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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Comments
As before, there does not appear to be a power of attorney document present in the file wrapper, despite it appearing as if the applicant is being represented by a power of attorney in prosecution. The examiner requests that the applicant submit a power of attorney with their response. The examiner notes that, without a power of attorney on record, the examiner is unable to discuss details of the case over the phone with anyone other than the named applicant(s) on the application. See MPEP 402 for guidance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by La Fleur (US 2536553, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Fleur.
Regarding claim 1:
Fleur discloses a fishing lure (casting lure 10, Fig 1), comprising:
an elongated body (body 11, Fig 1) shaped as a live baitfish (see Fig 2: imitates the shape of a live baitfish; Col 2, lines 5-10) and including a head (head 16, Fig 2), a tail (tail end 33, Fig 2), a first side (see annotated Fig 1 below), a second side (see annotated Fig 1 below), and a belly (belly is middle portion of bottom wall 15), wherein both the head and the tail are bent in a first direction toward the belly (see Fig 2), and the tail is further bent in a second direction laterally toward the first side (see Fig 1 and attribution of first side, as annotated below); and
a tip connected to the head (eye 22, Fig 2) and configured for towing the fishing lure through water (Col 1, line 60 – Col 2, line 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein: the body is colored to mimic colors of the live baitfish (Col 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 7:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein: the live baitfish is one of: an anchovy, a herring, a sardine, a freshwater minnow, a salmon smolt, trout smolt, or a fry (the lure is shaped as a live baitfish, and could be considered shaped as any number of fish, including a minnow, sardine, anchovy, etc.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleur, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Rossman (US 6158161, as cited on previous 892) hereinafter referred to as Rossman.
Regarding claim 4:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the body is configured to corkscrew around a longitudinal axis (per Col 1, lines 10-15 and Col 2, lines 1-5: the lure bobs up and down and wiggles from side to side as the lure is drawn through the water; these combined motions would result in the lure corkscrewing) and the head and the tail are configured to spiral at similar distances away from the longitudinal axis when the fishing lure is towed through the water by its tip (functional language: it is the position of the examiner, given the structure presented in Fleur, that the lure is inherently capable of functioning as such – see MPEP 2114(I)).
Alternatively, for the sake of compact prosecution, should the applicant disagree that the head and tail of Fleur are configured to spiral at similar distances away from the longitudinal axis when the fishing lure is towed through the water by its tip:
Rossman discloses a fishing lure which travels along a spiral path as it is towed through the water, wherein the head and tail spiral at similar distances away from the longitudinal axis when the fishing lure is towed through the water by its tip, and contemplates the obviousness of variation in relative diameter of spiral of head/tail (Col 4, line 58 – Col 5, line 13)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lure of Fleur such that the head and tail similar distances about the longitudinal axis, as in Rossman, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the orientation and action of the lure to the fish species being targeted, Rossman mentioning that the claimed limitation is ‘preferable’. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rossman (US 6158161, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Rossman.
Regarding claim 5:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fleur fails to specifically disclose that the body comprises a reflective coating configured to reflect light to mimic the live baitfish.
Rossman discloses a reflective coating on its lure configured to reflect light to mimic the live baitfish (Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the body of the lure of Fleur with a reflective coating, as in Rossman, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to better imitate the natural reflectiveness of fish scales, or to better attract a targeted fish’s attention with light reflection as the lure moves.
Regarding claim 11:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses a hook connected to the tail (hook 30, Fig 2).
Fleur fails to disclose that the fishing lure further comprises a swivel attached to the tip.
Rossman discloses a corkscrewing fishing lure with a swivel attached to a tip of a head portion of the lure, the swivel being configured to connect the lure to a fishing line and provide a freedom of movement that allows the lure to corkscrew when towed through water without over twisting the fishing line (Col 3, line 64 – Col 4, line 6; second swivel, not shown, connects forward end of leader 28, which is connected to a tip of head portion 20, to main fishing line so as to inhibit twisting of main line due to spiraling action);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have provided a swivel between the tip and line of Fleur, as in Rossman, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to make it easier to replace the lure or its components, or prevent the line from knotting on itself internally. Additionally, Rossman discloses that a swivel prevents over twisting of the fishing line (Col 3, line 64 – Col 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 12:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
The modified reference fails to specifically disclose that the hook is detachably connected with a swivel configured to allow rotation of the hook at an angular frequency different that an angular frequency at which the body corkscrews.
However, Rossman further contemplates a hook that is detachably connected to the body of the lure with a swivel that provides a freedom of movement so that the hook can rotate at an angular frequency different than an angular frequency at which the lure corkscrews (Col 4, lines 7-15: swivel allows for hook to rotate freely relative to shell).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a swivel connection between the hook and body of Fleur, as in Rossman, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Rossman, a swivel between the hook and the rest of the lure is important in order to allow the hook to rotate freely relative to the shell and not act as a keel and impair the rolling action of the lure (Col 4, lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 13:
Fleur as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and further discloses wherein the body is configured to corkscrew, such that a path of the body through the water defines a cylinder, with the hook trailing the body inside the cylinder (functional language: it is the position of the examiner, given the analogous structure in Fleur, that the lure is inherently capable of functioning as such – see MPEP 2114(I): a cylinder would form due to motion described in Col 1, lines 10-15 and Col 2, lines 1-5, which would result in a corkscrew pattern; since the hook is freely mobile relative to the body of the lure per the swivel, it is therefore inherently capable of trailing the body inside the cylinder).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleur, as applied to claim 1, in view of White (US 10159231, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as White.
Regarding claim 8:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Fleur fails to specifically disclose that the body comprises a material having a density to mimic the buoyancy of the baitfish.
White discloses a fishing lure with a body made of a material with a density similar to the density of a bait fish (Col 2, lines 34-45).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the body of Fleur of a material having a density similar to a density of a bait fish, as in White, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in White, predator fish typically feel and know the natural weight and water displacement for bait fish, thus making it desirable for the body to closely match the weight and geometry of a bait fish (Col 2, lines 34-45).
Regarding claim 9:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein how much each of the head and tail portions are bent dictates an angular frequency at which the lure corkscrews when towed through water (as best understood, this is simply a hydrodynamic principle, and does not provide further limitation to the structure itself).
Fleur fails to specifically disclose that bending of at least one of the head or the tail portion is adjustable.
White discloses a fishing lure with a body configured for adjustment by bending (Col 2, lines 36-40; Col 3, lines 36-37; Col 4, lines 42-52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the body of Fleur of a material configured for adjustment by bending, as in White, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in White, bendability allows for variable geometrical configuration of the lure so as to simulate a wounded, dying, or otherwise distressed fish as it travels through the water and attract predator fish (Col 4, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 10:
Fleur discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the head and tail are bent (head and tail are bent per Figs 1-2) so that, when towed through water by its tip at a particular speed, the fishing lure being configured to corkscrew at an angular frequency (per Col 1, lines 10-15 and Col 2, lines 1-5: the lure bobs up and down and wiggles from side to side as the lure is drawn through the water; these combined motions would result in the lure corkscrewing, an angular frequency would be inherent to a spiral motion) for attracting a targeted fish species being targeted (functional language: capable of attracting a targeted fish species with its movement pattern).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the previous 112(a) rejection of claim 4 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, the applicant argues that Fleur does not describe an elongated body “shaped as a live baitfish.” Rather, it only that the lure may be made of colored plastic “according to size and nature of bait desired” which speaks only to color/ size selection, not a baitfish-shaped body.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that “shaped as a live baitfish is extremely broad,” and it is clear from the oblong shape shown in the figures, the cited paragraph clearly referring to the mimicry of a bait fish, and the fact that Fleur refers to sections of the body’s shape as “tail end”, “head end”, “belly portion”, etc., that Fleur meets this limitation. The applicant has failed to specify what makes the shape of Fleur, as seen in the pictures not baitfish-shaped; further, the consideration of the elongate body of Fleur as baitfish-shaped is aligned with the applicants own invention, which is portrayed with a very similar elongate shape.
On pages 4-5, the applicant argues that Fleur doesn’t teach a tail/head portion that is bent towards the belly, the tail portion further bent in a second direction towards one lateral side after being bent towards the belly. Although the applicant acknowledges the arcuate shape of the body portrayed in the figures, they seem to imply that, since the body is formed in the arcuate shape, that it cannot have portions considered “bent” towards other portions.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2111, the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and claims must be given their “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) in light of the specification, unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification. This being said, the word bent is defined by Dictionary.com as “curved; crooked.” This definition is understood as the plain meaning of the term under broadest reasonable interpretation, and is consistent with the specification. By the applicant’s own admission, the head and tail end are curved/arcuate, and it is plain to see from Figs 1-2, that the direction of curvature of each of the head and tail section is aligned with the directions claimed. The applicant seems to imply some sort of method step with their arguments, that the body of Fleur cannot be considered bent, given it is not described as being straight initially, then deformed away from straight into a certain direction, and that the tail end cannot be “further” bent laterally, since Fleur does not explicitly disclose a step of bending the tail down towards the belly, then, bending the tail laterally to the side. To this assertion, the examiner reminds the applicant that the elected claim set is directed to an apparatus, and therefore cannot require a step (as in a method claim); even if a process of making the lure is described, such language will be treated as a product-by-process limitation, and the claim limitation will not be limited to the manipulations of the steps, rather only the structure implied by the steps (in this, hypothetical, case – simply curvature, which is present in Fleur). See MPEP 2113(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haldin (CA 2727225 A1) discloses a lure bendable in a variety of configurations, including a twisted one (see Fig 5D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642