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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 Dec 2025 has been entered.
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 11 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.
It is unclear what Claim 11 is intended to be dependent upon (check dependency)
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 20150336634 A1) in view of Didier (FR 3113885 A3) and further in view of North (https://www.northsails.com/en-us/blogs/north-sails-blog/achieving-balance-in-your-sail-plan, archived Sept 2023) and further in view of Scott (US 20130244514 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Swan discloses an inflatable paddle board, comprising: a board body which is inflatable (Element 8), wherein the board body has a bottom surface and defines a center position on the bottom surface and a central line along a length direction of the board body. Swan does not explicitly disclose a first fin part and a second fin part which are provided at the bottom surface of the board body at the center position thereof, wherein the first fin part comprises a first fin body part, the second fin part comprises a second fin body part, the first fin body part and the second fin body part are configured to be symmetrical to each other at two sides of the central line along the length direction of the board body. Swan discloses the inflatable paddle board with two rear fins (Fig. 8), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a central rear fin downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and aligned along the central line of the board body so as to align with the central balancing fin.
Didier discloses wherein a central balancinq fin which comprises an assembling base and a fin body extended from the assemblinq base, wherein the central balancinq fin is provided at the bottom surface of the board body at a center(al region) position thereof, wherein the fin body comprises a first fin body part and a second fin body part which are integrated with each other, the first fin body part and the second fin body part are configured to be symmetrical to each other at two sides of the central line along the length direction of the board body, wherein the assembling base comprise a first assembling base part and a second assemblinq base part at two sides of the central line along the length direction of the board body and are symmetrical with each other.. (See Fig. 3.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to place a central balancing fin of Swan such that it is aligned with said central region of said bottom surface of said hull portion of Swan which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Swan is to allow the fin to act as an anti-drift plane (see title) as disclosed by Didier. Didier does not explicitly where the fin is aligned on the exact center position. Nor does Didier disclose the central balancing fin has a height which is ranged from 150mm-500mm and a width which is ranged from 100mm-400mm.
North discloses wherein the longitudinal position of the anti-drift plane is a result effective variable for achieving a desired helm. (Effect of CR relative to CE under “Balance Mast Rake & Board Position”). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to place the balancing fin of Didier on the center position of Swan which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Swan in view of Didier to optimize the anti-drift center of resistance relative to a desired center of effort to achieve a desired helm.
North suggests that size of the central balancing fin is a result effective variable for balancing the moment on the sail. (CE balances CR.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to scale the balancing fin of Didier such that wherein said central balancing fin has a height which is ranged from 150mm-500mm and a width which is ranged from 100mm-400mm which can be achieved with predictable results. The motivation to modify Didier is to optimize the balancing force for the sail or kite for desired conditions. (Also see Scott in references cited which suggests such a dimensions for a large fins.)
Scott discloses a central rear fin downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and aligned along the central line of the board body so as to align with the central balancing fin. (Thruster, paragraph 37) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a thruster arrangement with a central rear fin downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and aligned along the central line of the board body so as to align with the central balancing fin which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Swan is to use a known alternative for two rear fin that provides additional stability.
Regarding Claim 5, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 1, wherein the central rear fin, having a triangular shape, has a base edge extended from the bottom surface of the board body, a streamlined front curve edge and an arched rear curve edge. (See Swan Fig. 7)
2. Regarding Claim 6, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott and further in view of Miller discloses the limitations of Claim 1 with and two rear fins which are downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and are symmetrically distributed on two opposite sides of the central line of the board body wherein an area and a height of each of the two rear fins is smaller than an area, and a height of the fin body of the central balancing fin, the height of each of the two rear fins is ranged from 50mm-200mm, the height of the central balancing fin is ranged from 150mm-500mm and the width of the central balancing fin is ranged from 100mm-400mm. (Thruster configuration) but does not explicitly disclose the width of each of the two rear fins is ranged from 50mm-150mm.
North discloses wherein the longitudinal position of the anti-drift plane is a result effective variable for achieving a desired helm. (Effect of CR relative to CE under “Balance Mast Rake & Board Position”). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to place the balancing fin of Didier on the center position of Swan which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Swan in view of Didier to optimize the anti-drift center of resistance relative to a desired center of effort to achieve a desired helm.
Regarding Claim 7, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 6, wherein each of the rear fins, having a triangular shape, has a base edge extended from the bottom surface of the board body, a streamlined front curve edge and an arched rear curve edge. (See Swan Fig. 7.)
Regarding Claim 9, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 5, further comprising two rear fins which are downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and are symmetrically distributed on two opposite sides of the central line of the board body, wherein each of the rear fins, having a triangular shape, has a base edge extended from the bottom surface of the board body, a streamlined front curve edge and an arched rear curve edge, wherein the central balancing fin comprise a fin body, wherein a width of each of the rear fins is smaller than a width of the fin body of the central balancing fin, wherein a height of each of the rear fins is smaller than a height of the fin body of the central balancing fin. (Thruster fin arrangement suggested by Scott paragraph 37, Relative heights are suggested by Didier Fig. 3.)
Regarding Claim 11, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 4, wherein the central rear fin is detachably coupled to the bottom surface of the board body. (Swan Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 12, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 6, wherein the two rear fins are detachably coupled to the bottom surface of the board body. (Swan Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 15, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 1, wherein the assembling base comprise a base body portion and a retention portion extended from the retention portion, the fin body is extended from the retention portion, the base body portion comprises a first base body part and a second base body part at two sides of the central line along the length of the board body and are symmetrical with each other, the retention portion comprises a first retention part and a second retention part at two sides of the central line along the length of the board body and are symmetrical with each other. (See Swan Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 16, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 14, wherein a width of the retention portion is smaller than a width of the base body portion. (See Swan Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 17, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 15, wherein the assembling base has a retention hole formed in the retention portion. (See Swan Fig. 7)
Regarding Claim 19, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 6, wherein the board body comprises a fixing plate fixed to the bottom surface of the board body, and a holding body extended from the fixing plate, wherein the holding body has a holding channel, such that the central balancing fin is slid along the holding channel to detachably couple at the bottom surface of the board body, wherein the central balancing fin comprises the assembling base detachably coupled to the holding body and the fin body extended from the assembling base, wherein the assembling base comprise a first assembling base part and a second assembling base part at two sides of the central line along the length direction of the board body and are symmetrical with each other. (See Swan Fig. 7)
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 20150336634 A1) in view of Didier (FR 3113885 A3) and further in view of North (https://www.northsails.com/en-us/blogs/north-sails-blog/achieving-balance-in-your-sail-plan, archived Sept 2023) and further in view of Scott (US 20130244514 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North discloses the inflatable paddle board with two rear fins (Fig. 8), as recited in claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a central rear fin downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and aligned along the central line of the board body so as to align with the central balancing fin.
Scott discloses a central rear fin downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and aligned along the central line of the board body so as to align with the central balancing fin. (Thruster, paragraph 37) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use a thruster arrangement with a central rear fin downwardly extended from the bottom surface of the board body at a rear end portion thereof and aligned along the central line of the board body so as to align with the central balancing fin which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Swan is to use a known alternative for two rear fin that provides additional stability.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 20150336634 A1) in view of Didier (FR 3113885 A3) and further in view of North (https://www.northsails.com/en-us/blogs/north-sails-blog/achieving-balance-in-your-sail-plan, archived Sept 2023) and further in view of Scott and further in view of Marker (DE 2801738 A1)
Regarding Claim 13, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses an inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 2, wherein the rear fin comprises the fin body having a triangular shape, wherein the fin body has a first edge slidably engaged with the holding channel to detachably couple the fin body at the bottom surface of the board body (See Swan Fig. 7), but does not explicitly disclose the central balancing fin body having a trapezoid shape, wherein the fin body has a first edge slidably engaged with the holding channel to detachably couple the fin body at the bottom surface of the board body, a second edge which is shorter than the first edge and is parallel to the first edge, and two inclined side edges extended between the first edge and the second edge to define a front round corner between the second edge and one of the inclined side edges and a rear round corner between the second edge and another inclined side edge, wherein a front corner radii of the front round corner is larger than a rear corner radii of the rear round corner.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to substitute the fin holding device of Didier with a holding channel of Swan which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Didier to use a common mounting system that facilitates fin attachment on inflatable boards.
Marker discloses an anti-drift fin wherein the central balancing fin comprises a fin body having a first edge extended from the bottom surface of the board body, a second edge which is shorter than the first edge and is parallel to the first edge, and two inclined side edges extended between the first edge and the second edge to define a front round corner between the second edge and one of the inclined side edges and a rear round corner between the second edge and another inclined side edge, wherein a front corner radii of the front round corner is larger than a rear corner radii of the rear round corner. (See Fig 2.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to substitute the central balancing fin shape of Didier with the central balancing fin shape of Marker which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Didier is to use a known shape for central balancing fins long used in sailboards that acts as an anti-drift fin.
Claim 2, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 20150336634 A1) in view of Didier (FR 3113885 A3) and further in view of North (https://www.northsails.com/en-us/blogs/north-sails-blog/achieving-balance-in-your-sail-plan, archived Sept 2023) and further in view of Scott and further in view of Miller (US 20180265174 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the fin body has a gradually increased thickness toward the assembling base, wherein a maximum thickness of the fin body is 3mm-30mm.
Miller discloses the typical scale of fins in Fig. 4. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to scale the balancing fin of Didier such that a maximum thickness of said fin body is 3mm-30mm. The motivation to modify Didier is to provide a fin with enough thickness to provide adequate structural support for the desired design forces. (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. See MPEP 2144.04.)
Regarding Claim 10, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 2, wherein the central balancing fin is detachably coupled to the bottom surface of the board body, wherein the central balancing fin has a center line which is perpendicular to a width of the central balancing fin, wherein when the central balancing fin is assembled on the bottom surface of the board body, but does not explicitly disclose the center line of the central balancing fin is deviated from the center position of the bottom surface of the board body along the length direction of the board body with a forward deviation distance within 30cm and a backward deviation distance within 50cm.
North discloses wherein the longitudinal position of the anti-drift plane is a result effective variable for achieving a desired helm. (Effect of CR relative to CE under “Balance Mast Rake & Board Position”). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to place the balancing fin of Didier central balancing fin is deviated from the center position of the bottom surface of the board body along the length direction of the board body with a forward deviation distance within 30cm and a backward deviation distance within 50cm which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Swan in view of Didier to optimize the anti-drift center of resistance relative to a desired center of effort to achieve a desired helm.
Regarding Claim 18, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 2, wherein the board body comprises a fixing plate fixed to the bottom surface of the board body, and a holding body extended from the fixing plate, wherein the holding body has a holding channel, such that the central balancing fin is slid along the holding channel to detachably couple at the bottom surface of the board body. (See Swan Fig. 7)
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 20150336634 A1) in view of Didier (FR 3113885 A3) and further in view of North (https://www.northsails.com/en-us/blogs/north-sails-blog/achieving-balance-in-your-sail-plan, archived Sept 2023) and further in view of Scott and further in view of Wese (Amazon Fin Replacement, On Sale Feb 20, 2022)
Regarding Claim 21, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott discloses an inflatable paddle board, comprising: a board body which is inflatable, wherein the board body has a bottom surface and defines a center position on the bottom surface and a central line along a length direction of the board body; and a central balancing fin which comprises an assembling base and a fin body extended from the assembling base, wherein the central balancing fin is provided at the bottom surface of the board body at the center position thereof, wherein the fin body comprises a first fin body part and a second fin body part which are integrated with each other, the first fin body part and the second fin body part are configured to be symmetrical to each other at two sides of the central line along the length direction of the board body, wherein the assembling base comprises a first assembling base part and a second assembling base part at two sides of the central line along the length direction of the board body and are symmetrical with each other; and a fixing holder which comprises a fixing plate permanently fixed to the bottom surface of the board body along the central line, and a holding body extended from the fixing plate, wherein the holding body has a holding channel, wherein the assembly base of the central balancing fin is inserted into the holding channel along the central line to detachably couple at the bottom surface of the board body, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the fixing holder is ranged from 150mm-450mm, a width of the fixing holder is ranged from 50mm- 150mm, a height of the fixing holder is ranged from 5mm-30mm.
Wese discloses wherein a length of the fixing holder is ranged from 150mm-450mm, a width of the fixing holder is ranged from 50mm- 150mm, a height of the fixing holder is ranged from 5mm-30mm. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use the fixing holder of Wese for the fins of Swan which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Swan to use a common off-the shelf mounting system that facilitates fin attachment on inflatable boards.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “element 3 of Didier is not a symmetrical fin structure with respect to the center line of the board, but rather a unilateral flat plate”. Examiner agrees that Fig 1 shows a flat-ish plate. But Applicant’s characterization of a fin as a “unilateral flat plate” does not mean it is not a fin. (The confusing term “unilateral” is Applicant’s own and does not appear in Didier.). It’s not clear where the term “unilateral” is coming from or what it means, but a flat plate has two sides which can still be fin that has two parts integrated with each other as claimed. There is no teaching that the base and fin of Didier are asymmetrical, at best the unscaled hand drawings are sloppy. Applicant’s remarks paragraph 8 conveniently left out of the description fin Element 3’s fixing “in the center of the flat surface” when paraphrasing the rest of the paragraph. And again, as cited in the last action, Element 3 serves as a centreboard. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) See MPEP 2144.04. Examiner remains unpersuaded that characterizing a plate as unilateral overcome the teaching of the fin as a centreboard.
In paragraph 11, Applicant argues “Didier fails to disclose that the rear fin is arranged along the central line of the board body and aligned with the anti-drift element 3” without explicit evidence. Examiner’s best guess Applicant is again relying on imprecision in the hand drawing. Again, a person of ordinary skill in the art would assume the fin is on the centerline because that’s the normal position of single rear fins. You can see this pretty clearly back on page 12 of the Final Rejection date 27 Nov 2024 in the parent application 18773625, cut and paste here.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner is not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would assume the rear fin deviates from the normal position of a rear fin because the drawing quality of Didier is imprecise.
In remarks paragraph 13, Applicant argues Didier fails to disclose specific numerical dimensions. This is true. It’s why Examiner added the North reference, to explain that scaling and balancing lateral forces is well understood. North discussing balancing wind force with the below water appendages of keel/centerboard/rudder; Didier suggests putting on the central fin to balance wind force of a kite or wing. Examiner appreciates that Applicant’s specification does not explain how the dimensions are scaled, that’s why Examiner used reference that explains the theory. Applicant argues that North does not teach that resistance of a sail boat keels are on the centerline. This is true: it’s knowledge common in the art, it’s the basic assumption of a keel to be along a centerline. Examiner also agrees North suggests balancing moments of CE and CR around the horizontal axes for wind. Examiner disagrees this means North teaches away from balancing moments around vertical axes, like across the underwater appendages. Balancing moments around vertical axes is the “helm” North discusses, the steering axis. It’s why Examiner used 2 different modification paragraphs in the last action: one for balancing around each axis to make it explicit. The Examiner was not persuaded that North fails to teach balancing moments based on fin size that can be applied to central fins and rear fins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 7 March 2026