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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on December 19, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202211634133.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted document retrieval, under the priority document exchange program, failed on May 19, 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the sensors, the intended X, Y, and Z axes, and the fishing line cup and magnetoresistive sensor as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 of 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.
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 fishing reel with the sensors, a diagram of the intended X, Y, and Z axes, and the fishing line cup and magnetoresistive sensor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 of 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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “a fishing reel and” should read “the fishing reel and” as the limitation has antecedence in line 1.
In claim 1, lines 2-3, “a fishing reel through” should read “the fishing reel through” as the limitation has antecedence in line 1.
In claim 2, line 2, “a piercing fish operation” should read “the piercing fish operation”.
In claim 2, line 4, “comprising” should read “further comprising”.
In claim 2, line 8, “the angle Ry” should read “the rotation angle Ry”.
In claim 3, line 2, “a Z-axis acceleration” should read “the Z-axis acceleration”.
In claim 6, line 1, “a bait” should read “the bait” as the limitation has antecedence in claim 1.
In claim 8, line 5, “that a line breakage” should read “that the line breakage”.
In claim 9, line 2, “of fishing line” should read “of the fishing line”.
In claim 9, line 2, “is reel out” should read “is reeled out”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “determining whether a piercing fish operation is completed based on the three-axis acceleration of the fishing reel and the three-axis angular velocity of the fishing reel detected”, and claims 2 and 3 recite further detail including “calculating a rotation angle Ry” [claim 2], determining whether the Z-axis acceleration and angle Ry are greater than threshold values [claim 2], and “calculating rotation angles Rx and Rz of the fishing reel on an x-axis and a z-axis based on the three axis angular velocity of the fishing reel” [claim 3]. The specification, in part due to the lack of detailed drawings, fails to teach or recite the three axes with relation to the fishing reel in such a way as to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art which directions/angles correspond to the rotation angles Rx, Ry, and Rz and the Z-axis acceleration. Further, the determinations for angle Rx and Rz list a range of +/- 10 degrees and +/- 20 degrees, respectively, but there is no description of what is the center of the range (i.e., is the range around a corresponding “0 degrees” and if so what direction or basis is “0 degrees” such as a starting point of a cast or a point in front of the user). Therefore, one of ordinary skill cannot determine how to determine whether an operation is completed and the basis for the determinations and would not be able to ascertain that the inventor(s), at the time of filing, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 4-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a piercing fish operation” which is not a known term of the art or defined in the specification. It appears to be referring to a casting operation, throwing forward a fishing line, but the term piercing fish would appear to refer to hooking the fish. This is further unclear as claim 4 recites “a fish pierced operation” which is interpreted as hooking a fish based on the context of claim 4. Therefore, “a piercing fish operation” is unclear, rending the claim indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. For the sake of compact prosecution, “a piercing fish operation” is interpreted as a casting operation of the fishing rod/reel to throw forward a baited hook.
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 10 also recite the limitation a/the “piercing fish operation” and are likewise rejected. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected by their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the perimeter of the fishing line cup" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the number of effective throwing times" in 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the number of times the piercing fish operation is completed" in 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the length of a broken fishing line" in 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the actual length of fishing line" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Blackadar et al. (US PGPub 20180295828), hereinafter referred to as Blackadar.
With regard to claim 1, Blackadar teaches a fishing posture recognition method (Paragraphs 0007, 0308 teach methods for a recreation monitoring platform), applied to a fishing reel (Paragraphs 0083, 0165 teach the sporting event sensing device (or angling event sensing device (AESD) per paragraph 0085) may be affixed to a sporting good specifically a fishing reel), comprising:
detecting a three-axis acceleration of a fishing reel and a three-axis angular velocity of a fishing reel through a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope respectively after a bait is thrown (Paragraphs 0168, 0170, 0171, 0284 teach the system includes a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope for detecting and determining the acceleration and angular velocity of the reel and rod related to a casting event (bait is thrown)); and
determining whether a piercing fish operation is completed based on the three-axis acceleration of the fishing reel and the three-axis angular velocity of the fishing reel detected (Paragraphs 0084, 0168, 0170 teach the system can use the sensors to determine a casting event and related data including initiation of a cast, a time of flight, a fish strike, and when a lure strikes the water (completion of a cast/piercing fish operation)), and
prompting a user (Paragraphs 0168, 0170 teach the system can provide feedback to the user including generating alerts and updates to be displayed on a connected mobile device).
With regard to claim 10, Blackadar further teaches further comprising: detecting a direction angle formed by a current fishing rod and the North Pole through a three-axis magnet meter after determining that the piercing fish operation is completed to identify the throwing direction and prompting the user (Paragraphs 0168, 0277, 0280 teach the system includes a 3-axis magnetometer capable of capturing compass data of the event/cast (current rod) and thereby providing a compass direction which is related to a North cardinal direction (North Pole)).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackadar in view of Yasuda (US PGPub 20220061297).
With regard to claim 4, Blackadar further teaches the system may determine a fish strike or fish on the line event based on the tensile power on the line and the system may include strain and flex sensors (Paragraphs 0083, 0167, 0172) but may not explicitly teach further comprising: obtaining fishing line cup tension force detected by a tension force sensor located on a fishing line cup of the fishing reel, after determining that the piercing fish operation is completed; and determining whether a fish pierced operation is completed based on the fishing line cup tension force, and prompting the user. However, Yasuda teaches a fishing information management system including detectors/sensors connected to the fishing reel wherein the detectors include a tension detector, such as a strain sensor, that determines if the fishing line is under tension to determine if a fish bite (fish pierced operation) has occurred and prompting the user (Paragraphs 0068, 0124, 0136).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackadar to incorporate the teachings of Yasuda by using the strain sensors of Blackadar to determine the tension of the fishing line to determine a fish bite/fish strike had occurred as taught by Yasuda, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to fishing event detection/information systems using sensors incorporated into a fishing rod and reel. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Blackadar by coding the system to use the strain sensors to determine the tension in the fishing line cup after a casting event and determining that a fish strike/bite had occurred based on the tension and notifying the user of the fish strike/bite (fish pierced operation). Upon such modification, the method and system of Blackadar would include further comprising: obtaining fishing line cup tension force detected by a tension force sensor located on a fishing line cup of the fishing reel, after determining that the piercing fish operation is completed; and determining whether a fish pierced operation is completed based on the fishing line cup tension force, and prompting the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yasuda with Blackadar’s system and method in order to notify a user of a fish strike and improve user fishing skill.
With regard to claim 5, Blackadar further teaches further comprising: detecting whether the fishing line cup is rotating through a magnetoresistive sensor cooperated with a magnet located on the fishing line cup (Paragraph 0175 teaches the system includes a hall effect sensor (magnetoresistive sensor) that can determine the rotations of the reel (fishing line cup) by using the sensor and a magnet located on the inside of the reel), but may not explicitly teach determining whether the fishing line cup tension force detected exceeds a preset threshold at the same time, after determining that the fish pierced operation is completed; and prompting a risk of line breakage when the fishing line cup tension force exceeds the preset threshold and the fishing line cup is not rotating, so that the user can adjust a braking force of the fishing reel in time to prevent fishing line breakage and fish escaping. However, Yasuda further teaches detecting a tension on the line increases and approaches the breaking tension (threshold) such that a risk of breakage is detected due to improper drage setting (Paragraphs 0072, 0124).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blackadar to incorporate the teachings of Yasuda by using the strain sensors of Blackadar to determine the tension of the fishing line to determine if the tension exceeds a breaking risk as taught by Yasuda, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to fishing event detection/information systems using sensors incorporated into a fishing rod and reel. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Blackadar by coding the system to use the strain sensors to determine the tension in the fishing line cup after a casting event as well as the drag and reel rotation (Blackadar paragraphs 0172, 0175) to determine if the tension is approaching a breaking tension of the line and generating an alert with the corresponding information as Blackadar teaches presenting the values and alerts related to the fishing event including a fish lost event which could include an alert/warning and feedback with regard to the drag/braking force to prevent a line breaking so a user can adjust the drag. Examiner notes that the limitation “so that the user can adjust a braking force” is an intended use that can functionally be performed by the combination of Blackadar as modified by Yasuda. Upon such modification, the method and system of Blackadar would include determining whether the fishing line cup tension force detected exceeds a preset threshold at the same time, after determining that the fish pierced operation is completed; and prompting a risk of line breakage when the fishing line cup tension force exceeds the preset threshold and the fishing line cup is not rotating, so that the user can adjust a braking force of the fishing reel in time to prevent fishing line breakage and fish escaping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Yasuda with Blackadar’s system and method in order to notify a user of a breaking line risk and improve user fishing skill.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected.
Examiner notes that claims 2-3 and 6-9 are not rejected in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. With regard to claim 2, Blackadar and Yasuda fail to teach calculating the specific values for determining a completed cast including the Z-axis acceleration greater than 4g and a rotation angle greater than 150 degrees. Further searched art, while similar to Blackadar and Yasuda teaching sensor systems for detecting events/data related to a fishing rod and reel, also fail to teach the claimed limitations. Therefore, no cited or searched art, alone or in combination, teaches the limitations of claim 2 as a whole. Claim 3 is dependent from claim 2.
With regard to claim 6, Blackadar further teaches detecting the rotations of the reel and precise RPMs (Paragraph 0175) as well as rotation time based on the flight times and time stamps of an angling event. However, Blackadar and Yasuda fail to teach determining whether the fishing line cup rotation speed is greater than a preset secondary reeling out speed and determining that a sinking distance of the bait is a secondary reeling out distance and recording the distance. Nakagawa et al. (US 7559499) teaches a fishing reel system for gathering and displaying fishing information including a depth of a tackle/bait based on the number of rotations of the spool/reel and calculating the depth/sinking distance of the tackle. However, as with Blackadar and Yasuda, Nakagawa fails to teach determining the fishing line cup rotation speed is greater or not than a preset secondary reeling out speed. Therefore, no cited or searched art, alone or in combination, teaches the claim limitations as a whole as they fail to teach determining whether the fishing line cup rotation speed is greater than a preset secondary reeling out speed, and if not, determining that a sinking distance of the bait is a secondary reeling out distance. Claims 7-9 are dependent from claim 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715