Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8-27-25 has been entered.
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
2. 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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,971,386 to Garrett in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0095851 to Petry and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,745,702 to Koch.
Referring to claim 1, Garrett discloses a trolling teaser for trolling and attracting fish, the teaser comprising, an elongate body – at 10,40, extending between a frontal end and a rear end – see a 10,40 in figures 1-2, wherein adjacent the front end of the body is a tethering attachment – at 70, to tether the elongate body to a towline – at 26, and allow the teaser to be towed – see figures 1-4b, one or more light sources mounted to the elongate body for radiating light and attracting fish – see for example column 19 lines 38-48 and column 21 lines 34-42 where the lights are visible to the user and therefore capable of attracting fish, and a programmable light source microcontroller – at 14,200-204, housed within an internal volume of the elongate body – at 10,14 – see figures 1-4b, for controlling operation of the one or more light source sources – see figure 9, further comprising a hydroplane – at 11,13,50, that is attached to the front end of the elongate body – via the bottom surface of 10,40 – see figures 1-4b, that forces the elongate body under water when the teaser is being towed – see figures 18-20 and operation of the device detailed in columns 15-16 and 21-22. Garrett does not disclose the tethering attachment is at the front end of the body and the hydroplane is attached at or adjacent the front end of the elongate body and the hydroplane is non-movable with respect to the elongated body during towing. Petry does disclose the tethering attachment – at 19, is at the front end of the body – see figure 1, and the hydroplane – at 32, is attached at or adjacent the front end of the elongate body – see figure 1 with the front portion of the bottom hydroplane is at the front of the body – see at 32 in figure 1, and the hydroplane – at 32, is non-movable with respect to the elongated body – at 30, during towing – see figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0019]-[0023] detailing the hydroplane – at 32 can be set into desired positions and can be made to be non-movable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett and add the tethering attachment and hydroplane at or near the front of the elongated body and have the non-movable hydroplane as disclosed by Petry, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the position of the device to be better controlled and maintained into the desired orientation and position during operation. Garrett as modified by Petry does not disclose a non-movable hydroplane comprising control surfaces that forces force the elongate body under water when the teaser is being towed and wherein the elongate body rises above the surface of the water when the teaser is not being towed. Koch does disclose a non-movable hydroplane – at b,34 in figure 1 and – at 34,44,46, 34,48,50 in figures 4a-4d, comprising control surfaces – edges of items b,34,44,46,48,50, that forces force the elongate body – at 22,24, under water when the teaser is being towed – see for example column 3 line 59 to column 4 line 22 and see for example column 4 line 25 to column 5 line 27, and wherein the elongate body – at 22,24, rises to and above the surface of the water when the teaser is not being towed – see for example column 3 lines 37-45 and see for example column 6 lines 31-43. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and add the non-movable hydroplane and the elongate body rising to the surface of the body of water as disclosed by Koch, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the depth of the device to be controlled while making the device easier to retrieve from the water as desired.
Referring to claim 2, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the elongate body of the teaser is positively buoyant in water when the teaser is not being towed by a tow line – see figures 18-20 and column 15 line 16 to column 16 line 60 of Garrett, and wherein the tethering attachment attaches the tow line at an attachment location to substantially lower the elongate body of the teaser into water when the teaser is being towed by the towline behind a vessel pulling the towline – see at 19 in figures 1-3 of Petry.
Referring to claim 3, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the tethering attachment enables attachment of the towline at a plurality of attachment locations along the elongate body thereby allowing the elongate body of the teaser to be towed by the towline at varying depths in the water – see at 70,72 of Garrett and – at 19 of Petry.
Referring to claim 4, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses a centre of buoyancy of the elongate body is above a centre of mass of the elongate body thereby allowing the elongate body to be positively buoyant when not being towed by the towline – see figures 18-20, column 15 line 16 to column 16 line 60 and column 21 lines 4-33 of Garrett where the center of buoyancy can be varied and can be varied so that the devices buoyancy would allow for the center of buoyancy to be above the center of mass.
Referring to claim 5, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the tethering attachment is located along an upper portion of the elongate body – see at 70 in figures 1-4b of Garrett, at or adjacent the front end of the elongate body to enable the elongate body to be lowered into the water during towing – see adjacent to 30 at 19 in figures 1-3 of Petry. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the tethering attachment at or near the front of the elongated body as disclosed by Petry, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the position of the device to be better controlled and maintained during operation.
Referring to claim 6, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the elongate body comprises a top wall having a length extending between the front and rear ends and a width extending between opposed side walls, the side walls extending downwardly from the top wall – see at 30 in figures 1-3 of Petry, wherein the elongate body further comprises a bottom wall extending downwardly and inwardly from a lower portion of the side walls towards a central longitudinal axis of the elongate body – see at 34 in figures 1-3 of Petry, wherein the width of the top wall is greater than the height of the side walls to present a flattened and streamlined structure for the elongate body of the teaser – see width at the rear of the top wall of 30, being greater than the height of the sidewalls of 30 as seen in figures 1-3 of Petry. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the elongate body having walls in the orientations claimed as disclosed by Petry, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to more easily and accurately move during operation.
Referring to claim 7, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the elongate body comprises two body portions – at left side of 30, and right side of 30, connected to an internal body frame – at 34 – see figures 1-3 of Petry, each body portion comprising respective portions of the top wall, side wall and bottom wall – see at 30 in figures 1-3 of Petry. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the elongate body having walls in the orientations claimed as disclosed by Petry, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to more easily and accurately move during operation.
Referring to claim 8, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the hydroplane – at 11,13, is attached to the elongate body – at 10, to locate the hydroplane below a centre of buoyancy of the elongate body – see figures 1-4b of Garrett with the hydroplane at the very bottom of the device, wherein the hydroplane is attached below the tethering attachment – at 70, along a bottom wall portion of the elongate body to counter pull of the towline and enable the elongate body to trail in a substantially horizontal position – see at 10,11,13,70 in figures 1-4b of Garrett. Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the hydroplane – at 32, is removably attached to the elongate body – at 30 – see figures 1-3 of Petry. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and make the hydroplane removable from the body as disclosed by Petry, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to change the setup of the device based on the conditions in which the device is being used so as to better configure the device as needed.
Referring to claim 9, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the hydroplane is adjustably mounted along the elongate body to vary an angle of the hydroplane relative to a lower portion of the elongate body – see item 11 adjustable in figures 1-8b of Garrett, and thereby adjust a wading depth of the elongate body when towed – see figures 18-19 and columns 15-16 and 21-22 of Garrett.
Referring to claim 10, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the elongate body further comprises an upper mounting arrangement located along an upper portion of the elongate body for mounting accessories to the elongate body – see connection of items 26,28 to 30 in figures 1-3 of Petry. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the upper mounting arrangement of Petry, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the user to modify the device as necessary for the conditions in which the device is to be used.
Referring to claim 11, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the elongate body further comprises a lower mounting arrangement – at connection of 34 to 30, located along a lower portion of the elongate body – at 30 – see figures 1-3 of Petry, for mounting additional weights to the elongate body for lowering the centre of mass of the elongate body during towing – see capable of attaching weights in figures 1-3 of Petry. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the lower mounting arrangement of Petry, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the user to modify the device as necessary for the conditions in which the device is to be used.
Referring to claim 13, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the programmable light source microcontroller – at 14, is programmed to control operation of the light sources for mimicking bait fish – see processor and memory – at 202,204 of Garrett.
Referring to claim 15, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch further discloses the elongate body comprises elongate channels extending along the length and/or width of the elongate body, the channels being configured to receive said one or more light sources therein – see channel receiving 14 and channels in 14 in figures 1-6 of Garrett.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,617,105 to Wakefield.
Referring to claim 12, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch does not disclose the elongate body comprises a vertical tail fin located along the rear end of the elongate body and extending upwardly from an upper portion of the elongate body and further comprises opposed horizontal fins located at the rear end of the elongate body, the horizontal fins extending laterally and outwardly from the elongate body in a transverse direction relative to the direction of movement of the elongate body. Wakefield does disclose the elongate body comprises a vertical tail fin located along the rear end of the elongate body – see at the rear of 13 in figure 1 of Wakefield, and extending upwardly from an upper portion of the elongate body – at 13, and further comprises opposed horizontal fins located at the rear end of the elongate body – see at the rear of 13 in figure 1 of Wakefield, the horizontal fins extending laterally and outwardly from the elongate body in a transverse direction relative to the direction of movement of the elongate body – see at the rear of 13 in figure 1 of Wakefield. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Wakefield and Koch and add the tail fin of Wakefield, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device easier to move during use.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0048169 to Dowling et al.
Referring to claim 14, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch does not disclose the programmable light source microcontroller includes executable instructions which instruct the one or more light sources to flash in a predetermined pattern, at a predetermined rate, and/or at a predetermined intensity. Dowling et al. does disclose the programmable light source microcontroller includes executable instructions which instruct the one or more light sources to flash in a predetermined pattern, at a predetermined rate, and/or at a predetermined intensity – see for example paragraphs [0038[, [0039], [0041] and [0064]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the programmable microcontroller of Dowling et al., so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling the lights as desired.
Referring to claim 17, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch does not disclose the one or more light sources are covered by lenses to bend the light emitted by the light sources. Dowling et al. doe disclose the one or more light sources are covered by lenses to bend the light emitted by the light sources – see for example paragraph [0056]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the lenses of Dowling et al., so as to yield the predictable result of controlling the lighting characteristics of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,645,224 to Haberman.
Referring to claim 16, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch does not disclose the elongate body comprises one or more liquid receiving portions adapted to fill up with liquid when the elongate body is submerged in liquid, and wherein the elongate body comprises drainage apertures to allow liquid in the liquid receiving portions to drain out of the elongate body. Haberman does disclose the elongate body comprises one or more liquid receiving portions – at 48, adapted to fill up with liquid when the elongate body is submerged in liquid – see figures 7-9, and wherein the elongate body comprises drainage apertures – at 56, to allow liquid in the liquid receiving portions to drain out of the elongate body – see figures 7-9 and column 4 lines 60-65. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the liquid receiving and draining elements of Haberman, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to selectively control the depth at which the device operates during use.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,621,447 to Rhodes.
Referring to claim 18, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch does not disclose a power cord extending outwardly from the elongate body for connecting the teaser to an external power source, and wherein the power cord extends from the front end of the elongate body. Rhodes does disclose a power cord – at 40,42, extending outwardly from the elongate body -a t 82, for connecting the teaser to an external power source – at 50, and wherein the power cord extends from the front end of the elongate body – see figure 2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the power cord of Rhodes, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the device receives power so as to ensure proper operation of the device during use.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0200122 to Aanenson et al.
Referring to claim 19, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch does not disclose the elongate body comprises a plurality of groups of lights from the one or more light sources, each group of lights being arranged along a specific region of the elongate body such that respective segments of a hemisphere of water surrounding a submerged elongate body receive light from a corresponding group of lights. Aanenson et al. does disclose the elongate body comprises a plurality of groups of lights – at 29,38, from the one or more light sources, each group of lights being arranged along a specific region of the elongate body such that respective segments of a hemisphere of water surrounding a submerged elongate body receive light from a corresponding group of lights – see paragraphs [0008] and [0021] thru [0023]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and add the plurality of groups of lights as disclosed by Aanenson et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for increased visibility around the entire device as desired.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0191525 to Goldstein et al.
Referring to claim 20, Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch does not disclose the programmable light source controller is programmable to reduce overheating of the lights by detecting an over-temperature condition and in response to detecting the over- temperature condition, reducing power consumption of the lights thereby reducing brightness of the lights during use. Goldstein et al. does disclose the programmable light source controller is programmable to reduce overheating of the lights by detecting an over-temperature condition and in response to detecting the over- temperature condition, reducing power consumption of the lights thereby reducing brightness of the lights during use – see paragraphs [0004] and [0038]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Garrett as modified by Petry and Koch and add the light controls of Goldstein et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device longer lasting for repeated use.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 8-27-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claim 1 detailed in the last office action dated 3-26-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 8-27-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 1 detailed in the last office action dated 3-26-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 8-27-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections detailed in the last office action dated 3-26-26. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 3-26-25 necessitates the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action. Further, item 50 of the Garrett reference US 7971386 is considered a hydroplane in that item 50 effects movement of the device of Garrett in the body of water as seen in figures 1-17c and column 14 line 32 to column 15 line 28. Further, the hydroplane of the Koch reference US 4745702 at b,34 in figure 1 and – at 34,44,46, 34,48,50 in figures 4a-4d can be used with the Garrett reference without rendering the device of Garrett inoperable for its intended purpose in that allowing the device of Garrett to be movable to different depths in the body of water would still allow for the device of Garrett to provide the fishing lure attached to the body and hydroplane to be moved into different positions/depths as desired for the intended fish to be caught.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643