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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims refer to the intended use of a fishing apparatus and various parts of a fishing apparatus. None of the fishing apparatus or a plurality of different parts of a fishing apparatus (including but not limited to an ice fishing tip up, a base, a plurality of movable components, a flagpole, a crossbar, a rotary drive shaft) are positively claimed. It is suggested that the claims are amended so that when referring to the intended use of hypothetical components of a fishing apparatus the article “a” be used in place of “the” in front of the component to clearly indicate that the component is not actually required by the claim and to avoid confusion. Appropriate correction is suggested in each claim, or clarification.
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 72-74 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 72 recites “wherein the sensing alarm unit comprises one of a dovetail joint and a twist-lock joint configured for releasable mounting of the sensing alarm unit to the base of an ice fishing tip up”. This is indefinite because it is unclear to the office if “one of a dovetail joint and a twist-lock joint” is intended to claim a third mount in addition to the first mount and second mount established in parent claim 27, or if “one of a dovetail joint and a twist-lock joint” is meant to further limit one of or both of the first mount and second mount of claim 27. If a third mount is being claimed on the sensing alarm unit, please refer to the drawing objections section above. For the latter occurrence, please amend the claims to clearly reflect what is being claimed. Specifically, how many mounts/joints are on the sensing alarm unit? Correction/clarification is required. Claims 73-74 do not cure the deficiency.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sensing alarm unit comprising a first mount, a second mount and one of a dovetail joint and a twist-lock joint must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (clm. 72). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
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, 58 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by West et al. (US 2020/0375167 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 27, West discloses an 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 (see §[0029]: the axle 8 may be mounted to another structure, such as a separate support device, which may include a wall of a fish house, or a support that is resting or supported on the floor or on the ice, such as a tri-pod or the like; Fig. 4), the fishing apparatus alarm system (Examiner notes that the alarm system disclosed by West is physically configured to functionally attach to 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) comprising:
at least one sensor trigger configured to be carried by at least the base of the ice fishing tip up and at least one of the moveable components of the ice fishing tip up (18, Figs. 2 and 4),
a sensing alarm unit (14) comprising: (i) at least one sensor configured to detect an alarm event by sensing the at least one sensor trigger (a magnet sensor 24, §[0034] and §[0010]), (ii) a processor configured to output an alarm when the at least one sensor detects an alarm event (device 2 including a programmable sound chip module incorporated into the circuit for when the alarm is in an activated state disclosed in §[0054]), (iii) a first mount configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to the base of the ice fishing tip up when the at least one sensor trigger is mounted to one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up (first of the two magnets that comprise mount 16 , Fig. 2; §[0031]), and (iv) a second mount configured to mount the sensing alarm unit to one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up when the at least one sensor trigger is mounted to the base of the ice fishing tip up (second of the two magnets that comprise mount 16, Fig. 2; §[0032]; 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 fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 27, wherein at least one sensor trigger is configured to be carried by one of a crossbar and a drive shaft of the ice fishing tip up (18, Fig. 6), the at least one sensor is configured to detect the alarm event by sensing movement of the at least one sensor trigger relative thereto (at least §[0034]), and
the sensing alarm unit is configured for mounting by one of the first and second mounts to an ice fishing tip with the at least one sensor comprising at least one magnet sensor disposed in close enough proximity to the at least one sensor trigger for sensing movement of the at least one sensor trigger relative to the at least one magnet sensor during a rotation of the one of the crossbar and drive shaft carrying the at least one sensor trigger during a fish strike (Fig. 4; and item 2, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 58, West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 27, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a TMR sensor (West, §[0010], solid-state magnetic switch, i.e., tunnel magnetoresistance or TMR).
Regarding claim 71, West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 27, wherein the sensing alarm unit comprises a mounting base and the mounting base is comprised of the first mount and the second mount (the office notes the base of housing 14 of which the first and the second mount are a part of, see Fig. 5).
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 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, as applied to claim 71 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2017/0319010 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 72, West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 71, wherein the sensing alarm unit comprises the first mount and the second mount configured for releasable mounting of the sensing alarm unit to a base of a fishing apparatus, but does not appear to specifically disclose one of a dovetail joint and a twist-lock joint configured for releasable mounting of the sensing alarm unit to a base of a fishing apparatus.
However, Brown teaches a variety of mounting arrangements, including one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver (3701) for releasably mounting a unit (Fig. 37A), and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting (3505, Fig. 37) for releasably mounting the unit.
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 disclosed by West with one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver for releasably mounting a unit and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting for releasably mounting a unit, as taught by Brown, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the sensing alarm unit comprises one of (i) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver for releasably mounting the unit, and (ii) a twist-lock joint comprising a male part and a corresponding female part that engage by relative twisting for releasably mounting the unit. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing means for mounting as desired that is ideal for the particular fishing apparatus intended. (West (§[0031]: securely holds the housing 14 in place relative and accordingly, compatibility with the support hardware may be an important factor in selection of the mount).
Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Blackadar et al. (US 2018/0295827 A1), hereinafter Blackadar.
Regarding claim 75, West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 27, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the sensing alarm unit comprises an inertial sensor configured to detect rotation of one of the movable components of an ice fishing tip up when the unit is in use (i.e., mounted by at least the second mount to a movable component of an ice fishing tip-up), and
wherein the processor of the sensing alarm unit is specifically configured to determine one of a number of rotations and a speed of rotation of the movable component when the sensing alarm unit is mounted by at least the second mount to the movable component.
However, Blackadar teaches an angling event sensing device/unit associated with a fishing rod and reel specifically including an inertial sensor configured to detect rotation of a movable component of an ice fishing tip up when the unit is in use (IMU, §[0172]), and
a processor (3000) specifically configured to determine one of a number of rotations (reel rotations, §[0287]) and a speed of rotation (reel speed §{0171]) of the movable component (e.g., reel) of the ice fishing tip up when the sensing alarm unit is mounted by at least the second mount to the movable component of the ice fishing tip up.
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 sensing alarm unit disclosed by West with the inertial sensor configured to detect rotation of a movable components of an ice fishing tip, and the processor specifically configured to determine one of a number of rotations and a speed of rotation of the movable component of the ice fishing tip up when mounted to the one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up, as taught by Blackadar, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the sensing alarm unit comprises the inertial sensor configured to detect rotation of one of the movable components of an ice fishing tip up when the unit is in use, and the processor specifically configured to determine one of a number of rotations and a speed of rotation of the one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up when the sensing alarm unit is mounted by the second mount to the one of the movable components of the ice fishing tip up. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing angling recommendations and data to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered.
The claim objections are obviated in light of the amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections. The lack of antecedent basis issues appear to be obviated via the amendments. The office acknowledges the amendments to the claims so that they affirmatively recite the “sensor trigger”, therefore the related rejection(s) of claims 14-18, 51 and 63-66 is/are withdrawn. With regard to claims 15, 53, 59, and 64. The office acknowledges that the mounting base and/or the housing are each single structural elements that may serve multiple recited functional roles as asserted by applicant, e.g., a base or a housing that mounts or is integral with a twist-lock joint, a dove-tail joint, a twist-lock dovetail joint, etc. (pg. 4 of Remarks).
Regarding item A on page 26, please refer to the claim objections section. Additionally, as the claim does not require a specific fishing apparatus, the alarm system of West does not require a disclosure of specific fishing apparatus. West anticipates the alarm system and the cooperative arrangements between the claimed elements of the alarm system (see the rejections sections for details).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 rejections, items B-D, the arguments are non-persuasive. See the rejections sections for details. Specifically, West discloses in §[0010] a mount for connecting the device to a reel assembly or other suitable support (e.g., a base or movable component of a fishing apparatus), there are two mounts disclosed. In the rejected claims, none of the mounts/joints claimed are required to function independently. Also note, in West, device (2) includes a programmable sound chip module incorporated into the circuit for when the alarm is in an activated state disclosed in detail in §[0054].
The arguments with regard to Brown are non-persuasive. See allowable subject matter for details. The arguments with regard to Caulkner, Kell and Nozarella are moot as none is relied upon for the rejections of the claims, as amended.
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-26, 38-42, 51-57, 59-62 and 76-77 are allowable. Claims 73-74 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicants claimed invention. Specifically, a twist-lock joint that is a rotary dovetail joint releasably mounting the housing to the mounting base in combination with a clamp for releasably mounting the alarm to a first part a of fishing apparatus, as it depends from claims 72, 71 and 27 (claims 73-74).
The office notes West teaches an alarm system for a fishing apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising:
(I) a sensor trigger configured to be mounted to the fishing apparatus (18, Figs. 2 and 4); and
(II) a sensing alarm unit (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
(a) a sensor configured to detect an alarm event by sensing the sensor trigger (a magnet sensor 24, §[0034] and §[0010]);
(b) a processor configured to output one of a human perceptible alarm and a wirelessly transmitted alarm when the sensor senses an alarm event (device 2 including a programmable sound chip module incorporated into the circuit for when the alarm is in an activated state disclosed in §[0054]), and it is a very difficult to understand.
(c) a mounting arrangement configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a plurality of different parts of the fishing apparatus (mount 16, Fig. 2; the office notes as is evidenced by §[0031], Also, the housing need not be mounted to the axle of the reel, as it may be mounted to a different structure. As one skilled in the art will appreciate, the mount 16 securely holds the housing 14 in place relative to a reel assembly 4 and accordingly, compatibility with the reel's mounting/support hardware may be an important factor in selection of the mount), the mounting arrangement comprising:
(1) a clamp configured for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to a first part of the fishing apparatus (§[0032], any other type of suitable mount may be used, for example, one or more screw-type clamps, spring or circular clamps, adjustable nylon straps, which can be fastened by hook and loop (Velcro) closures, adjustable and/or elasticized straps, suction cups or adhesive).
But West does not teach wherein the processer is configured to monitor the sensor. Caukner teaches an alarm system for a fishing apparatus including a processor specifically 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) giving the ability to use the microprocessor to carry out automatic adjustment and “learn”, or to be calibrated, to determine a particular level of sensitivity as desired by the user based on the particular fishing apparatus for which it is mounted to, for example. And while, West teaches two mounts and the ability to mount the alarm unit to various parts of a fishing apparatus, each of the two mounts are identical in West and are configured to be used together to mount the alarm unit to an exemplified first part of the fishing apparatus, or any other part of an apparatus. West does not specifically teach a mounting arrangement with two distinct mounts, each with a unique intended use. Additionally, West does not teach a mount comprising (1) a dovetail joint comprising a dovetail element and a corresponding dovetail receiver for releasably mounting the sensing alarm unit to the fishing apparatus or 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 fishing.
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). The office asserts that Brown is analogous art. Brown is solely used to teach mounting configurations for a variety of intended uses and it does just that, specifically mounting configurations for releasably attaching interchangeable actuators and accessories within an appliance. However, because Brown does not teach mounts specifically configured to attach to parts of an apparatus outside of the base, actuator or appliance of the invention (i.e., to the base of any ice fishing tip-up and to the to the reel of any fishing pole), the combination would require hindsight reconstruction. Additionally, the reasoning to modify the first magnetic mount of West to a first mounting configuration and the second magnetic mount of West to a second mounting configuration and rearranging the two mounts in a way the sensing alarm unit would function in either configuration is beyond an obvious modification.
RE claim 38, West teaches wherein the at least one sensor is a magnet sensor and the at least one sensor trigger comprises at least one magnet, but the prior art does not teach the mounting configuration for mounting the sensing alarm unit to a flagpole of an ice fishing tip up specifically for movement substantially in unison therewith during a fish strike, and the at least one magnet sensor of the sensing alarm unit disposed adjacent the at least one magnet when the sensing alarm unit is mounted to the flagpole when the flagpole is disposed in the generally horizontal position, and when the flagpole and magnet sensor move away from the at least one magnet when the flagpole disengages from a crossbar and moves towards or to the generally vertical position during rotation of the crossbar during a fish strike.
RE claim 63, 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 a dovetail joint, a twist-lock joint or a 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.
RE claim 57, while West and Brown each teach clamps, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically the mounting arrangement with two mounts, wherein the entirety of the second mount is a clamp comprising a pair of outwardly extending clamp jaws configured to clamp to a flagpole.
RE claim 59, West teaches wherein the alarm sensing unit comprises a housing unit and a mounting base. Brown teaches one of a dovetail joint and twist lock joint. The prior art does not teach the specific combination wherein the dovetail or twist lock is configured to releasably attach the mounting base to the housing and the mounting base is configured to attach to an ice fishing tip-up.
RE claim 76, the prior art does not teach wherein the second mount of the sensing alarm unit is configured to be mounted to one of a crossbar and a rotary drive shaft of an ice fishing tip up for rotation of the sensing alarm unit substantially in unison with the one of the crossbar and the rotary drive shaft of the ice fishing tip up.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights