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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the single ear affixed to a plurality of footrope unit bodies as recited in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 15-17 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, applicant’s disclosure does not describe a single ear affixed to a plurality of footrope unit bodies.
Regarding claims 16-17, the phrase “a plurality of ears” lacks antecedent basis.
Further regarding claim 17, applicant’s disclosure does not describe an arrangement where the false fishing line is taught between ears and aft of the main tow chain when the footrope is being towed.
Claims 35-37 recite similar issues.
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 19-38 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) {MPEP § 2173.05(p)}.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10, 14-16, 18-20, 22-24, 30, 34-36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Bowie GB 190905737.
Regarding claim 1, Bowie discloses a footrope for a bottom trawl, the footrope comprising:
a false fishing line configured to be connectable to a fishing line of the bottom trawl (net F comprises multiple lines, one of which may be a “false fishing line” which is described as attached to rings E best shown in figure III); and
a main tow chain (G figure I);
wherein the footrope is configured such that portions of the false fishing line are located aft of the main tow chain when the footrope is towed upon at port and starboard forward wing points of the footrope (figure I).
Regarding claim 2, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 1, wherein the main tow chain is configured such that the portions of the false fishing line that are located aft of the main tow chain comprise at least the one third of the false fishing line's length situated most proximal the center of the footrope (figure I).
Regarding claim 4, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of footrope unit bodies connected to the main tow chain and connected to one another via the main tow chain, each footrope unit body having a wall (rings C of figures II-III).
Regarding claim 5, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 4, wherein the footrope unit bodies comprise a bent plate body where the wall is a curving and/or bending wall having opposing forward and rearward facing surfaces, the forward facing surface being mainly convex and/or convex, the rearward facing surface being mainly concave and/or concave and open to contact with water from the exterior environment, the bent plate body being configured so that in side plan view and/or cross sectional view it comprises the curving and/or bending wall (figure III).
Regarding claim 6, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 5, wherein each bent plate body lacks a 180-degree arc of a circle in the cross-sectional form of the bent plate body (figure III shows 360-degree).
Regarding claim 10, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 4, wherein each wall of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies includes at least one spanning bridge that is separate from and connected to the wall on a rearward side of the wall so as to span at least a portion of the rearward side of the wall (sheathing D on the inner rearward side of figures II-III).
Regarding claim 14, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 4, wherein a plurality of the footrope unit bodies comprises at least a portion of a connection between the main tow chain and the false fishing line (figures I-II).
Regarding claim 15, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 14, wherein at least one ear is affixed proximally to the upper edge of a plurality of footrope unit bodies, and wherein the false fishing line is permanently connected to a plurality of the ears (E of figure III as previously described, where each ear is affixed to a plurality of bodies via the connection D).
Regarding claim 16, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 15, wherein the false fishing line that is permanently connected to a plurality of the ears is configured so that there is slack in the false fishing line between adjacent ears (as shown in Figure II to allow the shown arc shape).
Regarding claim 18, Bowie discloses the footrope of claim 4, wherein a plurality of the footrope unit bodies lack a 180-degree arc of a circle in the cross-sectional form of the footrope unit bodies (see claim 6 rejection).
Regarding claim 19, Bowie discloses a method for forming a footrope, the footrope being for a bottom trawl, the method comprising: providing a false fishing line that is configured to be connectable to a fishing line of the bottom trawl; and providing a main tow chain that is configured such that portions of the false fishing line are located aft of the main tow chain when the footrope is towed upon at port and starboard forward wing points of the footrope (see previous rejections, where even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.)
Regarding claim 20, Bowie discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the portions of the false fishing line that are located aft of the main tow chain comprise at least the one third of the false fishing line's length situated most proximal the center of the footrope (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 22, Bowie discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising: providing a plurality of footrope unit bodies, each footrope unit body having a wall; and connecting the footrope unit bodies to the main tow chain such that the footrope unit bodies are connected to one another via the main tow chain (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 23, Bowie discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the footrope unit bodies comprise a bent plate body where the wall is a curving and/or bending wall having opposing forward and rearward facing surfaces, the forward facing surface being mainly convex and/or convex, the rearward facing surface being mainly concave and/or concave and open to contact with water from the exterior environment, the bent plate body being configured so that in side plan view and/or cross sectional view it comprises the curving and/or bending wall (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 24, Bowie discloses the method of claim 23, wherein each bent plate body lacks a 180-degree arc of a circle in the cross-sectional form of the bent plate body (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 30, Bowie discloses the method of claim 22, wherein each wall of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies includes at least one spanning bridge that is separate from and connected to the wall on a rearward side of the wall so as to span at least a portion of the rearward side of the wall (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 34, Bowie discloses the method of claim 22, wherein a plurality of the footrope unit bodies comprises at least a portion of a connection between the main tow chain and the false fishing line (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 35, Bowie discloses the method of claim 34, wherein at least one ear is affixed proximally to the upper edge of a plurality of footrope unit bodies, the method further comprising: permanently connecting the false fishing line to a plurality of the ears (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 36, Bowie discloses the method of claim 35, wherein the false fishing line that is permanently connected to a plurality of the ears in such a manner that there is slack in the false fishing line between adjacent ears (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 38, Bowie discloses the method of claim 22, wherein a plurality of the footrope unit bodies lack a 180-degree arc of a circle in the cross-sectional form of the footrope unit bodies (see previous rejections).
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.
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(s) 3, 7-9, 11-13, 17, 21, 25-29, 31-33, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowie.
Regarding claim 3, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising a plurality of slidable connectors for connecting the false fishing line to the fishing line of the bottom trawl, each slidable connector being slidably connected to and slidable along a portion of the false fishing line.
However, slidable connectors are well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such slidable connectors in said arrangement, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular fish; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 4, but does not specify wherein the wall of each of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies comprises regions of different thicknesses.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such shaping, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular areas of fishing; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant describes such variations in shape as merely optional; therefore, this feature is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 7, but does not specify wherein the wall regions of different thicknesses further comprise a combination of metal portions and synthetic portions.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such combination of materials, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular areas of fishing; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use. Furthermore, applicant describes such variations in shape as merely optional; therefore, this feature is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 9, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 4, but does not specify wherein a plurality of the footrope unit bodies each comprises in side plan view and/or cross sectional view at least a portion of a polygon.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such shaping, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular areas of fishing; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant describes such variations in shape as merely optional; therefore, this feature is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 4, but does not specify wherein the wall of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies is mainly a synthetic wall to which is connected at least one portion of metal, and wherein each portion of metal protrudes from at least an associated forward facing surface of an associated wall.
However, Bowie teaches a forward facing protrusion (between E and C in figure III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such combination of materials, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular areas of fishing; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use. Furthermore, applicant describes such variations in shape as merely optional; therefore, this feature is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 11, but does not specify wherein each portion of metal is situated on a region of an associated footrope unit body that is below a connection assembly of the associated footrope unit body, each connection assembly being configured to permit connecting an associated footrope unit body to the main tow chain.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such arrangement of materials, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular areas of fishing; since shifting the position of the metal protrusion would not have modified the operation of the device in an unknown manner. Furthermore, applicant describes such arrangement as merely optional; therefore, this feature is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 4, but does not specify wherein the wall of each of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies has a greater width (w) at its lower region proximal to and/or in contact with a lower edge of the wall compared to its width (w) at other regions of the wall.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such shaping, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular areas of fishing; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant describes such variations in shape as merely optional; therefore, this feature is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 17, Bowie teaches the footrope of claim 15, but does not specify wherein the false fishing line that is permanently connected to a plurality of the ears is configured so that the false fishing line is taught between adjacent ears.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such arrangement, in order to accommodate a particular fishing method for particular areas of fishing; since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, applicant describes such variations in shape as merely optional; therefore, this feature is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 21, Bowie teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising: providing a plurality of slidable connectors for connecting the false fishing line to the fishing line of the bottom trawl; and slidably connecting each slidable connector to the false fishing line such that each slidable connector is slidable along a portion of the false fishing line (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 25, Bowie teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the wall of each of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies comprises regions of different thicknesses (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 26, Bowie teaches the method of claim 25, wherein the wall regions of different thicknesses further comprise a combination of metal portions and synthetic portions (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 27, Bowie teaches the method of claim 22, wherein a plurality of the footrope unit bodies each comprises in side plan view and/or cross sectional view at least a portion of a polygon (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 28, Bowie teaches the method of claim 27, wherein each footrope unit body that comprises in side plan view and/or cross sectional view at least a portion of a polygon is formed by the steps comprising bending a plate of steel multiple times and multiple different locations so as to arrive at a bent plate footrope unit body having in cross-sectional view and/or in side plan view at least a portion of a polygon (see previous rejections where even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process).
Regarding claim 29, Bowie teaches the method of claim 28, wherein for each footrope unit body that comprises in side plan view and/or cross sectional view at least a portion of a polygon, the method further comprises: after forming the bent plate body that has in side plan view and/or cross sectional view at least a portion of a polygon, attaching at least one spanning bridge to at least a portion of a rearward side of the bent plate body that has in side plan view and/or cross sectional view at least a portion of a polygon (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 31, Bowie teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the wall of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies is mainly a synthetic wall to which is connected at least one portion of metal, and wherein each portion of metal protrudes from at least an associated forward facing surface of an associated wall (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 32, Bowie teaches the method of claim 31, wherein each portion of metal is situated on a region of an associated footrope unit body that is below a connection assembly of the associated footrope unit body, each connection assembly being configured to permit connecting an associated footrope unit body to the main tow chain (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 33, Bowie teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the wall of each of a plurality of the footrope unit bodies has a greater width (w) at its lower region proximal to and/or in contact with a lower edge of the wall compared to its width (w) at other regions of the wall (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 37, Bowie teaches the method of claim 35, wherein the false fishing line that is permanently connected to a plurality of the ears in such a manner that the false fishing line is taught between adjacent ears (see previous rejections).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644