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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 12, 14, 15, 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.
Claims 12 and 14 recites the limitation “a connection portion” in line 3. This limitation is a double inclusion of the previous recited connection portion recited in claim 7.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the float" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademacher (US Patent 4,616,369)
Regarding Claim 1, Rademacher shows an attachment structure configured for attaching a plurality of lane rope floats (15) to a rope (16), wherein the lane rope floats are attached to the rope via a tubular portion (18) and connectable to an outer wall (12) of a pool (10) to partition each lane (Fig.1), and the lane rope floats are made of a synthetic resin material (column 4 lines 25-30). Rademacher is silent as to the transmission rate. Rademacher fails to show a transmission rate of at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to an outer wall of the pool is 3 % to 7 %. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to show a transmission rate of at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to an outer wall of the pool is 3 % to 7 % because Applicant has not disclosed that distance provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Rademacher’s transmission rate and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either transmission rate taught by Rademacher or the claimed transmission rate because both are capable of stopping waves from traveling between lanes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lane rope floats of Rademacher to obtain the invention as specified in the claim above because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Rademacher.
Reading Claim 3, Rademacher shows the attachment structure according to claim 1, wherein the attachment structure comprises spacers (17) arranged between the landed rope floats (Fig.2).
Claim 4, Rademacher shows the attachment structure according to claim 3, wherein the attachment structure comprises the spacers (17) arranged between the landed rope floats, such that gaps between at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to the outer wall of the pool are wider than gaps between at least a part of the lane rope floats arranged in a vicinity of a center of the pool (Figs.1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Rademacher shows the attachment structure according to claim 1, wherein widths of at least a part of the lane rope floats arranged in the vicinity of a center of the pool are wider than widths (see annotated figure below) of at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to the outer wall of the pool (because there is no cap between the lane rope floats and the wall).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Rademacher shows the attachment structure according to claim 1, but fails to show a transmission rate of at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to an outer wall of the pool is 2 % to 30 % and is higher than a transmission rate of at least a part of the lane rope floats arranged in a vicinity of a center of the pool. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to show a transmission rate of at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to an outer wall of the pool is 2 % to 30 % and is higher than a transmission rate of at least a part of the lane rope floats arranged in a vicinity of a center of the pool because Applicant has not disclosed that distance provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Rademacher’s transmission rate and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either transmission rate taught by Rademacher or the claimed transmission rate because both are capable of stopping waves from traveling between lanes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lane rope floats of Rademacher to obtain the invention as specified in the claim above because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Rademacher.
Regarding Claim 7, Rademacher shows a lane rope float (15) attached to a rope (16) for dividing a water surface of a pool into lanes (Fig.1), the lane rope float comprising: a central attachment portion (19) configured to allow the rope to be inserted into a center of the float (fig.4), an outer wall portion (21) configured for stopping waves transmitted from the water surface of the pool at an outer side wall surface and forming an opening (near 24) capable of guiding the waves transmitted from the water surface of the pool into a space in the float; a plurality of blades (20) configured for connecting the outer wall portion to the central attachment portion (Fig.4), the plurality of blades extending in a direction in which the rope extends so as to divide the space in the float into a plurality of spaces (Fig.4); and a connecting portion (see annotated figure below) configured for connecting the plurality of blades to each other and comprising a water vent (33) configured for discharging the waves guided into the space in the float via the opening, wherein in a case that a volume of an individual space partitioned at least by a pair of adjacent blades (Fig. 4), the outer wall portion adjacent to the blades. The connecting portion adjacent to the blades is defined as A1, and an area of the water vent associated with the individual space is defined as B1. Rademacher fails to show a ratio of A1 and B1 is set to an allowable value which is not less than 1000:15 of a lower limit and not more than 1000:5 of an upper limit. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to show a ratio of A1 and B1 is set to an allowable value which is not less than 1000:15 of a lower limit and not more than 1000:5 of an upper limit because Applicant has not disclosed that distance provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Rademacher’s ratio and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the ratio taught by Rademacher or the claimed ratio because both are capable of stopping waves from traveling between lanes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of Rademacher to obtain the invention as specified in the claim above because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Rademacher.
Regarding Claim 8, Rademacher shows the lane rope float according to claim 7, wherein in a case that the volume of the individual space partitioned at least by the pair of adjacent blades, the outer wall portion adjacent to the blades, and the connecting portion adjacent to the blades is defined as A1, and an area of the opening associated with the individual space is defined as C1. Rademacher fails to show a ratio of Al to C 1 is set to an allowable value which is not less than 1000: 25 of a lower limit and not more than 1000: 15 of an upper limit. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to show a ratio of Al to C1 is set to an allowable value which is not less than 1000: 25 of a lower limit and not more than 1000: 15 of an upper limit because Applicant has not disclosed that distance provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Rademacher’s ratio and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the ratio taught by Rademacher or the claimed ratio because both are capable of stopping waves from traveling between lanes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of Rademacher to obtain the invention as specified in the claim above because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Rademacher.
Regarding Claim 9, Rademacher shows the lane rope float according to claim 7, wherein the connecting portion further comprises a guide portion (see annotated figure below) configured for guiding the waves introduced into the space (near 24) in the float via the opening.
Regarding Claim 10, Rademacher shows the lane rope float according to claim 9, wherein the guide portion (see annotated figure below) comprises a projecting portion projecting (see annotated figure below) in the direction in which the rope extends (Fig.4).
Regarding Claim 11, Rademacher shows the lane rope float according to claim 10, wherein the guide portion (near 30) comprises a tapered surface (see annotated figure below) at a part of the guide portion, and the tapered surface is configured for guiding the waves in the space to the water vent.
PNG
media_image2.png
595
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 and 14, Rademacher shows the lane rope float according to claim 7, wherein the lane rope float is attached to the rope by a following way: at the connection portion connecting the outer wall portion and the blades (see annotated figure above), in a situation when the blades are placed on a water surface, an wave preventing portion (near 24) is arranged on one side of a portion which is cutting a direction perpendicular to the water surface and is in the direction in which the rope extends, and an ride-over (near 19) portion is arranged at an opposite side, such that the wave preventing portion is located on a water surface side of the pool and the ride-over portion is located in the pool water (see annotated figure above).
Regarding Claim 13, Rademacher the lane rope float according to claim 7, wherein the connecting portion further comprises a guide portion (see annotated figure above) configured for guiding the waves into the space in the float via the opening.
Regarding Claim 15, Rademacher shows a lane rope float attached to a rope (16) for dividing a water surface of a pool into lanes (Fig.1), the lane rope float (15) comprising: a central attachment portion (19) configured to allow the rope to be inserted into a center of the float (Fig.4), an outer wall portion (21) configured for stopping waves transmitted from the water surface of the pool at an outer side wall surface and forming an opening (Near 24) capable of guiding the waves transmitted from the water surface of the pool into a space in the float; a plurality of blades (20) configured for connecting the outer wall portion (21) to the central attachment portion (19) and extending in a direction in which the rope extends so as to divide the space in the float into a plurality of spaces (Fig.4); and a connecting portion (32) configured for connecting the plurality of blades to each other, the connecting portion comprising a water vent (33) configured for discharging the waves introduced into the space in the float via the opening, and a guide portion (30) configured for guiding the waves into the space in the float via the opening.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rademacher (US Patent 4,616,369) in view of Standwood (US Patent 3,886,602). Rademacher shows the attachment structure according to claim 1, but fails to show the attachment structure according to wherein gaps between at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to the outer wall of the pool are wider than gaps between at least a part of the lane rope floats arranged in a vicinity of a center of the pool. Standwood teaches an attachment structure (18) according to wherein gaps between at least a part of the lane rope floats at a rope side connected to the outer wall (12) of the pool are wider than gaps between at least a part of the lane rope floats arranged in a vicinity of a center of the pool (Fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to gaps that are wider near the wall than in the middle in order to prevent waves from traveling it the middle of the pool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ASHLEY CRANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays & Tuesdays 8 am - 4pm.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
/LAUREN A CRANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights