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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Group 2 claims 6 - 12. Claims 1 – 5 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/13/2025. The restriction is made FINAL.
Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record in this office action shall be referred to as follows;
U.S. 2014/0345048 Mueller (‘Mueller hereafter), App 13/901998; Filed 05/24/2013
U.S. 2008/0011218 Smith et al. (‘Smith hereafter), App 11/818815, Filed 06/15/2007
The above references will be referred to hereafter by the names or numbers indicated above.
Claim status:
Claims 1 - 12 are currently being examined.
Claims 1 – 5 have been withdrawn.
No Claims have been canceled.
No Claims are allowed or objected to for allowable subject matter.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: items 94 (Fig 1), was not recited in the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0345048 Mueller (‘Mueller hereafter), and in view of U.S. 2008/0011218 Smith et al. (‘Smith hereafter),
Regarding Claim[s] 6, ‘Mueller discloses all the claim limitations including: A method for use with a seawall (‘Mueller, Fig 4, boat hull #303 acts as a seawall) separating land from a body of water (‘Mueller, a boat hull inherently separates land/ dry area from a body of water, where the land is the inside of the boat) and
having a substantially horizontal upper surface (‘Mueller, Fig 4, #304 (gunwale/ horizontal upper surface), is an upper surface of the hull/ sea wall),
the method comprising:
possessing a first member (‘Mueller, Fig 4, #308 (hammock support structure/ first member)) having a tubular portion (‘Mueller, Fig 5a & 5b, system of #316 (elongate angled member) and #318 (extension portion)),
Except ‘Mueller is silent regarding: and a flange portion connected to the tubular portion, the tubular portion defining a bore, the flange portion defining first and second flanges, the first and second flanges being coplanar with each other and cooperating with each other to define a substantially planar surface, mounting the first member to the seawall such that the substantially planar surface of the first member faces downward and contacts the upper surface of the seawall, attaching an accessory to the first member, said accessory having a second member with a segment that is selectively insertable into the bore, wherein the tubular portion defines an outer surface; wherein the tubular portion defines a first hole that extends from the outer surface to the bore, wherein the tubular portion defines an outer surface; wherein the tubular portion defines a first hole that extends from the outer surface to the bore, wherein the second member defines a second hole, and wherein the segment of the second member is selectively insertable into the bore such that the first hole and the second hole are aligned with one another.
However, ‘Smith teaches: a flange portion connected to the tubular portion, defining a bore (‘Smith, Fig 2D, #43 (mounting flange/ flange portion), is part of the system of #47 (case assembly/ accessary), and modifies the mounting of ‘Mueller’s, Fig 4, #312 (receiving rod holders/ first member), and is inserted into ‘Smith’s, Fig. 2D, #41 (pivot base for support to receiver tube/ bore))
the flange portion (‘Smith, Fig 2D, #43 (mounting flange/ flange portions)) defining first and second flanges (‘Smith, Fig 2D, #47 (case assembly/ accessories), that #43 (mounting flange/ flange portion) is a part of, is duplicated for both sides of ‘Mueller’s, Fig 4, #304 (gunwale/ horizontal upper surface), to hold the first and second support members, ‘Mueller’s, #308), the first and second flanges being coplanar with each other and cooperating with each other to define a substantially planar surface (‘Smith, Fig 2D, #47 (case assembly/ accessary), are mounted on ‘Mueller’s #304 (gunwale/ upper surface), are coplanar surfaces);
mounting the first member to the seawall such that the substantially planar surface of the first member faces downward and contacts the upper surface of the seawall (‘Smith, Fig 2D, #43 (mounting flange/ flange portion) and once ‘Smith’s, Fig 2D, #47 (case assembly/ accessary), modify ‘Mueller’s #304 (gunwale/ upper surface), the first and second members are mounted to ‘Smith’s accessory’s and thereby being mounted to the seawall, the bottom ends of the tubes of the first and second members are facing downward and contacts the upper surface of the seawall)
attaching an accessory to the first member (‘Smith, Para 0047, “FIG. 2D shows a sketch of a disassembled prototype BOAT HITCHING DEVICE 31 with components 32. This is a good view of the two separate assemblies, the case assembly 47 and the receptor assembly 37. Important features shown here are the pivot cover 54 and case cover 55. They are attached to the flange 43 by a hinge means 60. The internal hinge pieces 53 are securely attached to the pivot base 41 (by welding or integral molding or other secure fastening means). Likewise, the through pivot pin 51 (not shown) traverses the case 47A and rotatably connects the hinge 53 to the case 47A. Other features demonstrate the through connector 52 and the hitch pin 56.” ‘Mueller, Fig 4, #308 (hammock support structure/ first member and second member) is attached to ‘Smith’s, Fig 2D, #47 (case assembly/ accessories)),
said accessory having a second member with a segment that is selectively insertable into the bore (‘Mueller’s Fig 4, #308, is inserted into ‘Smith’s, Fig 2D, #47, with #41 (pivot base for support to receiver tube/ bore));
wherein the tubular portion defines an outer surface; wherein the tubular portion defines a first hole that extends from the outer surface to the bore (‘Mueller’s Fig 4, #308 (hammock support structure/ first member and second member) tube outside diameter defines the outer surface and the bores of #41, and ‘Smith #51 (pivot pin/ hole) defines the first hole through to the bore);
wherein the second member defines a second hole (‘Mueller’s Fig 4, #308 (hammock support structure/ first member and second member) tube outside diameter defines the outer surface and the bores of #41, and ‘Smith #51 (pivot pin/ hole) defines the first hole through to the bore); and
wherein the segment of the second member is selectively insertable into the bore such that the first hole and the second hole are aligned with one another (‘Mueller’s Fig 4, #308 (hammock support structure/ first member and second member) duplicated and the accessories on the planar surface of ‘Mueller’s #304 tube outside diameter defines the outer surface and the bores of #41, and ‘Smith #51 (pivot pin/ hole) defines the first hole through to the bore at the same location on both accessories).
Regarding Claim[s] 7, ‘Mueller and ‘Smith disclose all the claim limitations including: said attaching an accessory to the first member includes inserting the segment into the bore (‘Mueller’s, Fig 4, #312 (receiving rod holders/ first member), is inserted into ‘Smith’s, Fig. 2D, #41 (pivot base for support to receiver tube/ bore)).
Regarding Claim[s] 8, ‘Mueller and ‘Smith disclose all the claim limitations including: said attaching an accessory to the first member includes extending a pin through the first hole and the second hole (‘Smith, #56 (swivel lock)).
Regarding Claim[s] 9, ‘Mueller and ‘Smith disclose all the claim limitations including: prior to said attaching an accessory to the first member, selecting the accessory from an inventory of accessories, each of the accessories having a respective segment that is insertable into the bore (‘Smith, Fig. 2D, #47 (case assemblies/ accessories) are selected from the group of #31, #32, #33, (boat hitching devices)).
Regarding Claim[s] 10, ‘Mueller and ‘Smith disclose all the claim limitations including: accessory is a hammock assembly including first and second support members supporting a hammock therebetween (‘Smith, Para 0064, “ In FIGS. 3 and 4, the BOAT HITCHING DEVICE 31 has the distinct advantage of the rotating component 37 allowing for ease in inserting the carrier into the receiver 37 A while "over the boat" . This means an operator/user need not lean out over the water to use the device 31. This also affords objects or cargo 75 to be carried over the platform surface while the boat is underway or while the boat is docking. The gives the ability to "swivel" the loaded device out of way for passenger boarding or disembarking. This swivel feature also allows for variety of "dual carrier applications", such as carrying cargo 75 being suspended between the two carriers (such as dingy, kayak, canoe, hammock, etc).
Regarding Claim[s] 11, ‘Mueller and ‘Smith disclose all the claim limitations including: wherein the accessory is a table (‘Smith, Table B, #4 (fish cleaning table)).
Regarding Claim[s] 12, ‘Mueller and ‘Smith disclose all the claim limitations including: accessory is a flagpole (‘Smith, Para 0012, “The patent taught a support rack for use on a watercraft to hold several scuba gear and other equipment such as dive tanks, lights, radar, spear guns and a dive flag, the rack including oppositely disposed base members and a bridge structure including opposite vertical portions each attached to and extending upward from a corresponding one of the base members, and a horizontally extending portion integral with upper end zones of the vertical portions.).
Conclusion
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 02.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE AVERICK whose telephone number is (571)270-7565. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 3:00PM M- F 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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LAWRENCE AVERICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
10/16/2025