DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 08/23/2025 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1 and 17 were amended, and Claims 2-4 were canceled. Claims 1, 5-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-16, and 18-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
For claims 7-16, the letters in parenthesis, i.e. (A), (B), (C), etc., should be deleted to avoid confusion.
For claims 18-19, “bibles” in line 1, should read bibless.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 10, the limitation “a tip” in line 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different tip than what was stated in claim 7, line 3? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same tip and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “tip” in claim 10.
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.
Claims 1, 5-11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMAGUCHI (US 20150250154 A1 as cited in IDS) in view of Ichiyanagi (US Patent Publication 2019/0208756).
Regarding claim 1, HAMAGUCHI teaches a bibless squid lure (A) having a body (10), the body comprising a rigid head (13, figs. 2-3 depict head 13 to be rigid when 25 is inserted into the head and so the head 13 is rigid) and one or more flexible tentacles (16 and [0010] as the lure is made of a flexible material and so there tentacles are flexible) attached to the head (figs. 1-3) and wherein the entirety of the body is unjointed (figs. 1-3 and [0047] as the body is a continuous body); the head having a ventral side and a dorsal side (figs. 2-3); wherein the head and the tentacles are shaped so that, when the lure is lifted upwards or pulled forwards through water, the body vibrates in a repetitive oscillation comprising primarily a rotation about a longitudinal axis of the body relative to a reference frame moving with the body (fig. 25 and [0090] and [0098] as the lure can freely rotate 360 degrees and is bendable and so has an oscillated motion when being lifted upwards or pulled forwards through the water).
HAMAGUCHI does not explicitly state with a tow point attached to the dorsal side, and a hook adapter attached to the ventral side; the head having a weight located primarily in a ventral portion towards a front of the head; and wherein the head has a generally oval cross-section along a substantial portion of a length of the head that comprises a dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature.
Ichiyanagi teaches head having a tow point (102) attached to the dorsal side [pulling the fishing line 118 connected to the eyelet 102 attached on the upside of the nose 101 [0046]], and a hook adapter (104) attached to the ventral side [eyelet 104 attached underside of the body 110; hooks 120 are connected on the eyelets 104 [0037]]; the head having a weight (114) located primarily in a ventral portion towards a front of the head [first sinker 114 and second sinker 116 installed in a space provided underside of the body 110 [0037]]; and wherein the head has a generally oval cross-section (fig. 5A) along a substantial portion of a length of the head that comprises a dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature [The topside of the body 410 is shaped in flat as illustrated in Fig. 4. [0051]; when the topside of the body 410 is shaped in a flat surface, the fishing lure 400 swims substantially straight when fishing line 418 is pulled by relatively strong strength; In the case of fishing lure having a flat surface of the topside of the body as illustrated in FIG. 4, unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body which tend to occur when initially pulling the fishing lure, can be suppressed [0052] for the purpose of providing a lure with a tow point attached to the dorsal side and a weight in a ventral portion towards a front of a head that has a flat surface on the topside so that the fishing lure swims straight when a fishing line is pulled and unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body which tend to occur when initially pulling the fishing lure can be suppressed].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI to include a tow point attached to the dorsal side, and a hook adapter attached to the ventral side; the head having a weight located primarily in a ventral portion towards a front of the head; and wherein the head has a generally oval cross-section along a substantial portion of a length of the head that comprises a dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature as taught by Ichiyanagi because doing so would have provided a lure with a tow point attached to the dorsal side and a weight in a ventral portion towards a front of a head that has a flat surface on the topside so that the fishing lure swims straight when a fishing line is pulled and unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body can be suppressed.
Regarding claim 5, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 1, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the head comprises a mantle portion (13) and a mid-portion (15) with the mid-portion located between the mantle and the one or more flexible tentacles (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 5, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the mid-portion comprises two eye cavities (14 fig. 10), the eye cavities describing a concave shape and located on opposite sides of the mid-portion (fig. 10 depicts the interior of 14 to have the cavities a concave shape).
In the event that applicant disagrees with examiner’s interpretation of HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi wherein the eye cavities are a concave shape, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the eye cavities of HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to be a concave shape depending on the user’s design preference, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 1, and HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi further teaches having a head length and a maximum head thickness (figs. 1-3 of HAMAGUCHI), wherein tow point (102 of Ichiyanagi) is located at a tow point distance from a tip of the head [the fishing line 118 connected to the eyelet 102 attached on the upside of the nose 101 [0046] of Ichiyanagi].
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach a ratio of the tow point distance to the head length is between 0.55 and 0.25.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include a ratio of the tow point distance to the head length between 0.55 and 0.25 because doing so would have provided a fishing lure in the shape of a squid with dimensions suitable for the lure to be drawn through the water by a fishing line secured to the towing point and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 7, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the head has a maximum height and maximum head thickness (figs. 1-3).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach a ratio of the maximum head thickness to the maximum head height is between 0.35 and 0.55.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include a ratio of the maximum head thickness to the maximum head height between 0.35 and 0.55 because doing so would have provided head dimensions suitable for closely simulating the appearance of a squid bait and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 8, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein an eye thickness of the head is a cross-sectional distance measured between respective lowest points of concave eye cavities (fig. 10).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach a ratio of the eye thickness to the maximum head thickness is between 0.85 and 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include a ratio of the eye thickness to the maximum head thickness is between 0.85 and 1 because doing so would have provided life like head and eye dimensions suitable for closely simulating the appearance a squid bait and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 7, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches where the lure has an overall length measured from a tip of head to a tip of a longest tentacle when extended in a direction along a length of the lure (figs. 1-3).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach a ratio of the head length to the overall length is between 0.4 and 0.6.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include a ratio of the head length to the overall length between 0.4 and 0.6 because doing so would have provided head and overall length dimensions suitable for closely simulating the appearance a squid bait and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 7, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the one or more flexible tentacles (16) define a tentacle shoulder (figs. 2-3 depict the tentacle shoulder) wherein the body has a tentacle shoulder thickness at the tentacle shoulder (figs. 2-3).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach a ratio of the maximum head thickness to the shoulder thickness is 1.1 to 1.4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include a ratio of the maximum head thickness to the shoulder thickness 1.1 to 1.4 because doing so would have provided head and tentacle shoulder dimensions suitable for closely simulating the appearance a squid bait and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 1, and HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi further teaches wherein the lure has a head length (figs. 1-3 of HAMAGUCHI) and a maximum head thickness (figs. 1-3 of HAMAGUCHI), tow point (102 of Ichiyanagi) is located at a tow point distance from a tip of the head (pulling the fishing line 118 connected to the eyelet 102 attached on the upside of the nose 101 [0046] of Ichiyanagi) and the dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature has a maximum thickness (The topside of the body 410 is shaped in flat as illustrated in FIG. 4. [0051]: when the topside of the body 410 is shaped in a flat surface, the fishing lure 400 swims substantially straight when fishing line 418 is pulled by relatively strong strength; In the case of fishing lure having a flat surface of the topside of the body as illustrated in FIG. 4, unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body which tend to occur when initially pulling the fishing lure, can be suppressed [0052] of Ichiyanagi).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach a ratio of the tow point distance to the head length is between 0.55 and 0.25; and a ratio of the maximum thickness of the dorsal region having little or no curvature to the maximum head thickness is between 0.55 and 0.7.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include a ratio of the tow point distance to the head length between 0.55 and 0.25 and a ratio of the maximum thickness of the dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature to the maximum head thickness between 0.55 and 0.7 because doing so would have provided squid lure dimensions suitable for closely simulating the appearance a squid bait and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 14, and Ichiyanagi further teaches having the maximum thickness of the flat region and maximum head height (The topside of the body 410 is shaped in flat as illustrated in FIG. 4. [0051]; when the topside of the body 410 is shaped in a flat surface, the fishing lure 400 swims substantially straight when fishing line 418 is pulled by relatively strong strength; In the case of fishing lure having a flat surface of the topside of the body as illustrated in FIG. 4, unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body which tend to occur when initially pulling the fishing lure, can be suppressed [0052]).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach a ratio of the maximum thickness of the flat region to the maximum head height is between 0.23 to 0.35.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include a ratio of the maximum thickness of the flat region to the maximum head height is between 0.23 to 0.35 because doing so would have provided squid lure dimensions suitable for closely simulating the appearance a squid bait and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 7, and Ichiyanagi further teaches having hook adapter 104 hook adapter is located a distance from the tip of the head (pulling the fishing line 118 connected to the eyelet 102 attached on the upside of the nose 101 [0046] and tow point 102).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach the distance from the tip of the head to the hook adaptor measured along a length of the lure is less than the tow point distance.
Applicant's disclosure fails to identify the criticality of the claimed limitation(s). Therefore, the limitation(s) has/have not been given patentable weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to make the distance from the tip of the head to the hook adaptor measured along a length of the lure less than the tow point distance.
Regarding claim 17, HAMAGUCHI teaches a bibless squid lure (A) consisting of body (10) having a rigid head (13, figs. 2-3 depict head 13 to be rigid when 25 is inserted into the head and so the head 13 is rigid) and one or more flexible tentacles (16 and [0010] as the lure is made of a flexible material and so there tentacles are flexible) attached to the head (figs. 1-3), the head having: a ventral side and a dorsal side (figs. 2-3); wherein the head and the tentacles are shaped so that, when the lure is lifted upwards or pulled forwards through water, the body vibrates in a repetitive oscillation comprising primarily a rotation about a longitudinal axis of the body relative to a reference frame moving with the body (fig. 25 and [0090] and [0098] as the lure can freely rotate 360 degrees and is bendable and so has an oscillated motion when being lifted upwards or pulled forwards through the water); and the entirety of the body is unjointed (figs. 1-3 and [0047] as the body is a continuous body).
However, HAMAGUCHI is silent about a tow point attached to the dorsal side and a hook adapter attached to the ventral side, and a weight located primarily in a ventral portion towards a front of the head; and wherein the head has a generally oval cross-section along a substantial portion of a length of the head that comprises a dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature.
Ichiyanagi teaches a tow point (102) attached to the dorsal side [pulling the fishing line 118 connected to the eyelet 102 attached on the upside of the nose 101 [0046]]and a hook adapter (104) attached to the ventral side [eyelet 104 attached underside of the body 110; hooks 120 are connected on the eyelets 104 [0037]], and a weight (114) located primarily in a ventral portion towards a front of the head [first sinker 114 and second sinker 116 installed in a space provided underside of the body 110 [0037]]; and wherein the head has a generally oval cross-section (fig. 5A) along a substantial portion of a length of the head that comprises a dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature[The topside of the body 410 is shaped in flat as illustrated in Fig. 4. [0051]; when the topside of the body 410 is shaped in a flat surface, the fishing lure 400 swims substantially straight when fishing line 418 is pulled by relatively strong strength; In the case of fishing lure having a flat surface of the topside of the body as illustrated in FIG. 4, unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body which tend to occur when initially pulling the fishing lure, can be suppressed [0052] for the purpose of providing a lure with a tow point attached to the dorsal side and a weight in a ventral portion towards a front of a head that has a flat surface on the topside so that the fishing lure swims straight when a fishing line is pulled and unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body which tend to occur when initially pulling the fishing lure can be suppressed].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI to include a tow point attached to the dorsal side and a hook adapter attached to the ventral side, and a weight located primarily in a ventral portion towards a front of the head; and wherein the head has a generally oval cross-section along a substantial portion of a length of the head that comprises a dorsal region having little or no lateral curvature as taught by Ichiyanagi because doing so would have provided a lure with a tow point attached to the dorsal side and a weight in a ventral portion towards a front of a head that has a flat surface on the topside so that the fishing lure swims straight when a fishing line is pulled and unexpected lift-up movements of the lure body can be suppressed.
Regarding claim 18, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibles squid lure of claim 1, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the body is integrally formed so that the head is directly connected to the tentacles (figs. 1-3 and [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibles squid lure of claim 17, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the body is integrally formed so that the head is directly connected to the tentacles (figs. 1-3 and [0047]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bomann (US 6,393,757).
Regarding claim 12, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 1, and HAMAGUCHI further teaches having one or more flexible tentacles (16 and [0010] as the lure is made of a flexible material and so there tentacles are flexible).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi does not specifically teach at least one longer tentacle and at least one shorter tentacle, the at least one longer tentacle having a longer tentacle distance as compared to the at least one shorter tentacle and the at least one shorter tentacle having a shorter tentacle distance as compared to the at least one longer tentacle.
Bomann teaches at least one longer tentacle 110 and at least one shorter tentacle 108, the at least one longer tentacle having a longer tentacle distance as compared to the at least one shorter tentacle and the at least one shorter tentacle having a shorter tentacle distance as compared to the at least one longer tentacle [there are eight relatively short tentacles 108 and two longer tentacles 110, col. 12 lines 55-57] for the purpose of providing a squid lure with longer tentacles that splay outward in a fluttering, undulating manner so the squid presents a very realistic undulating swimming action of a natural bait fish.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi to include at least one longer tentacle and at least one shorter tentacle, the at least one longer tentacle having a longer tentacle distance as compared to the at least one shorter tentacle and the at least one shorter tentacle having a shorter tentacle distance as compared to the at least one longer tentacle as taught by Bomann because doing so would have provided a squid lure with longer tentacles that splay outward in a fluttering, undulating manner so the squid presents a very realistic undulating swimming action of a natural bait fish.
Regarding claim 13, HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi and Bomann teaches the bibless squid lure according to claim 12, and HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi and Bomann further teaches having a head length (figs. 1-3 of HAMAGUCHI) and a maximum head thickness (figs. 1-3 of HAMAGUCHI), wherein the tow point (102 of Ichiyanagi ) is located at a tow point distance from a tip of the head (the fishing line 118 connected to the eyelet 102 attached on the upside of the nose 101 [0046] of Ichiyanagi); the shorter tentacle distance (there are eight relatively short tentacles 108 and two longer tentacles 110, col. 12 lines 55-57 of Bomann).
HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi and Bomann does not specifically teach a ratio of the tow point distance to the head length is between 0.55 and 0.25 and a ratio of the head length added to the shorter tentacle distance to the head length is between 0.55 and 0.75.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure taught by HAMAGUCHI as modified by Ichiyanagi and Bomann to include a ratio of the tow point distance to the head length between 0.55 and 0.25 and a ratio of the head length added to the shorter tentacle distance to the head length between 0.55 and 0.75 because doing so would have provided head and tentacle dimensions suitable for closely simulating the appearance a squid bait and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skillin the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rosenblatt (US 5276993 A) teaches an unjointed body.
Korteweg (US 20090056196 A1) teaches an unjointed body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643 /DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights