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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-29 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the fourth action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 10/18/2023, and 2/13/2025 and have been reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 9-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Suzue et al. (US #5,245,779).
Regarding claim 2, Suzue teaches a fishing pole grip comprising: a fishing pole grip subassembly (Column 5, lines 1-7, this teaches that the multi-layered invention can be applied to the grip of the fishing pole as well as the rod) including a shell (1), a overmolded layer (3), and a carbon fiber tube (2, and 13, Column 2, lines 42-45, and Column 3, lines 21-30, this teaches that the tapered section can be made from a prepreg sheet, and that the prepreg sheet can be made of carbon fibers), the carbon fiber tube and overmolded layer overlying the shell and forming a joint (2, and 3 as seen in figure 1, and Column 2, lines 46-50); the overmolded layer being in contact with the shell (1, and 3 as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Suzue teaches the fishing pole grip of claim 2, wherein the carbon fiber tube forms a distal end portion of the fishing pole grip subassembly (2 as seen in figure 1) and the shell and overmolded layer form a proximal end portion of the fishing pole grip subassembly (1, 3, and 5 as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Suzue teaches the fishing pole grip of claim 9, wherein the carbon fiber tube forms an exterior surface of the distal end portion of the fishing pole grip subassembly (2 as seen in figure 1) and the overmolded layer forms an exterior surface of the proximal end portion of the fishing pole grip subassembly (3, and 5 as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Suzue teaches the fishing pole grip of claim 2, wherein a proximal end of the carbon fiber tube and a distal end of the overmolded layer abut one another (2, and 3 as seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Suzue teaches the fishing pole grip of claim 2, wherein the fishing pole grip subassembly has a longitudinal axis, the joint formed by the carbon fiber tube and the overmolded layer being tapered relative to the longitudinal axis (2, and 3 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen the two layers abut when there is a significant change in the outer angle of the body).
Regarding claim 21, Suze teaches the fishing pole grip of claim 2, wherein the carbon fiber tube is a distinct entity from the shell and is connected to the shell (1, and 2 as seen in figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzue et al. (US #5,245,779) in view of Priebe (US #3,466,783).
Regarding claim 8, Suzue teaches the fishing pole grip of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that the fishing pole grip subassembly has an hourglass shape. However, Priebe does teach that the fishing pole grip subassembly has an hourglass shape (The grip as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the grip be hourglass shape because Suzue and Priebe are both multilayered fishing rod grips. The motivation for having the grip be hourglass shape is that it can help to improve the comfort of holding the fishing rod.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzue et al. (US #5,245,779) in view of Iwata et al. (US #11,576,359).
Regarding claim 16, Suzue teaches the fishing pole grip of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that the joint has an ovoid perimeter. However, Brackett does teach that the joint has an ovoid perimeter (Column 2, lines 52-58, this teaches that the whole handle can have an ovoid handle shape which will inherently result in portions of the perimeter having an ovoid shape). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the perimeter have an ovoid shape because Suzue and Brackett are both fishing handle systems. The motivation for having the perimeter have an ovoid shape is that it can make the handle more comfortable for the user to hold.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees with the applicant’s arguments directed to claim 1 and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, 14, and 22-29 are allowed.
Claims 13, 15, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 reply 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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647