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 .
Application Status
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claims 4-12, 16-17, and 19-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 3, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Pub. 20100058641) in view of Breunig et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200281178).
In regard to claim 1, Lee discloses a trolling device, comprising: a plurality of bait lures (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there are a plurality of bait lures 10), wherein more than one of the plurality of bait lures comprise: a body (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where the bait lures 10 have a body 12); a fixed keel that extends from a ventral surface of the body at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a fixed keel 14 that extends from a ventral surface of the body 12 at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body 12), such that, when trolling in a body of water at or near a surface of the body of water, the body is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel (Figs. 1-7 and 11 and Paragraphs [0046] and [0072-0073], where the body 12 is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel); a head end; and a tail end (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a head end and a tail end of the body 12). Lee is silent on a plurality of interconnected bait lures; wherein the plurality of interconnected bait lures are interconnected by a line extending between the tail end of a preceding bait lure and the head end of a succeeding bait lure; a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body; and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees. Breunig et al. discloses a plurality of interconnected bait lures, wherein the plurality of interconnected bait lures are interconnected by a line extending between the tail end of a preceding bait lure and the head end of a succeeding bait lure (Fig. 1, where there is a plurality of interconnected bait lures 26 which are at least interconnected by a line 28 extending between the tail end of a preceding bait lure 26 and the head end of a succeeding bait 26); a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body (Fig. 1 and Claim 5, where there is lateral wing 15 extending outwardly from the body); and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (Paragraphs [0048] and [0098], where the angle of the keel is at least permanently (angle is unchanged once the keel is set at a desired angle) fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (“keel is set at an angle of 45 or 40 or 35 or 30”)). Lee and Breunig et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Lee such that a plurality of interconnected bait lures; wherein the plurality of interconnected bait lures are interconnected by a line extending between the tail end of a preceding bait lure and the head end of a succeeding bait lure; a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body; and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees in view of Breunig et al. The motivation would have been to use a lateral wing structure to provide desired positioning of the lure body, while in use. Furthermore, using a plurality of interconnected bait lures would provide a higher probability of success while fishing, due to the increased number of available lures for fish to strike onto. Lastly, placing the keel at a desired angle would allow for customization of the lateral and outward distance of the bait lure while in use, relative to the direction of travel of the fishing vessel, in order to “increase the width of the full trolling lure spread” as desired (Breunig et al., Abstract and Paragraphs [0048] and [0098]).
In regard to claim 3, Lee as modified by Breunig et al. discloses the trolling device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of interconnected bait lures create a lateral separation when trolling (Breunig et al., Figs. 1-2 and Claim 1, where the body 12 is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel to at least create a lateral separation when trolling; Lee, Figs. 1-7 and 11 and Paragraphs [0046] and [0072-0073], where the plurality of bait lures create a lateral separation when trolling). Lee as modified by Breunig et al. is silent on the lateral separation increases as a number of interconnected bait lures increases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Lee as modified by Breunig et al. such that each bait lure has a keel and a lateral wing which increases the lateral separation as a number of interconnected bait lures increases, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.. The motivation would have been to relatively increase the lateral separation of the device by having multiple lures with a keel and a lateral wing, thereby allowing the device to cover a relatively larger area of the water when in use.
In regard to claim 13, Lee as modified by Breunig et al. discloses the trolling device of claim 1, wherein a pitch of the wing is adjustable (Breunig et al., Fig. 1 and Claim 6, where the lateral wing 15 is adjustable about a lateral axis (pitch is perpendicular to longitudinal axis and therefore is on the lateral axis)).
In regard to claim 14, Lee as modified by Breunig et al. discloses the trolling device of claim 1, wherein the body is an elongated body and configured to assist with planing lift (Breunig et al., Paragraph [0103] and Fig. 1, where the body 12 is an elongated body and configured to at least assist with planing lift).
In regard to claim 15, Lee discloses a trolling device, comprising: at least one of the bait lures comprises (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a trolling device with a bait lure 10): a body (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where the bait lure 10 has a body 12); a fixed keel that extends from a ventral surface of the body at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a fixed keel 14 that extends from a ventral surface of the body 12 at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body 12), such that, when trolling in a body of water at or near a surface of the body of water, the body is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel (Figs. 1-7 and 11 and Paragraphs [0046] and [0072-0073], where the body 12 is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel); a head end; and a tail end (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a head end and a tail end of the body 12); and wherein the trolling device does not comprise a spreader bar to provide stability (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where the trolling device does not have a spreader bar to help provide stability). Lee is silent on a plurality of interconnected bait lures; a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body; wherein the keel and the lateral wing work in conjunction to provide stability and planing lift for the bait lure when the bait lure is caused to troll in the body of water such that the bait lure maintains a position on or below a surface of the body of water in a stabile manner; and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees. Breunig et al. discloses a plurality of interconnected bait lures (Figs. 2 and 3C, where there is a trolling device 10 with a bait lure 12); a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body (Figs. 2 and 3C and Claim 5, where there is lateral wing 15 extending outwardly from the body); wherein the keel and the lateral wing work in conjunction to provide stability and planing lift for the bait lure when the bait lure is caused to troll in the body of water such that the bait lure maintains a position on or below a surface of the body of water in a stabile manner (Figs. 2 and 3C and Paragraphs [0019], [0048], and [0101-0103], where the keel 14 and the lateral wing 15 work together to provide stability and planing lift for the bait lure 12 to maintain a position on or below a surface of the water in a stabile manner); and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (Paragraphs [0048] and [0098], where the angle of the keel is at least permanently (angle is unchanged once the keel is set at a desired angle) fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (“keel is set at an angle of 45 or 40 or 35 or 30”)). Lee and Breunig et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Lee such that a plurality of interconnected bait lures; a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body; wherein the keel and the lateral wing work in conjunction to provide stability and planing lift for the bait lure when the bait lure is caused to troll in the body of water such that the bait lure maintains a position on or below a surface of the body of water in a stabile manner; and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees in view of Breunig et al. The motivation would have been to use a lateral wing structure to provide desired positioning of the lure body, while in use. Furthermore, using a plurality of interconnected bait lures would provide a higher probability of success while fishing, due to the increased number of available lures for fish to strike onto. Lastly, placing the keel at a desired angle would allow for customization of the lateral and outward distance of the bait lure while in use, relative to the direction of travel of the fishing vessel, in order to “increase the width of the full trolling lure spread” as desired (Breunig et al., Abstract and Paragraphs [0048] and [0098]).
In regard to claim 18, Lee discloses a trolling device, comprising: a plurality of bait lures (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there are a plurality of bait lures 10), each bait lure comprising: a body (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where the bait lures 10 have a body 12); a fixed keel that extends from a ventral surface of the body at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a fixed keel 14 that extends from a ventral surface of the body 12 at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body 12), such that, when trolling in a body of water at or near a surface of the body of water, the body is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel (Figs. 1-7 and 11 and Paragraphs [0072-0073], where the body 12 is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel); a head end; and a tail end (Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a head end and a tail end of the body 12). Lee is silent on a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body; wherein each preceding-succeeding bait lure pair of the plurality of bait lures includes a line extending between the tail end of the preceding bait lure and the head end of the succeeding bait lure; and wherein the keel and the lateral wing of each bait lure work in conjunction to provide stability and planing lift for the trolling device when the trolling device is caused to troll in the body of water such that the trolling device maintains a position on or below a surface of the body of water in a stabile manner; and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees. Breunig et al. discloses a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body (Fig. 1 and Claim 5, where there is lateral wing 15 extending outwardly from the body); wherein each preceding-succeeding bait lure pair of the plurality of bait lures includes a line extending between the tail end of the preceding bait lure and the head end of the succeeding bait lure (Fig. 1, where each preceding-succeeding bait lure pair 26 of the plurality of bait lures 26 includes a line 28 extending between the tail end of the preceding bait lure 26 and the head end of the succeeding bait lure 26); and wherein the keel and the lateral wing of each bait lure work in conjunction to provide stability and planing lift for the trolling device when the trolling device is caused to troll in the body of water such that the trolling device maintains a position on or below a surface of the body of water in a stabile manner (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0019], [0048], and [0101-0103], where the keel 14 and the lateral wing 15 work together to provide stability and planing lift for the trolling device to maintain a position on or below a surface of the water in a stabile manner); and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (Paragraphs [0048] and [0098], where the angle of the keel is at least permanently (angle is unchanged once the keel is set at a desired angle) fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (“keel is set at an angle of 45 or 40 or 35 or 30”)). Lee and Breunig et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Lee such that a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body; wherein each preceding-succeeding bait lure pair of the plurality of bait lures includes a line extending between the tail end of the preceding bait lure and the head end of the succeeding bait lure; and wherein the keel and the lateral wing of each bait lure work in conjunction to provide stability and planing lift for the trolling device when the trolling device is caused to troll in the body of water such that the trolling device maintains a position on or below a surface of the body of water in a stabile manner; and wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees in view of Breunig et al. The motivation would have been to use a lateral wing structure to provide desired positioning of the lure body, while in use. Furthermore, using a plurality of interconnected bait lures would provide a higher probability of success while fishing, due to the increased number of available lures for fish to strike onto. Lastly, placing the keel at a desired angle would allow for customization of the lateral and outward distance of the bait lure while in use, relative to the direction of travel of the fishing vessel, in order to “increase the width of the full trolling lure spread” as desired (Breunig et al., Abstract and Paragraphs [0048] and [0098]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell, Jr. (U.S. Pat. D834680) in view of Correll et al. (U.S. Pat. 5193299) and Breunig et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200281178).
In regard to claim 18, McDonnell, Jr. discloses a plurality of bait lures (3 lures in Fig. 1), each bait lure comprising a body, a fixed keel that extends from a ventral surface of the body at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body, such that, when trolling in a body of water at or near a surface of the body of water, the body is guided laterally outwardly from a direction of travel (see fixed elongated triangular shaped fin along bottom of the body in Fig. 3, which is at least extending from a ventral surface of the body at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the body and at least configured for lateral movement when trolling in a body of water), a head end, a tail end; wherein each preceding-succeeding bait lure pair includes a line extending between the tail end of the preceding bait and the head end of the succeeding bait lure (see Fig. 1); and wherein the keel of each bait lure work in conjunction to provide stability for the trolling device when the device is caused to troll in the body of water such that the trolling device maintains a position below a surface of the body of water in a stable manner. McDonnell, Jr. does not disclose each bait lure comprising a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body. Correll et al. disclose a bait lure (10 in Fig. 4) with a body (body of 10), a fixed keel (see fixed smaller rectangular shaped fin along the bottom of the body in Fig. 4), and a lateral wing (16) extending outwardly from the body (see Fig. 3). McDonnell, Jr. and Correll et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the bait lures of McDonnell, Jr. such that each bait lure has a lateral wing extending outwardly from the body in view of Correll et al. The motivation would have been to provide structures upon the body of the bait lure which simulate pectoral fins of the fish to make the lure look more realistic (see col. 6, lines 30-56 of Correll et al.).
McDonnell, Jr. does not disclose wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees. Breunig et al. discloses wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (Paragraphs [0048] and [0098], where the angle of the keel is at least permanently (angle is unchanged once the keel is set at a desired angle) fixed between 30 and 35 degrees (“keel is set at an angle of 45 or 40 or 35 or 30”)). McDonnell, Jr. and Breunig et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of McDonnell, Jr. such that wherein the angle is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees in view of Breunig et al. Placing the keel at a desired angle would allow for customization of the lateral and outward distance of the bait lure while in use, relative to the direction of travel of the fishing vessel, in order to “increase the width of the full trolling lure spread” as desired (Breunig et al., Abstract and Paragraphs [0048] and [0098]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 02/12/2026) with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Lee (U.S. Pub. 20100058641) in view of Breunig et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200281178) closes the applicant’s claims 1, 15, and 18 as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
Specifically, Lee teaches a fixed keel that extends from a ventral surface of the body at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body in Figs. 1-7 and 11, where there is a fixed keel 14 that extends from a ventral surface of the body 12 at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body 12. Similarly, McDonnell, Jr. teaches a fixed keel that extends from a ventral surface of the body at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the body (fixed elongated triangular shaped fin along bottom of the body in Fig. 3).
Furthermore, Breunig et al. teaches the angle of the keel is permanently fixed between 30 and 35 degrees in Paragraphs [0048] and [0098], where the angle of the keel is at least permanently fixed (angle is unchanged once the keel is set at the desired angle) between 30 and 35 degrees (“keel is set at an angle of 45 or 40 or 35 or 30”). The phrase “permanently fixed” is interpreted as the keel not having the ability to move relative to the lure bait body, once the keel is set at a certain angle. This is in line with any fixed keel structure, which provides “permanent” fixture of the keel at a certain angle. The angle of the keel, in the limitation described above, is clearly already shown in Breunig et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of fishing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647