See at least: para. [0092]-[0093]), wherein the remote control unit allows the operator to deploy or retract the pontoons from a location remote from the workboat (“remotely”; See at least: para. [0093] “..the entire deployment and stowing sequence may be performed by remote control... Therefore, controlling the deploying and stowing sequences remotely may greatly reduce the effort required...”).
Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 20, Laubscher in view Guild teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above.
However, Laubscher does not disclose, nor does Butler teach claim 7.
Ramsdell et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising sensing the position of the first pontoon during movement via a position sensor (“camera(s) 324 and/or another sensor(s)”; See at least: col. 22 lines 60-66 “At block 1104, the controller 301 or control system 300 can determine if the expected movement path of the platform 202 is free of object(s). The controller 301 or control system 300 can receive data from the camera(s) 324 and/or another sensor(s) that is indicative of the presence and/or absence of object(s) in the expected movement path of the platform 202.”) in the actuator, wherein the sensor alerts (“alert”; See at least: col. 23 lines 2-10 “the controller 301 or control system 300 can generate an alert, which can be provided via the light(s) 334, speaker(s) 336, display(s) 304, phone(s) 356, and/or other feature...”) the operator if the first pontoon (platform 202) encounters an obstruction (object(s); See at least: See at least: col. 22 lines 60-66 cited above) during the deployment or retraction process (See at least: fig. 19 step 1106 and col. 23 lines 2-10 “platform 202 will not stow or deploy because an object(s) is in the movement path of the platform 202.”).
However, Ramsdell et al. does not teach the first pontoon.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified on-board control system of Laubscher with camera(s) 324 and/or another sensor(s) and fig. 19 programing of Ramsdell et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of alerting the user that the movement path is obstructed (See at least: col. 22 lines 59-66 “In some variants, the controller 301 or control system 300 can generate an alert, which can be provided via the light(s) 334, speaker(s) 336, display(s) 304, phone(s) 356, and/or other feature, that the platform 202 will not stow or deploy because an object(s) is in the movement path of the platform 202.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes: claim 18 recites “...retracting the actuator to return the first ponton and the second pontoon to the deployed position...”. The claimed language is opposite in operation when compared with the prior art of Guild et al. (See at least Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image8.png
795
600
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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:
Kelley (US 3877094 A) teaches a combination trailer and pontoon boat (See at least: figs. 1-6).
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
