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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is improper. This is not found persuasive because distinct mutually exclusive embodiments are disclosed by Applicant. The species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record and a search/examination burden has been established. The requirement is deemed proper.
The following previously withdrawn claims are reinstated because, as amended they are now generic to all species or drawn to elected species A: claims 18-28, 38-42 and 54-68.
Claims 29-37 remain withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected species, specifically a species comprising more than the “single trigger magnet 38 in the form of a single annular, round, circular, or disc-shaped permanent magnet 40 immovably fixed to part of the apparatus 26” of elected Species A.
Claims 14-28, 38-42 and 51-68 are at issue.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 item (c) contains the unnecessary word “of” after the word “mounting”.
Claim 20 item (1) is missing the word “mounted” in the last line of the item: “trigger is to the movable”.
Claim 27 has duplicate instances of item (ii) in the final paragraph.
Claim 52 recites “further comprising a magnet mounted on the fishing apparatus”. Examiner suggests correcting the claim to clearly indicate that the magnet is configured to be mounted on a fishing apparatus, as a fishing apparatus is not actually required by the claim.
Claim 60 is missing punctuation at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes some instances of minor informality are indicated in the 103 section of rejected claims via strike-through and underlines and the corrections as indicated are suggested.
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 14-18, 51 and 63-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a sensor trigger. The feature is essential as the sensor configured to detect an alarm event is rendered non-functional without the sensor trigger (as is respectively illustrated in each embodiment). It is unclear how, if at all, the system would function without the essential element. The remaining claims contain the essential element. Correction or clarification is required.
Claims 15-16, 27-28, 38-42, 51 and 53-62, 64-68 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 15, 53, 59 and 64 each claim a mounting base (86) and the sensing alarm unit or a housing of the sensing alarm unit. Claim 15 then claims that one of the dovetail joint and the twist-lock joint is formed between the sensing alarm unit (24) and the mounting base (86); Claims 53 and 59 claim one of the dovetail joint and the twist-lock joint is configured for releasable attachment of the mounting base (86) to the housing (86 to 78) and that the mounting base is configured for attachment to the second part of the fishing apparatus (i.e., 86 to a part of the apparatus); And, claim 64 claims that the twist-lock dovetail joint is configured for releasably mounting the housing to the mounting base.
The claim language renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, the mounting base and the female/receiver part of the dovetail and twist-lock joint appear to be one and the same, (see for example Fig. 9), but they are claimed as distinct elements (i.e., a female joint piece and a mounting base). Claims 15, 53, 59 and 64 will be examined as though one of the male or female portions of the respective joint (dovetail joint or twist-lock joint or twist-lock dovetail joint) is the mounting base. Correction/clarification is required. Claims 16, 51, 54-56, and 65-68 do not cure the deficiency.
The following claims each recite a term which renders the respective claim indefinite as there is lack of antecedent basis for the term in the claims:
Claim 27 (an independent claim) recites the term “the sensing alarm unit” in item (b) of the claim.
Claim 54 recites the term “the base of the ice fishing apparatus”.
Claims 57 and 61-62 each recite “the clamp”.
Claim 59 recites “the second part…”.
Claims 59-60 each recite “the dovetail joint” and “the twist-lock joint”.
Claims 28, 38-42, 55-56 and 58 do not cure the deficiencies. Correction is required.
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.
Claims 27-28 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West et al. (US 2020/0375167 A1), hereinafter West.
Regarding claim 27, West discloses and alarm system for a fishing apparatus for ice fishing that is an ice fishing tip up having a base and a plurality of movable components movable relative to the base including a flagpole, a rotary drive shaft carried by the base, a reel or spool disposed at or adjacent one end of the drive shaft that rotates the drive shaft when a fish strikes, and a crossbar bar disposed at or adjacent an opposite end of the drive shaft that is rotated by the drive shaft when a fish strikes, and the flagpole releasably retained in a generally horizontal position by releasable engagement with the crossbar and movable from the generally horizontal position toward or to a generally vertical upright position when disengaged from the crossbar when the reel or spool rotates the drive shaft and crossbar during a fish strike (Fig. 4), the alarm system (Examiner notes that the alarm system disclosed by West is physically configured to functionally attach to such an apparatus) comprising:
a magnet configured to be mounted either to one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up or the base of the ice fishing tip up (18, Figs. 2 and 4),
a
a magnet sensor (24, §[0034] and §[0010]),
a processor configured to monitor the magnet sensor and output an alarm when the magnet sensor senses the magnet (device 2, §[0034]),
a first mount configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to the base of the ice fishing tip up when the magnet is mounted to one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up (first mount 16, Fig. 2), and
a second mount configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up when the magnet is mounted to the base of the ice fishing tip up (second mount 16, Fig. 2; Examiner notes that mount disclosed by West is physically configured to functionally attach to associated element; the element not being positively recited by the claims).
Regarding claim 28, West discloses the alarm system of claim 27, wherein the magnet is configured to be carried by one of the crossbar and the drive shaft of the ice fishing tip up (18, Fig. 6) and the sensing alarm unit is configured for mounting by one of the first and second mounts to the base of the ice fishing tip with the magnet sensor disposed adjacent the magnet for sensing movement of the magnet relative to the magnet sensor during rotation of the one of the crossbar and drive shaft by a fish strike (2, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 58, West discloses the alarm system of claim 27, wherein the magnet sensor comprises a TMR sensor (West, §[0010], solid-state magnetic switch, i.e., tunnel magnetoresistance or TMR).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-17, 51 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carkner (US 2018/0213761 A1) and Brown et al. (US 2017/0319010 A1), hereinafter Brown. Further evidenced by and supported by the teaching of Kell (US 7,008,086 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Carkner discloses an alarm system for a fishing apparatus comprising a sensing alarm unit (100, Fig. 1) comprised of
(a) a sensor configured to detect an alarm event (sensing component 201, Fig. 2),
(b) a processor configured to monitor the sensor and output one of a human perceptible alarm and a wirelessly transmitted alarm when the sensor senses an alarm event (microprocessor 200, detailed in Fig. 2), and
(c) a mounting arrangement configured for releasably mounting The system is flexible in how it may be mounted, §[0030]; FIG. 5 shows an example of the sensor (502) mounted on an ice fishing rod (501). It can be seen in this example that the sensor (502) can be mounted anywhere along the length of the fishing rod, it does not have to be mounted at the tip or the handle of the rod. The sensor does not attach to the fishing line (503) to ensure it will not interfere with fishing activities. This is one example of fishing equipment. For a tip-up rig the sensor could be mounted on the flag. For a tip-down rig the sensor could be mounted on the arm. For trolling, casting and shore equipment the sensor could be mounted on the rod. For other types of fishing the sensor would be mounted in any location on the fishing apparatus that will experience motion (vibration, rotation or lateral acceleration in any axis on, for example, the rod, the handle, or the reel), §[0032]), the mounting arrangement comprising:
(1) a first mounting configuration for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus (§[0032]), and
(2) a second mounting configuration for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus (§§ [0030], [0032]).
Carkner does not appear to disclose wherein the first configuration comprises a clamp for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus and wherein the second configuration specifically comprises one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus, and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to the second part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus.
However, Brown teaches a mounting arrangement for a system, specifically:
a first mounting configuration comprising a clamp (3511; or clamp in §[0068]) for releasably mounting a unit (actuator 240) to a first part of system (Fig. 35F); and
a second mounting configuration comprising one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver (3701) for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of a system (Fig. 37A), and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting (3505) for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of system when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the system (Fig. 35C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the alarm system for a fishing apparatus flexible in how it is mounted to the fishing apparatus that is disclosed by Carkner with the specific mounting arrangement as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the mounting arrangement comprising (1) the clamp configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus, and (2) one of (i) the dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver and configured for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of the apparatus, and (ii) the twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of the apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing means for the flexible mounting configurations disclosed in Carkner as desired and ideal the particular fishing apparatus intended. For example the two locations taught in Kell: an alarm system for ice fishing tip ups wherein a unit of the system can be located on the flap pole of tip-up 14 or located on the base of tip-up 20, for example, wherein each configuration provides respective benefits for the particular use of the alarm system with the intended fishing apparatus (e.g., evaluating signal strength and consistency and considering static and dynamic balance of the system).
Regarding claim 15, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 14, wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a mounting base configured for attachment to the sensing alarm unit and for attachment to the second part of the fishing apparatus (Examiner notes the male portion or the female portion of one of the mounts in 35C and 37A, Examiner notes 112b rejection associated with the limitation), wherein one of:
(a)(b)the dovetail joint and the twist-lock joint is formed between the sensing alarm unit and the mounting base (Examiner notes each joint is formed between the respective male female joint parts; Examiner notes 112b rejection associated with the limitation) and comprises:
(1) the respective dovetail element comprising a dovetail, or the male part, is on one of the sensing alarm unit and the mounting base (Examiner notes modified Carkner discloses the respective dovetail part or twist-lock male part is either: on the sensing alarm unit or is the mounting base, Brown Fig. 37A and 35C), and
(2) the respective dovetail receiver, or female part, is on the other one of the sensing alarm unit and the mounting base (Examiner notes modified Carkner discloses the respective dovetail receiver or twist-lock female part is either the other of: on the sensing alarm unit or is the mounting base, Brown Fig. 37A and 35C),
the dovetail joint configured for:
(i) releasable engagement of the dovetail with the dovetail receiver releasably attaching the sensing alarm unit to the mounting base and (ii) disengagement of the dovetail from the dovetail receiver detaching the sensing alarm from the mounting base (Brown Fig. 37A and 35C and Carkner §§[0030], [0032]), or
the twist-lock joint configured for:
(i) twisting or rotary engagement of the male part with the female part attaching the sensing alarm unit to the mounting base, and (ii) twisting or rotary engagement of the male part form the female part detaching the sensing alarm unit from the mounting base (Brown Fig. 37A and 35C and Carkner §§[0030], [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 15, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the mounting base comprises the clamp.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have made the mounting base and the clamp one piece so the mounting base comprises the clamp and is configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to the first part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting base is attached to the sensing alarm unit and not attached to any other part of the fishing apparatus, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The benefit being the predictable outcome of a lighter weight and more compact design without compromising the intended function of either piece.
Regarding claim 17, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 14, wherein said one of the dovetail joint and the twist-lock joint is a twist-lock rotary dovetail joint (3505, 35C).
Regarding claim 51, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 16, comprises a pair of outwardly extending jaw clamps or clamp fingers (Examiner notes jaws of clamp 3511, Fig. 35F, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the clamp is integrally formed of or from the mounting base.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have made the mounting base and the clamp one piece so the clamp is integrally formed of or from the mounting base and comprises the outwardly extending jaw clamps or clamp fingers, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The benefit being the predictable outcome of forming one piece from two to achieve a lighter weight and more compact design without compromising intended function of either piece.
Regarding claim 53, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 14, wherein the sensing alarm unit comprises a housing (Carkner, §[0033], waterproof housing) and a mounting base (male or female part of the dovetail or twist lock joint, Brown),
wherein the one of the dovetail joint and the twist-lock joint is configured for releasable attachment of the mounting base to the housing (Examiner notes the respective male or female part of joint of the housing is configured for releasable attachment with the respective mounting base) and the mounting base is configured for attachment to the second part of the fishing apparatus (Examiner notes the respective male or female part of the joint of Brown is configured for attachment to a second part by the definition of a mounting arrangement).
Regarding claim 54, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 53, wherein the mounting base is configured for being immovably fixed to the base of the fishing apparatus (each of the male and female parts of 3505 in Fig. 35C and 3701 in Fig. 37 A are configured for being immovable fixed to an apparatus by definition), and the one of the dovetail joint and the twist-lock joint comprises a twist-lock rotary dovetail joint (3505, Fig. 35C).
Regarding claim 55, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 54, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the mounting base comprises the clamp.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have made the mounting base and the clamp one piece so the mounting base comprises the clamp, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The benefit being the predictable outcome of forming one piece from two to achieve a lighter weight and more compact design without compromising intended function of either piece.
Regarding claim 56, modified Carkner discloses the alarm system of claim 55, wherein the clamp comprises a pair of clamp jaws or clamp fingers that extend outwardly from the mounting base (Examiner note the clamp jaws or clamp fingers in Brown, 3511, Fig. 35A).
Regarding claims 20-21, 52, 57 and 59-62; claims 14, 20-21, 52, 57 and 59-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West or modified West, as applied to claims 14 and 27, respectively for each claim; and further, in view of Brown.
Regarding claim 14, West discloses an alarm system for a fishing apparatus comprising a sensing alarm unit (system with device 2, Figs. 4-5) comprised of
(a) a sensor configured to detect an alarm event (14, Fig. 4, detailed in §[0010]),
(b) a processor configured to monitor the sensor and output one of a human perceptible alarm and a wirelessly transmitted alarm when the sensor senses an alarm event (circuit detailed in §[0035] with the microcontroller detailed in §[0049]), and
(c) a mounting arrangement configured for releasably mounting a mount for connecting the device to a reel assembly or other suitable support), the mounting arrangement comprising:
(1) a clamp configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus (§[0031], axle of a reel… one or more screw-type clamps, spring or circular clamps), and
(2) a configuration for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus (§[0031], it may be mounted to a different structure. As one skilled in the art will appreciate, the mount securely holds the housing in place relative to a reel assembly and accordingly, compatibility with the reel's mounting/support hardware may be an important factor in selection of the mount).
West does not appear to disclose wherein the configuration for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus specifically comprises one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus, and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to the second part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus.
However, Brown teaches a mounting arrangement for a system, specifically:
a configuration for releasably mounting a unit to an apparatus comprising one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver (3701) for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of the apparatus (Fig. 37A), and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting (3505) for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of the apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the apparatus (Fig. 35C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the alarm system for a fishing apparatus and flexible in how it is mounted to the fishing apparatus disclosed by West with the mounting arrangement as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the mounting arrangement comprising one of (i) the dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver and configured for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of system, and (ii) the twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of the system when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing means for mounting the sensing alarm unit to different structures of the fishing apparatus as disclosed by West. For example, Kell teaches an alarm system for ice fishing tip ups wherein a unit of the system can be located on the flap pole of tip-up 14 or located on the base of tip-up 20, wherein each configuration provides unique benefits based on the intended use of the alarm system with a particular fishing apparatus.
Regarding claim 20, modified West discloses the alarm system of claim 14, wherein a fishing apparatus comprises:
a ground (6, Fig. 2),
a movable component that is movable relative to the ground during fishing apparatus operation (8, Fig. 2),
a sensor trigger mounted to one of the ground and the moving component of the fishing apparatus (18, Fig. 2), and
wherein one of the clamp and one of the dovetail joint and twist-lock joint is configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to the ground of the fishing apparatus when the sensor trigger is mounted to the movable component of the fishing apparatus (Examiner notes each of the clamp and the joints are configured for mounting by definition; see the configuration of unit and trigger in Fig. 2), and
the other one of the clamp and one of the dovetail joint and twist-lock joint is configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to the movable component of the fishing apparatus when the sensor trigger is mounted to the ground of the fishing apparatus (Examiner notes each of the clamp and the joints by definition are configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to a movable component of a fishing apparatus see the unit in Fig. 4 that is configured to be mounted to a suitable support of a fishing assembly, §[0010]).
Regarding claim 21, modified West discloses the alarm system of claim 20, wherein the sensor of the sensing alarm unit is configured to sense or detect one of(a) a presence or absence of the sensor trigger, and (b) movement of one of the sensor and the sensor trigger relative to the other one of the sensor and the sensor trigger (Examiner notes modified West is configured to sense or detect in the claimed manner via at least the indicator actuator 18 and the trigger switch 24, see §[0036]).
Regarding claim 52, modified West discloses the alarm system of claim 14, further comprising a magnet mounted on the fishing apparatus (indicator apparatus, Fig. 4; §[0032], indicator actuator 18 may be of alternative constructions with different shapes, sizes and materials, such as being a magnet or piece of metal, such as a plain carbon steel pellet or other suitable piece, as described further herein and so as to correspond to other operative components of the device 2. The magnets or metal pieces may be of disk or other shapes, for example, they may be a rectangular, pie-shaped or in other configurations), and
wherein the sensor comprises a magnet sensor configured to sense the magnet (magnetically actuated switches and sensors, §[0010]), and
wherein the processor is configured to monitor the magnet sensor and output one of a human perceptible alarm and a wirelessly transmitted alarm when the magnet sensor senses the magnet (per the circuit detailed in §[0035] and using the microcontroller detailed in §[0049]).
Regarding claim 57, West discloses the alarm system of claim 27, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first mount is a clamp comprising a pair outwardly extending clamp jaws or clamp fingers configured to clamp the flagpole of the ice fishing tip up.
However Brown teaches a mount that is a clamp comprising a pair outwardly extending clamp jaws or clamp fingers configured to clamp a flagpole of an ice fishing tip up (3511, Fig. 35F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the alarm system disclosed by West with the clamp comprising a pair outwardly extending clamp jaws or clamp fingers configured to clamp the flagpole of the ice fishing tip up, as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the clamp comprising a pair outwardly extending clamp jaws or clamp fingers configured to clamp the flagpole of the ice fishing tip up. The benefit being using a known mount to attain the predictable outcome of reliably removable attaching and reattaching the unit to an intended fishing apparatus as taught by West.
Regarding claim 59, West discloses the alarm system of claim 27, wherein the sensing alarm unit comprises a housing (14) and a mounting base (Examiner notes the base of second mount 16), wherein the mounting base is configured for releasable attachment to the second part of the fishing apparatus, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the second mount is one of the dovetail joint and twist-lock joint configured for releasable attachment of the mounting base to the housing (Examiner notes 112b rejection associated with the limitation).
However Brown teaches a mount that is one of the dovetail joint (Fig. 37A) and twist-lock joint (Fig. 35C) configured for releasable attachment between the fishing apparatus and of the mounting base to the housing of the unit (3511, Fig. 35F).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the alarm system disclosed by West with the one of the dovetail joint and twist-lock joint configured for releasable attachment of the base of the mount the to the housing of a sensing alarm unit, as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises one of the dovetail joint and twist-lock joint configured for releasable attachment of the mounting base to the housing. The benefit being using a known mount to attain the predictable outcome of reliably removable attaching and reattaching the unit to an intended fishing apparatus as taught by West.
Regarding claim 60, modified West discloses the alarm system of claim 59, wherein the mounting base is configured for being immovably fixed to the base of the fishing apparatus (each of the male and female parts of 3505 in Fig. 35C and 3701 in Fig. 37 A are configured for being immovable fixed to an apparatus by definition), and the one of the dovetail joint and the twist-lock joint comprises a twist-lock rotary dovetail joint (3505, Fig. 35C).
Regarding claim 61, modified West discloses alarm system of claim 60, wherein the clamp comprises a pair of outwardly extending clamp jaws or clamp fingers which are configured for releasably clamping the flagpole of the ice fishing tip up (see the rejection of claim 57 above).
Regarding claim 62, West discloses alarm system of claim 61, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the mounting base comprises the clamp.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to have made the mounting base and the clamp one piece so the mounting base comprises the clamp, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The benefit being the predictable outcome of forming one piece from two to achieve a lighter weight and more compact design without compromising intended function of either piece.
Regarding claims 22-24; Claims 14 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozzarella (US 2009/0139130 A1), and further, in view of Brown.
Regarding claim 14, Carkner discloses an alarm system for a fishing apparatus comprising a sensing alarm unit (Fig. 2) comprised of
(a) a sensor configured to detect an alarm event (reed switch or other types of switches in accordance with Nozzarella; §[0023]),
(b) a processor configured to monitor the sensor and output one of a human perceptible alarm and a wirelessly transmitted alarm when the sensor senses an alarm event (receiver, §[0024]), and
(c) a mounting arrangement configured for releasably mounting of the sensing alarm unit to a plurality of different part of the fishing apparatus (The system is flexible in how it may be mounted, §[0031]; [0031] The transmitter 21 and receiver 40 of the present invention may be used in conjunction with an existing tip-up, if the tip-up is modified to include a magnet that moves closer to the transmitter 21 when the staff of the tip-up transitions from a lowered position to a raised position. The transmitter 21 and receiver 40 of the present invention may also be used in conjunction with an existing tip-up if the tip-up is adapted such that a switch is activated when the staff transitions from a lowered position to a raised position).
Nozzarella does not appear to disclose wherein the mounting arrangement specifically comprises a clamp for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus and one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus, and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to the second part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus.
However, Brown teaches a mounting arrangement for an apparatus, specifically: a clamp (3511, Fig. 35F; or a clamp in §[0068]) for releasably mounting a unit (actuator 240) to a first part of the apparatus (Fig. 35F); and one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver (3701) for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of the apparatus (Fig. 37A), and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting (3505) for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the apparatus (Fig. 35C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the alarm system for a fishing apparatus that may be used in conjunction with an existing tip-up, if the tip-up, with the specific mounting arrangement as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the mounting arrangement comprising (1) the clamp configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus, and (2) one of (i) the dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver and configured for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus, and (ii) the twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of the apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing means for mounting the unit in conjunction with existing tip-ups as disclosed in Nozzarella, as desired and as is ideal the particular fishing apparatus intended. For example in the two locations taught in Kell: on the flap pole of tip-up 14 or on the base of tip-up 20; wherein each configuration provides respective benefits for the particular use of the alarm system with the intended fishing apparatus (e.g., evaluating signal strength and consistency and considering static and dynamic balance of the system).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nozzarella discloses the alarm system of claim 14, wherein a fishing apparatus comprises:
a ground (20),
a movable component that is movable relative to the ground during fishing apparatus operation (12),
a sensor trigger mounted to one of the ground and the moving component of the fishing apparatus (15), and
wherein one of the clamp and one of the dovetail joint and twist-lock joint is configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to the ground of the fishing apparatus when the sensor trigger is mounted to the movable component of the fishing apparatus (Examiner notes each of the clamp and the joints are configured for mounting by definition; see the configuration in Nozzarella Fig. 2), and
the other one of the clamp and one of the dovetail joint and twist-lock joint is configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to the movable component of the fishing apparatus when the sensor trigger is mounted to the ground of the fishing apparatus (Examiner notes each of the clamp and the joints by definition are configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to a movable component of a fishing apparatus see Nozzarella, §[0031]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Nozzarella discloses the alarm system of claim 20, wherein the sensor of the sensing alarm unit is configured to sense or detect one of (a) a presence or absence of the sensor trigger, and (b) movement of one of the sensor and the sensor trigger relative to the other one of the sensor and the sensor trigger (Examiner notes modified Nozzarella is configured to sense or detect in the claimed manner via at least the reed switch and magnet, see §[0006]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Nozzarella discloses the alarm system of claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to output one of the human perceptible alarm and the wirelessly transmitted alarm in response to the sensor sensing the sensor trigger the presence or absence of the sensor trigger, or movement of (a) one of the sensor and the sensor trigger relative to the other one of the sensor and the sensor trigger, and (b) one of the sensing alarm unit and the sensor trigger relative to the other one of the sensing alarm unit and the sensor trigger (§[0006], lights or sound; §[0024], wirelessly transmitted).
Regarding claim 23, modified Nozzarella discloses the alarm system of claim 21, wherein the sensor trigger comprises one of a magnetic field and source of magnetic flux (magnet 15), and the sensor comprises one of a magnetic field sensor and magnetic flux sensor (Examiner notes the reed switch senses magnetic field).
Regarding claim 24, modified Nozzarella discloses the alarm system of claim 23, wherein the sensor trigger comprises a magnet (15), and the sensor comprises a magnet sensor (reed switch, §[0023]).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Nozzarella and further, in view of West.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, modified Nozzarella discloses the alarm system of claim 23, wherein other types of switches may be used in place of the reed switch in accordance with the invention (§[0023]), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the sensor comprises a magnetoresistance sensor or MR sensor, or wherein the sensor comprises a tunneling magnetoresistance sensor or TMR sensor.
However, West teaches a solid-state magnetic switch in the same field of endeavor; (West, §[0010], solid-state magnetic switch, i.e., tunnel magnetoresistance or TMR).
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as substitution of functional equivalent to substitute the reed switch of Nozzarella with a TMR sensor taught by West, with a reasonable expectation of success, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). The motivation for using the TMR sensor would be the predictable outcome of increased sensitivity and reliability of the system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14-28, 38-42 and 51-68 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being directed to the same invention as set forth in claims on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 43-71 of co-pending Application No. 18/771,320. See In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Applicant discloses the alarm system for a fishing apparatus comprising a sensing alarm unit comprised of a sensor, a processor configured to monitor the senor and output one of a human perceptible alarm and a wirelessly transmitted alarm when the sensor senses an alarm event and a mounting arrangement (claim 43), but does not appear to specifically wherein the mounting arrangement specifically comprises a clamp for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus and one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus, and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to the second part of the fishing apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus.
However, Brown teaches a mounting arrangement for an apparatus, specifically: a clamp (3511, Fig. 35F; or a clamp in §[0068]) for releasably mounting a unit (actuator 240) to a first part of the apparatus (Fig. 35F); and one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver (3701) for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of the apparatus (Fig. 37A), and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting (3505) for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the apparatus (Fig. 35C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the alarm system disclosed by 18/771,340, with the specific mounting arrangement as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the mounting arrangement comprising (1) the clamp configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus, and (2) one of (i) the dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver and configured for releasably mounting the unit to a second part of the fishing apparatus, and (ii) the twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting and configured for releasably mounting the unit to the second part of the apparatus when the mounting arrangement is operatively connected to the second part of the fishing apparatus. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing means for mounting the unit in conjunction with existing tip-ups as disclosed in Nozzarella, as desired and as is ideal the particular fishing apparatus intended. For example in the two locations taught in Kell: on the flap pole of tip-up 14 or on the base of tip-up 20; wherein each configuration provides respective benefits for the particular use of the alarm system with the intended fishing apparatus (e.g., evaluating signal strength and consistency and considering static and dynamic balance of the system).
Response to Arguments
The substitute specification and drawings are noted and entered.
The claim objections have been obviated via the claim amendments. Examiner notes new instances of minor informalities in light of the clam amendments. See the Claim Objections section for details.
Regarding the drawing objections, Examiner acknowledges item 75 a biasing element was amended to instead read item 77 a thumbscrew in amended Figs. 2, 4-5 and 9. The drawing objections have been obviated via the claim amendments.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, Examiner will interpret the twist-lock joint comprising a male part and female as joint 98 with male part (100) and female part (102); And will interpret the dove tail joint as 98 comprising the dovetail element (male element 100) and dovetail receiver (dovetail receiving receptacle 102) as such. With this interpretation, as illustrated, it appears the claimed apparatus is capable of functioning with just one of a dovetail joint and a twist-lock joint, as they are drawn to the same feature. The 112 rejections are withdrawn. Examiner notes new instances of 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections in light of the claim amendments. See the appropriate section for detail.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the remarks about the election/restriction requirement and/or the withdrawn claims, Examiner maintains the Election of Species is not an improper Election Requirement. Applicant clearly discloses multiple embodiments that are mutually exclusive as each embodiment (Species A-E) requires unique magnetic arrangements and sensor placements in order for the system to function as intended. Restriction requirement is not determined by evaluating how closely the embodiments are related. See the Restriction requirement dated 4/24/2024. The requirement is deemed proper. The mere initial comment prior to an in depth evaluation of the claims that “all claims appear to be generic” does not invalidate the requirement for restriction among species. Applicant’s election of Group II, original claims 14-50 and Species A drawn to Figures 1-5 without traverse is noted. Although an attempt at traversal was made in the 2/18/2025 Remarks, after Applicant made a proper written election of invention II and Species A in the 7/2/2024 Remarks, the traversal was noted and replied to. To reiterate in part, Species A was specified in the Election/Restriction Requirement dated 4/23/2024 as “illustrated in Figures 1-5: a magnetic sensor trigger arrangement that consists of only a single trigger magnet in the form of a single annular, round, circular, or disc-shaped permanent magnet immovably fixed to part of the fishing apparatus”. Examiner provided a clear explanation of the species therefore making it apparent which of Applicant’s claims are encompassed by each of the 6 species, particularly upon detailed examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 38-42 and 63-68 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in dependent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicants claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, wherein the alarm system comprises the clamp specifically configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a movable component of the fishing apparatus or the movable flagpole of an ice fishing tip up, and one of the dovetail joint, the twist-lock joint or the twist-lock dovetail joint is specifically configured for mounting the sensing alarm unit to the base/ground of the fishing apparatus or ice fishing tip up.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shumansky (US 2006/0130387 A1) teaches an apparatus for a fish strike alarm apparatus that comprises a housing, an electrical circuit connected to the housing, and a power source connected to the housing. An alarm connected to the electrical circuit is activated when the electrical circuit is completed. A fish strike detector is connected to the housing and comprises a retaining member coupled to the housing, and a biased micro switch. The biased micro switch is positioned a predetermined distance from the retaining member that causes the electrical circuit to be completed when a fish strike is detected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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 at 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.
/Shanna Danielle Glover/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642