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 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) and further in view of Wese (Amazon Fin Replacement, On Sale Feb 20, 2022)
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 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 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 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 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. Didier discloses “It is firmly fixed in this way by any means, but advantageously by one or more straps which go around the S.U.P.” but does not explicitly disclose attaching the balancing fin with a fixing holder.
Swan discloses wherein a fixinq holder which comprises a fixing plate permanently fixed to the bottom surface of the board body and a holdinq body extended from the fixing plate, wherein the holding body has a holdinq 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. (See Fig. 7, 8). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to substitute the straps and plate for the fixing holder of Swan which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Didier is to use a consistent appendage mounting system for fins and keel that can facilitate mounting of appendages. Swan in view of Didier does not suggest dimensions for the fixing holder.
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. (See Fig.) 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.
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”) and keel/centerboards are definitionally along the centerline of the vessel. 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 and further in view of Wese 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)
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 Wese 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, S Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott and further in view of Wese 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 and further in view of Wese 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 and further in view of Wese discloses the inflatable paddleboard of Claim 1 wherein 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 and further in view of Wese 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 and further in view of Wese 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 and further in view of Wese 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 and further in view of Wese 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 and further in view of Scott and further in view of Wese 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)
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 and further in view of Wese 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 Wese 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 and further in view of Wese 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 and further in view of Wese and further in view of Miller 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 and further in view of Wese and further in view of Miller 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 and further in view of Wese 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, and wherein the fixing plate has one or more holes (the hole feature is best seen in Swan Fig. 7, Fig. 8.) 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. (See Fig.) 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.
Regarding Claim 22, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott and further in view of Wese disclose the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 21, wherein the fixing plate has at least one bottom groove.
Regarding Claim 23, Swan in view of Didier and further in view of North and further in view of Scott and further in view of Wese disclose the inflatable paddle board, as recited in claim 22, wherein a plurality of reinforcing ribs is provided in each corresponding bottom groove.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23, 24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 31 of U.S. Patent No. 12351279. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 31 of the ’79 patent contains all the features of the present Claims 23 and 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s feature of “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” is descriptive of a normal fin because it has two sides integrated with each other. It’s descriptive of Applicant’s Fig. 17, not Applicant’s Fig. 18 with two keels. No matter how complex the description of the process, in an apparatus claim, it’s still the same product. See MPEP 2113 for product by process. The complex description is still descriptive of the same real-world object, a single keel, that Didier suggests placing on the bottom of a paddleboard as an anti-drift plane for use with a kite.
103 - Non-Analogous Art with North
Applicant argues “Swan does not identify the problem of instability caused by lateral movement of a standing user on an inflatable paddle board”. This is true. Examiner used a different motivation. See MPEP 2144-IV Rational Different from Applicant’s is permissible. “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)” See MPEP 2145. The advantages gained by adding an anti-drift plate to a paddleboard is a feature of Didier to assist with wind power in the form of a kite or wing. The general balancing principles, balancing moments created by the above water the wind force with the moments created by the resistance of the below water appendages is taught by North Sails. This is directly applicable to the anti-drift plate of Didier which balances the above water the wind force moments with resistance moment of the below water appendages. The moment arm also is optimized for the position. It’s the same general principle of physics analogous to all floating objects; the difference that makes it inapplicable would need to be a difference in how the physis of balance works that changes the principle of operation, like, it’s on dry land and the keel is held against a rock. Applicant presented no evidence that the combination using the general laws of physics recognized for centerboards on sailboats changes the principle of operation for anti-drift keels on paddleboards. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
103 -Combination with Scott
Scott is used to teach a three fin (Thruster) arrangement on a surfboard with a central fin and two side fins like shown in Applicant’s Fig. 18. It demonstrates it’s a common alternative to the two fins of Swan. Applicant argues several grounds including “The disclosed fin is mainly concerned with the structural strength and stiffness of a fin body, including composite reinforcement layers and improved fin characteristics” and “Scott provides no teaching regarding the cooperation between a larger central balancing fin and a smaller central rear fin.” Examiner’s position is “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”; In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2145-III. Examiner does not agree it’s beyond routine optimization because it's a known alternative for fin placement. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
103 with Didier
Applicant’s characterizerization of Didier teaching “providing an auxiliary anti-drift device attached to an existing paddle board without modifying the board structure” is applicant’s own language. Didier actually teaches “a device for temporarily fixing an anti-drift plane on a SUP”, the plane part (the fin), is temporary. Like the removeable fin with fixing base in Swan, or Wese on Amazon. The base is permanently fixed, the fin pops out. It does not teach it needs to be off-center or unsymmetrtical, it’s just a rough sketch. It does teach anti-drift plane is substantially larger than the rear fin, even in the rough sketch. Applicant argues it would require a complete redesign to provide a fixed holder. Examiner disagrees. It just takes a substitution of a product you can get on Amazon. It's another way to hold an appendage onto a board, the same one already used by Swan on a temporarily attached fin. Again, there is no evidence that the principle of operation of a fin changes, just an argument. Applicant argues that a different combination of replacing the track would also be obvious. This is also true. That multiple combinations would be obvious demonstrates the physics of the combination to achieve is well understood for the problem to be solved. There was no evidence that the proposed combination would be non-operable.
The main argument, the one in bold is there is “no reason to abandon its overall removable fin accessory structure and instead permanently fix only a holder portion to the inflatable board while allowing the fin body to be separately detachable.” Examiner disagrees. Swan already uses a fixing base (in the industry called a fin box) that allows someone to pop in and out a fin without fiddling with strap length. Standardizing parts to keep the same principle of operation throughout a product is a common motivation. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
103 - Dimensions
The fin box/fixing holder from Amazon overlaps the claimed dimension of the fixing mount. North Sails teaches using below water area is a result-effective variable to balance out the moments of the above water forces. The specific range is anticipated when it is overlapped within the boundaries of the range. See MPEP 2144.05. The entire range does not need to be cited by the prior art in order to anticipate a range. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is submitted.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 18 Sept 2026
Prosecution Insights