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 .
The present application is a continuation of Application No. 18/209,455, which is now U.S. Patent No. 12,157,547, which is a continuation of Application No. 17/309,918, which is now U.S. Patent No. 11,673,634, which is a continuation of Application No. 16/599,043, which is now U.S. Patent No. 10,994,817.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 2, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 9, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4-5 and 7 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 4 recites the limitation "the air drain tube" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis for “a rigid air drain tube” is provided in claim 3, not in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the air drain tube" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the one-way valve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedent basis is provided for “a one-way valve” in claim 6, not in claim 5.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Howard (US 8,739,724).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Howard discloses the same inflatable watercraft barrier as claimed, as shown in Figures 1-4, which is comprised of an inflatable perimeter tube, defined as Part #46, that includes a stern portion, defined as Part #40, and a watertight diaphragm, defined as Part #58, that is sealed to said perimeter tube to form said watercraft barrier, defined as Part #20, between a watercraft, defined as Part #22, and a water surface, defined as Part #56, where said stern portion forms a gate portion, defined as Part #52, which can be at least partially and selectively repositioned to an orientation below said water surface in an open position, defined as Part #70, as shown in Figure 1. Said gate portion remains attached to said perimeter tube, as shown in Figure 1, which allows said watercraft to enter said watercraft barrier over said gate portion when in said open position. At least one drive mechanism pocket, defined as Part #62, extends from said diaphragm and is configured to be positioned vertically below a drive mechanism or propeller, defined as Part #34, of said watercraft, as shown in Figure 1. Said at least one drive mechanism pocket is configured to conform around said drive mechanism or propeller as water is evacuated from said watercraft barrier, as shown in Figure 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
Claims 3 and 6 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.
Claims 4-5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
September 3, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights