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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/26 has been entered.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to for being provided in color photographs without the above described petition.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to for not clearly identifying the elements recited in the claims. For example, it is unclear which element in the figures is the recited first rod portion, first rod extension, second rod portion, first tube, etc.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference the objection to the drawings above and correct the specification to include reference numbers that should correspond to reference numbers that should be amended into the drawings, etc., without entering new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
The phrase “the second rod” in claim 16 lacks antecedent basis. The phrase “the second rod extension and the first rod portion are parallel” because they appear to be the same element. Further, with reference to the drawing/specification objections above, it is unclear which elements in the claim recitations correspond to the elements in the figures.
The metes and bounds of the term “roughly” in claim 17 is unclear. It is also unclear which part of the first rod portion the limitations pertain to.
Claim 19 is completely indefinite with relation to the figures and specification. The rejection below is provided as best understood by the Examiner from the specification, etc.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worth US D300552.
Regarding claim 16, Worth teaches a fishing pole comprising:
a first rod portion comprising a handle for holding the fishing pole and having a first free end (see annotated figure 3 below);
a second rod portion comprising a fishing reel having fishing line extending therefrom (inherent to those with ordinary skill in the art), wherein the second rod is connected to the first rod portion and further wherein the second rod portion has a second free end from which the fishing line extends (see annotated figure 3 below),
wherein the first rod portion comprises a first rod extension extending at a first angle from the second rod portion, the first rod extension having a length and forms a handle surface configured to be gripped by a user (see annotated figure 3 below), and
further wherein the first rod portion comprises a second rod extension connected to the first rod extension and extending at a second angle from the first rod extension, wherein the second rod extension and the first rod portion are parallel, and further wherein the second rod extension forms a second handle surface configured to be gripped by a user (see annotated figure 3 below);
but does not specify the angles to be exactly perpendicular.
However, Worth’s angles are very nearly perpendicular. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such exact angles, in order to meet particular design requirements; since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Worth teaches the fishing pole of claim 16 wherein the first rod portion and the second rod portion are roughly parallel to each other (see previous rejection).
Regarding claim 19, Worth teaches the fishing pole of claim 16 further comprising: at least a first tube attached on a side of the second rod portion in a first location between the reel and free end of the second rod portion (see annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
258
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Worth teaches the fishing pole of claim 19 wherein the first tube has a length that is larger than a diameter of the first tube (see claim 19 rejection).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been addressed in the updated rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644