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 .
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.
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 5 and 22 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.
Claim 5 recites “the actuating handle”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “herein the actuating handle and the locking handle are disposed atop each other”, and the intended structure of the claim is indiscernable insomuch as only a single element can be on “top” of a stack of two elements (i.e., it is unclear how both the actuating handle and the locking handle can both be located on top).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Rudofsky (US 2022/0063770).
1. (Original) A buoyant board comprising:a board body (16); a propulsion system (fig. 1) connected to the board body, the propulsion system including a propulsion unit for providing thrust to the buoyant board; and a handlebar assembly (10) pivotably connected to the board body, the handlebar assembly being pivotable about a pivot axis (5) between a lowered position and a raised position, the pivot axis extending through a proximal end portion of the handlebar assembly (fig. 5), the handlebar assembly comprising: a central handle (30) configured to be grasped by a rider of the buoyant board, the central handle defining a distal end portion of the handlebar assembly (fig. 4); and a telescoping subassembly (40-42) for adjusting a length of the handlebar assembly defined between the proximal end portion and the distal end portion of the handlebar assembly (para. 7).
6. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 1, wherein the board body (16) defines a recess (22) for at least partially receiving the handlebar assembly in the lowered position thereof (fig. 3).
8. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 1, wherein:the handlebar assembly further comprises a latch (20) movable between a latched position and an unlatched position; and in the lowered position of the handlebar assembly: the handlebar assembly is retained in the lowered position by the latch being in the latched position (fig. 3; para. 18); and the handlebar assembly is movable from the lowered position in response to the latch being moved to the unlatched position (paras. 18-19).
9. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 8, wherein the latch is biased toward the latched position (fig. 3; paras. 18-19).
10. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 9, wherein:the board body defines a recess (22) for at least partially receiving the handlebar assembly in the lowered position thereof; and in the latched position of the latch and with the handlebar assembly being in a position other than the lowered position thereof, the latch prevents the handlebar assembly from entering the recess (i.e., the handlebar assembly is only able to be engaged with the recess when in the lowered position).
11. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 8, wherein the handlebar assembly further comprises an actuating handle (fig. 4 shows handle portion of 20) connected to the latch (20) for moving the latch between the latched and unlatched positions.
13. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 1, wherein: the handlebar assembly comprises a hinge (fig. 5) defining the pivot axis (5); and friction forces at the hinge (friction is inherent in a mechanical system) prevent the handlebar assembly from falling freely from the raised position to the lowered position.
14. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 13, wherein the friction forces at the hinge slow movement of the handlebar assembly from the raised position to the lowered position caused by gravity (inherent).
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 6,409,560), in view of Tullstedt (WO 2023/247701).
The combination is summarized as follows:
Austin discloses the general structure of a buoyant board comprising a board body and propulsion system, as explicitly mapped below, but disscloses a stationary handle 44, and therefore does not disclose a handlebar assembly which meets the functional limitations as claimed. Tullstedt teaches a telescoping and pivoting handle assembly, which provides the well-known benefit of adjustability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the pivoting and telescoping handle assembly as taught by Tullstedt in place of the stationary handle of Austin, for the expected benefit of increased adjustability.
The combination, as motivated above, meets the claimed limitations as follows (mapping to Tullstedt unless otherwise noted):
1. (Original) A buoyant board comprising: a board body (Austin: 12); a propulsion system (Austin: including 26, 38, 40, 42) connected to the board body (Austin: figs. 3-4), the propulsion system including a propulsion unit (Austin: at least 40) for providing thrust to the buoyant board; and a handlebar assembly (10) pivotably connected to the board body (Austin: replacing 44 as shown in fig. 1, as combined), the handlebar assembly being pivotable about a pivot axis (A) between a lowered position and a raised position, the pivot axis extending through a proximal end (16) portion of the handlebar assembly, the handlebar assembly comprising: a central handle (62) configured to be grasped by a rider of the buoyant board, the central handle defining a distal end portion of the handlebar assembly (fig. 12); and a telescoping subassembly (including 56’, 56”) for adjusting a length of the handlebar assembly defined between the proximal end portion and the distal end portion of the handlebar assembly.
2. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 1, wherein the telescoping subassembly comprises an actuating handle (tilting handle 80, as described) operable by the rider of the buoyant body, the actuating handle being movable (as described) to selectively lock and unlock the telescoping subassembly to set the length of the handlebar assembly (figs. 17, 19).
3. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 2, wherein:the handlebar assembly comprises a base housing (56’); and the telescoping subassembly further comprises:at least one telescoping pole (56”) at least partly received in the base housing (figs. 16, 17, 19) and slidable relative to the base housing (figs. 17, 19), the actuating handle (80) being connected to the at least one telescoping pole (56”) for sliding the at least one telescoping pole relative to the base housing; and at least one slider (any of 100, 106, and/or 110) received in the base housing and operatively connected to the actuating handle (via at least 118), the at least one slider (e.g., 100, 106, and/or 110) being connected to the at least one telescoping pole (56”) to move together with the at least one telescoping pole (figs. 12-13, 17, 19), the at least one slider being slidable between a plurality of slider positions corresponding to different lengths of the handlebar assembly, the at least one slider selectively engaging the base housing at the plurality of slider positions (113) to set the length of the handlebar assembly.
4. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 3, wherein: at least part of the at least one slider is movable between an engaged position and a disengaged position (i.e., where 106 are engaged into or between respective 113), the actuating handle (80) being operable to selectively move the at least part of the at least one slider between the engaged and disengaged positions (as described); in the disengaged position of the at least part of the at least one slider, the at least one slider being slidable between the plurality of slider positions (i.e., between 113); and in the engaged position of the at least part of the at least one slider, the at least part of the at least one slider engaging the base housing in response to the at least one slider being moved to any of the plurality of slider positions to fix the at least one slider relative to the base housing at a given one of the slider positions corresponding to a given length of the handlebar assembly (i.e., engaged with 113).
5. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 1, wherein an aperture (i.e., met by the shape of 62 as shown by at least fig. 13) is defined between the actuating handle (80, unlabeled in fig. 13) and the central handle (62) to allow the rider to grasp the central handle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudofsky (US 2022/0063770), in view of Mardikian (US 5,056,450).
Rudofsky does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Mardikian teaches in the lowered position of the handlebar assembly, the handlebar assembly is generally flush with an upper surface of the board body (fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the flush configuration of Mardikian in combination with the general structure of Rudofsky, for the expected advantage of a more compact arrangement.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudofsky (US 2022/0063770), in view of Sade (US 3,693,577).
Rudofsky does not disclose the limitations of claim 15.
Sade teaches an adjustable plate (3) to which any standard outboard motor (4) can be attached, which provides the expected advantage(s) of adjustability (col. 1, lines 30-32), removeability, easier handling and/or easier transportation (col. 1, lines 24-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the height-adjusting structure as taught by Sade in combination with the structure of Rudofsky, for the benefits of adjustability, removeability, easier handling, and/or easier transportation.
Claims 16-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austin (US 6,409,560) and Tullstedt (WO 2023/247701), in view of Elkinton (US 2014/0070503).
Austin does not disclose the limitations of claims 16-17 and 20-22.
Elkinton teaches the use of a handle mechanism (130) that includes a stem portion (132) and handgrips (136) that rotate or pivot sidewise (para. 26) relative to the stem portion (132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the rotating or pivoting handgrip design of Elkinton in place of the handle design of the prior art, for the expected benefit of a more compact configuration, more versatile storage and/or customization options, or a desired design aesthetic. Thereafter, the limitations of claims 16-17 flow naturally from the combination as explained above.
The prior art is silent regarding the limitations of claim 20. However, it is old and well-known in the art to use actuating handles to lock mechanical components into desired orientations or to unlock mechanical components to provide adjustabilty. The selection of a locking mechanism, such as an actauting handle, appropriate for a given intended use only requires routine skill in the art, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing.
The remaining limtations of claims 20-22 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As previously mapped above, the prior art discloses: 12. (Original) The buoyant board of claim 11, wherein: the handlebar assembly further comprises a telescoping subassembly for adjusting a length of the handlebar assembly defined between the proximal end portion and the distal end portion of the handlebar assembly.
However, as the combination of the prior art relies upon separate mechanisms for activating the latch and locking/unlocking the telescoping assembly, it cannot be said that the combination of the prior art suggests: the actuating handle is configured to selectively lock and unlock the telescoping subassembly to set the length of the handlebar assembly, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights