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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17, 19-20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagi US 2021/0274762.
Regarding claim 1, Yagi teaches a lure, comprising:
a body having an interior hollow portion (figure 10);
a weight configured to move in the hollow portion (14);
a support member (4) having a guide portion extending in a longitudinal direction of the body so as to guide the weight in the longitudinal direction (as shown in figure 10 comprising portions that extend in the longitudinal direction which inherently “guides” the weight in said longitudinal direction) and be capable of oscillating inside the hollow portion (figure 11);
but does not specify and a spring part configured to bias the weight toward a front side of the support member; and consequently, move the weight toward a tail side.
Yagi; however, does teach spring parts to bias elements within the body (17 figure 9B), where the angle at which the springs are provided also allow the weight to bias towards a front and tail side, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an arrangement, in order to accommodate various design requirements for various desired oscillating affects; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure describes such embodiment as merely optional; therefore, does not appear to be the core of novelty.
Regarding claim 2, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the body includes a restricting portion configured to restrict a range of oscillation of the support member (such as the interior wall portions of the body as shown in figure 11).
Regarding claim 3, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the support member is configured to oscillate in a plane intersecting the longitudinal direction (figure 11).
Regarding claim 4, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein at least one end of the support member is connected to an inner surface of the body (via elements 3 and 5 as best shown in figure 11).
Regarding claim 5, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the support member includes a connecting portion (such as the portion connecting to element 3) connecting the guide portion to the body (where all such elements connect the guide portion to the body) so as to be capable of oscillating.
Regarding claim 6, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 5, wherein the connecting portion is integral with the guide portion (as shown in figures 10-11).
Regarding claim 7, Yagi teaches the guide lure according to claim 1, wherein the guide portion has a first shaft-shaped portion extending in the shape of a shaft (figure 10 best shows the guide portion in a shaft shape).
Regarding claim 8, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 7, wherein the guide portion further includes a second shaft-shaped portion extending in a same direction as the first shaft-shaped portion (where the shaft-shaped guide portion may include numerous combinations of “portions”).
Regarding claim 9, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 7, wherein the weight has an engagement portion configured to engage the guide portion (as shown in figure 11); but does not specify the engagement portion has a first groove portion configured to engage the first shaft- shaped portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the guide portions and magnet/weight with numerous combinations of shapes, in order to accommodate various design requirements for various desired oscillating affects; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure describes such embodiment as merely optional; therefore, does not appear to be the core of novelty.
Regarding claim 10, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 8, wherein the weight has an engagement portion configured to engage the guide portion (as shown in figure 11); but does not specify the engagement portion has a first groove portion configured to engage the first shaft-shaped portion and a second groove portion configured to engage the second shaft-shaped portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the guide portions and magnet/weight with numerous combinations of shapes, in order to accommodate various design requirements for various desired oscillating affects; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure describes such embodiment as merely optional; therefore, does not appear to be the core of novelty.
Regarding claim 11, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the guide portion includes a housing portion that houses the weight so as to be movable (as shown in figures 10-11).
Regarding claim 12, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 11, wherein the guide portion has a cylindrical portion that includes the housing portion and that extends in a direction of movement of the weight (as shown in figures 10-11).
Regarding claim 13, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the weight has an engagement portion configured to engage the guide portion (best shown in figure 11).
Regarding claim 14, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the weight is formed in a columnar shape (best shown in figure 10).
Regarding claim 15, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 14, wherein the weight is formed in a cylindrical shape (best shown in figure 10).
Regarding claim 16, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 14, but does not teach wherein the weight has a hole into which the guide portion is inserted.
However, such types of arrangements are known (see at least Yagi figure 9A showing an arrangement of an engaging/guiding element passing through a hole of a swinging weight, etc.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the guide portions and magnet/weight with numerous combinations of shapes, in order to accommodate various design requirements for various desired oscillating affects; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant’s disclosure describes such embodiment as merely optional; therefore, does not appear to be the core of novelty.
Regarding claim 17, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 16, wherein the hole passes through a center of the cross section of a weight (see claim 16 rejection).
Regarding claim 19, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein a centering mechanism (12) configured to bias the weight is positioned in front of a shaft of the support member (as shown where “front” is a relative term, and “shaft” may be interpreted as “a long, narrow part or section”) and is disposed at a neutral position of a range of oscillation of the support member (best shown in figure 11).
Regarding claim 20, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 19, wherein the weight is a magnetic material, and the centering mechanism is a magnet disposed on a body side and is configured to attract the weight at the neutral position (paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 25, Yagi teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the support member is configured to be disposed inside the spring part (the combination of figures 10 and 9B as previously described show at least a portion of the support member 4/3 disposed inside at least a portion of the spring part 1 of figure 9B to provide the attached arrangement).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the rejection of claim 1 does not provide the support member “moving” the weight in the longitudinal direction is not convincing at least because claim 1 does not recite such limitation. Claim 1 recites the support member “guides” the weight in the longitudinal direction. The metes and bounds of the terms “guide” and “move” are not equivalent.
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 JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644