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 .
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 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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. NO.: US20100068950A1 to LUNDGREN that was filed in 2008 (hereinafter “Lundren”) and in view of Australian Patent Pub. No.: AU 2021/202786 82 to Butts et al. that was filed in 2-22-2016 (hereinafter "Butts") and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US7097523B2 to Woolley. The applicant’s provisional patent application dated 2015 only includes FIG. 1-3 and is missing multiple elements of the claims and these claims are not entitled to that priority date of 2015.
The primary reference to Lundgren is silent but Wooley teaches “...1. A rider control device comprising:
a securement element operable to couple the rider control device to a rider;” (see col. 1, lines 44-61 ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
disclosure of LUNDREN with the teachings of WOOLEY since WOOLEY
teaches that a seat belt 7 4 can keep the rider secured during the ride with
the flying ski board. See abstract.
The office also takes official notice that using a remote control to control a marine vessel engine is well known in the art. See US Patent No.: :
US 11,173,996 B2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of LUNDREN with the teachings of the official notice since a remote control may allow a user to provide remote operation of the marine vessels to prevent them from colliding for safety reasons.
PNG
media_image1.png
732
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LUNDGREN discloses “...a user interface operable to receive input from the rider, wherein the user interface (see at least ,p[00186]-[0191 ]). is operable to receive a surf side change command, (see at least Abstract and par. 10-19 and claims 1-8 where the wake can be angled to a first direction or a second direction in fig. 2),
Butts teaches “...and wherein the user interface is operable to receive a music control command; and” (see paragraph 15 and 34 and 162 where the directionality of the audio content can be controlled by the audio device) a wireless communication interface operable to wirelessly communicate commands from the rider control device to a wireless communication interface of a water-sports boat” (see paragraph 81 where the device can include a wireless interface being used on a boat in paragraph 731 and see paragraph 1101-1111 where the device can provide a voice command)”
Lundgren discloses “...that includes a surf system that changes between a port-side surf configuration and a starboard-side surf configuration in response to the surf side change command, (see at least Figs. 1-2 and ,paragraphs 10-18 and claims 1-8);
The primary reference is silent but Butts teaches “...and a music
system that changes a music characteristic in response to the music control command”. (see paragraph 1231 where the rider can provide voice inputs to the device to control the media playback, playback transport, music source selection and volume by voice command)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
disclosure of LUNDGREN with the teachings of BUTTS since BUTTS teaches that an improved sound system can accept voice activated command and increase a directionality of the audio when needed. The user can speak play a title and increase the volume and the speaker can automatically do what the user says to do for an improved user interface. See abstract and paragraph 1231 and 160-165 and claims 1-2.
Lundgren discloses “...2. The rider control device of Claim 1, wherein the user interface includes a switch surf- side user input element, wherein actuation of the switch-surf-side user input element when the water-sports boat is in the port-side surf configuration causes the surf system to switch from the port-side surf configuration to the starboard-side surf configuration, and wherein actuation of the same switch-surf-side user input element when the water-sports boat is in the starboard-side surf configuration causes the surf system to switch from the starboard-side surf configuration to the port-side surf configuration”. (see at least Abstract and par 10-18 and claims 1-9)
Lundgren is silent but Butts teaches “...3. The rider control device of Claim 1, wherein the music control command is a volume control command for changing a volume of the music played by the music system of the water-sports boat”. (see paragraph 1231 where the rider can provide voice inputs to the device to control the media playback, playback transport, music source selection and volume by voice command)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
disclosure of LUNDGREN with the teachings of BUTTS since BUTTS teaches that an improved sound system can accept voice activated command and increase a directionality of the audio when needed. The user can speak play a title and increase the volume and the speaker can automatically do what the user says to do for an improved user interface. See abstract and paragraph 1231 and 160-165 and claims 1-2.
Lundgren discloses “...4. The rider control device of Claim 3, comprising a display operable to output visual information to the rider”. (see at least paragraph 11 where the device has a computer to control the first and the second propulsion devices).
Lundgren is silent but BUTTS teaches “...5. The rider control device of Claim 4, wherein the display is operable to display music volume information”. (see paragraph 205, 211 and 231 and 321 where the device can be used on a boat and includes a voice activation of a music streaming service or alternatively a display to select a streaming service of music).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
disclosure of LUNDGREN with the teachings of BUTTS since BUTTS teaches that an improved sound system can accept voice activated command and increase a directionality of the audio when needed. The user can speak play a title and increase the volume and the speaker can automatically do what the user says to do for an improved user interface. See abstract and paragraph 1231 and 160-165 and claims 1-2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. NO.: US20100068950A1 to LUNDGREN that was filed in 2008 (hereinafter “Lundren”) and in view of Australian Patent Pub. No.: AU 2021/202786 82 to Butts et al. that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter "Butts") and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US7097523B2 to Woolley and in view of Chinese Patent Pub No.: CN104494793A to Dalian filed in 2014.
Lundgren is silent but Dalian teaches “..6. The rider control device of Claim 1, wherein the user interface is operable to receive a ballast change command for changing ballast on the water-sports boat”. (see abstract where the device can include upper and lower ballast tanks to be filled or discharged to change the ballast of the entire vessel and prevent rolling of the vessel)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
disclosure of LUNDGREN with the teachings of DALIAN since DALIAN teaches that a vehicle that is a marine vehicle can include an upper and lower ballast tanks. The tanks can be filled to increase or decrease the ballast of the vehicle. When the ballast is increased the rolling of the vehicle can be minimized to prevent a roll over of the ship in rough water. See abstract and paragraph 1-10 of DALIAN.
Lundren discloses “...7. The rider control device of Claim 1, wherein the user interface is operable to receive a speed command for controlling speed of the water-sports boat. (See paragraph 9-16 where the motors can be turned off or increased in speed via a control device to provide a wake and the wake can be adjusted at an angle from each of the motors)”
PNG
media_image2.png
702
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lundgren discloses “..8. The rider control device of Claim 1, wherein the user interface is operable to receive a wake size or shape command for controlling a size or shape of the wake of the water-sports boat”. (See wake w1, w2 and w2 and paragraph 9-16 where the motors can be turned off or increased in speed via a control device to provide a wake and the wake can be adjusted at an angle 25 from each of the motors)”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. NO.: US20100068950A1 to LUNDGREN that was filed in 2008 (hereinafter “Lundren”) and in view of Australian Patent Pub. No.: AU 2021/202786 82 to Butts et al. that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter "Butts") and in view of U.S. Patent No.: US7097523B2 to Woolley and in view of United States Patent No.: US8290636B2 to Manning.
PNG
media_image3.png
672
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lundgren is silent but Manning teaches “...9. The rider control device of Claim 1, wherein the rider control device is configured to be worn on a wrist of the rider”. (see FIG. 6 to 7 and col. 8, line 5 to col. 9, line 60 where the surfboard can be powered device and also the user can monitor the power level and call for help or manage to come back to shore ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the
disclosure of LUNDGREN with the teachings of MANNING since MANNING teaches that a powered surfboard can be provided. The user can include a watch type device. The watch can provide outputs as to the power level available. The user can modulate and return to shore when there is no more power or stay out longer when there is available power or call for help in an emergency. See col 8, line 1 to col. 10, line 15.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under obviousness double patenting in view of claim 1-19 of U.S. Patent No.: 11,067,979 that recites “ [a] wake surf system configured to allow a wake surf rider to switch a wake of a water-sports boat from a port-side surf configuration to a starboard-side surf configuration or from [[a]] the starboard-side surf configuration to [[a]] the port-side surf configuration while surfing on the wake of the water-sports boat, the wake surf system comprising:
[[a]] the water-sports boat comprising: a hull configured to produce [[a]] the wake having a port-side wave and a starboard-side wave that diverge when the hull moves through water; one or more movable wake modifiers configured to enhance the port-side wave to produce [[a]] the port-side surf configuration when the one or more wake modifiers are position in a first configuration and to enhance the starboard-side wave to produce [[a]] the starboard-side surf configuration when the one or more wake modifiers are positioned in a second configuration; one or more actuators configured to move the one or more wake modifiers between the first configuration and the second configuration; a cruise control system configured to control an engine of the water-sports boat to move the hull through water at a cruise speed; and a wireless communication interface; and a rider control device comprising: a display for outputting visual information to the rider; a user interface comprising a switch-surf-side user input element; wherein the rider control device is configured to receive a change speed command from the rider to change the cruise speed to a new cruise speed; and a wireless communication interface configured to wirelessly communicate commands from the rider control device to the wireless communication interface of the water-sports boat;
wherein the cruise control system is configured to change to the new cruise speed in response to the change speed command received from the rider device and a display device that can show the speed”.
The present claims it recites a music system and a securement device on the wrist of the wearer.
The claims are otherwise identical. It would have been obvious to provide a watch type device and a music device to trail behind the boat for a pleasure craft to provide an improved user experience and to monitor parameters and obtain streaming services via voice commands while off the boat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666