DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 06 July 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objection(s) not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 06 July 2026 resulting in incorporation of previously indicated allowable subject matter into the independent claims is acknowledged. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejections are overcome/withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the upper frame” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 3-10.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the lower pontoon sections” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 3-10.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “where the upper frame and the lower pontoon sections connect to the three or more vertical columns” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 3-10.
In claim 3, the limitations therein render the claim indefinite since they are duplicative of antecedent limitations in claim 1. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 4.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “an upper frame” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to an antecedent limitation (claim 1) of the same name.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “lower pontoon sections” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to an antecedent limitation (claim 1) of the same name or introducing a new limitation.
In claim 9, the limitation recited as “a lower bearing” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to an antecedent limitation (claim 1) of the same name or introducing a new limitation.
In claim 10, the limitation therein renders the claim indefinite since it is either duplicative of or contradictory to the antecedent limitation “a portion of the drivetrain is located below a mean water line” in parent claim 1.
In claim 19, the limitation recited as “a lower bearing” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to an antecedent limitation (claim 11) of the same name or introducing a new limitation.
Examiner’s Comment / Allowable Subject Matter
Although claims 1, 3-10, and 19 are not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues described above.
Claims 11 and 17 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights