DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action in in response to the application filed on August 19, 2025, and any subsequent filings.
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 plurality of supports extending from underneath the base portion as recited in Claim 6 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 11, line 12, the word “that” should appear before “users” to render the claim grammatically correct;
In Claims 13-15, the term “apparatus” in the preambles is not consistent with the term “lifeboats” used in Claim 11 from which the claims depend; and,
In Claim 16, line 10, the word “that” should appear before “users” to render the claim grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Independent Claims 11 and 16 each recite a “fluid environment” which include both liquids and gases.
The specification does not provide sufficient evidence to support enablement of these claims based on the In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988), factor analysis below such that undue experimentation would be required to arrive at the claimed invention. As to the breadth of the claims, the claims encompass both liquids and gases. As to the nature of the invention and the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the invention relates to a lifeboat which floats on water but not in air. As to the state of the prior art, level of ordinary skill, and predictability in the art, no evidence supports or detracts from enablement. As to the existence of working examples, no working examples have been given other than for a liquid weighing against enablement for a gas environment. Finally, as to the quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention, undue experimentation would be required to determine how the claimed invention could be used in a gas environment.
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 6 and 16-20 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 6 recites a plurality of supports extending from below the base portion yet nothing in the claim, specification, or drawings defines what is meant by supports. For purposes of examination, any structure attached to the base will be interpreted as a support.
Claim 16 recites “rest up” in the last line with respect to the second elevation yet the meaning of this limitation has not been defined in the claim, specification, or drawings.
The dependent claims not specifically detailed above contain the limitations of the recited claims and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindberg, U.S. Patent No. 1,058,609 (“Lindberg”) in view of Casey, U.S. Patent No. 196,874 (“Casey”) and further in view of Sherman, U.S. Patent No. 2,348,859 (“Sherman”).
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a device.
Regarding Claims 1-8, Lindberg discloses a lifeboat for buoying users and with a potable water supply, the lifeboat comprising a base portion comprising a step forming a continuous periphery of the lifeboat (Fig. 1, item 3, Page (“Pg”) 1 / L30-33); a seating portion extending around the lifeboat, the seating portion disposed inward of the step and configured such that the users face outward from the center of the lifeboat (Figs. 1, 2, items 16, Pg1/L71-76 (note whether users face inward or outward is an intended use which does not distinguish the structure over the prior art (see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does") (emphasis in original))); a water tank disposed at least partially inward of the seating portion (Fig. 1, item 19, Pg1/L84); the seating portion comprising a plurality of first handles, upwardly facing, spaced-apart on the seating area, and configured to be accessible by the users (Fig. 1 (note handles extending from seats 16)); the seating portion comprising a plurality of second handles, facing the continuous periphery of the step, and proximal to the base (Fig. 1, items 11, Pg1/L47-55); and wherein the second handles are configured such that the users can grasp one or more of the second handles and climb upon the step to reach the seating portion (Fig. 1, items 11).
Lindberg does not disclose the water tank being centered on the base or the water tank having a water inlet opening and a water dispenser.
Regarding Claims 11-15, Lindberg discloses a potable water supply lifeboat for rescuing users from a fluid environment, the lifeboat comprising a base portion comprising a peripheral step, the base portion configured to float on the fluid environment when in use (Fig. 1, item 3, Pg1/L30-33); a seating portion contiguous with and disposed inward of the peripheral step, the seating portion configured such that the users seated on the seating portion face away from the lifeboat (Figs. 1, 2, items 16, Pg1/L71-76 (note whether users face inward or outward is an intended use which does not distinguish the structure over the prior art)); a water tank disposed at least partially inward of the seating portion (Fig. 1, item 19, Pg1/L84); the seating portion comprising a plurality of handles positioned proximal to the peripheral step (Fig. 1, items 11, Pg1/L47-55); wherein the base is disposed adjacent to the fluid environment such users in the fluid environment may grasp one or more of the plurality of handles, and climb upon the step to reach the seating area (Fig. 1, items 11).
Lindberg does not disclose a water tank centered on the base portion or the water tank having a water inlet opening and a water dispenser.
Regarding Claims 16-20, Lindberg discloses a potable water supply lifeboat for rescuing users from a fluid environment, the lifeboat comprising a base portion comprising a first elevation with a plurality of handles arranged in proximity to the first elevation, the base portion configured to float on the fluid environment when in use (Fig. 1, items 3, 11 (lower rung), Pg1/L30-33,47-55); a second elevation disposed above and inward of the first elevation with a plurality of handles arranged in proximity to the second elevation (Fig. 1, item 11 (middle rung), Pg1/L30-33,47-55); a water tank disposed at least partially inward of the second elevation (Fig. 1, item 19, Pg1/L84); wherein the base is disposed adjacent to the fluid environment such users in the fluid environment may grasp one or more of the plurality of handles in proximity to the first elevation, and climb upon the first elevation to grasp the plurality of handles in proximity to the second elevation in order to rest up the second elevation (Fig. 1, items 11; see also 112(b) analysis above).
Lindberg does not disclose a water tank centered on the base portion or the water tank having a water inlet opening and a water dispenser.
Casey also relates to a lifeboat with a potable water supply and discloses the water tank being centered on the base (Fig. 2, item D, C1/Paragraph 6 (“Pr”)).
Sherman also relates to a lifeboat with a potable water supply and discloses the water tank having a water inlet opening and a water dispenser (Fig. 4, items 27, Pg1/L54 (note upper necks may be used for filling and lower necks for dispensing)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the water tank disclosed by Lindberg in the center on the base as disclosed by Casey because, according to Casey, the water tank placement allows for comfortable seats to be placed around the periphery (C1/Pr6). It would have also been obvious to combine the lifeboat disclosed by the combination of Lindberg and Casey with the water inlet and dispenser disclosed by Sherman because, according to Sherman, the inlet and dispenser make the water accessible upon launching the lifeboat (Pg1/L54-Pg2/L2).
Additional Disclosures Included: Claims 2, 12: wherein the water inlet opening is disposed on a top portion of the water tank (Sherman Fig. 2 (note upper location of inlet necks 27)). Claims 3, 13, 20: wherein the water dispenser is disposed on a side portion of the water tank (Sherman Fig. 2 (note lower location of dispensing necks 27)). Claim 4: wherein the continuous periphery of the step is polygonal (Sherman Figs. 1, 2, item 30, Pg1/L11-14). Claims 5, 15: wherein the seating portion is polygonal, and wherein the seating portion is aligned with the base portion (Sherman, Figs. 1-5, items19 (Pg1/L27-30)). Claim 6: a plurality of supports extending from underneath the base portion (Lindberg, Fig. 1 (note sloped vertical wall supporting base 3); see also 112(b) analysis above). Claim 7: wherein the seating portion comprises a backrest portion surrounding the water tank (Lindberg, Figs. 1, 2, items 17, Pg1/L71-76). Claim 8: wherein the backrest portion comprises a plurality of cutouts comprising backrest handles (Lindberg, Figs. 1, 2, items 17 (note backrest portion between seat provides handles)). Claims 9, 17, 18: a plurality of oars mountable on the lifeboat (Sherman, Pg1/L54-Pg2/L3 (note sockets for mounting oars)). Claim 10: wherein the lifeboat is configured to store the plurality of oars between the seating portion and the water tank (Sherman, Figs. 1-4 (note locations of oar lock sockets 26 and necks 27 necessarily require oars between seating portion 19 and water tanks)). Claims 14, 19: wherein the base portion is polygonal (Sherman, Figs. 1, 2, 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ORME whose telephone number is (408)918-. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 6:00 pm Pacific Time.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240.
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.
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779