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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 23rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the disclosure and claims have overcome the objections to the disclosure and claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 27th, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, “a regulation portion that is fixed so as to regulate the movement of the one-way clutch in a rotation direction”
Claim 6, “a positioning portion for positioning between the outer ring and the first holder or the second holder”
Claim 11, “a positioning portion for positioning between the outer ring and the first holder or the second holder”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2009/0057461) in view of Takada (US 2011/0108382, previously cited on form PTO-892 as WO 2010/004896 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
1009
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4 from Hayashi
Regarding Claim 1, Hayashi, Figures 1-7 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a fishing reel 2 incorporating a one-way clutch 51 that allows rotation of a rotation drive shaft 20 supported in a reel body 2a in one direction and prevents rotation in the other direction (See Hayashi, Para. 0005, Ln. 1-6), wherein
the one-way clutch 51 has an assembly structure comprising an inner ring 55, an outer ring 54, a first holder 57’ comprising a holding portion 57 holding a biasing spring 58 for biasing a plurality of rolling members 56, and a second holder 59 attached to the first holder 57’ so as to hold the outer ring 54 in an axial direction,
the reel body 2a is provided with a regulation portion 53 that is fixed so as to regulate the movement of the one-way clutch 51 in a rotation direction (regulation portion/casing member 53 can be formed integrally with the reel body itself instead of being a component of the clutch; See Hayashi, Para. 0078, Ln. 1-7),
the first holder 57’ is provided with a stopper 61’ protruding radially outward and the outer ring 54 is provided with a stopper 54b protruding radially outward, and
the movement of the one-way clutch 51 in the rotation direction is regulated by the regulation portion 53 of the reel body 2a, the stopper 61’ of the first holder 57’ (the stoppers 61’ on 61 engage with the open circumferential spaces on 57 (i.e., interlocking protrusions 57d and interlocking recessed portions 61b mate) which regulates the rotational movement of the clutch by allowing for positioning of the holding portions 57b and rollers 56 relative to the outer ring 54; See Hayashi, Para. 0062, Ln. 9-14), and the stopper 54b of the outer ring 54 (See Hayashi, Para. 0073, Ln. 7-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
391
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 4 from Takada
Although within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Hayashi teaches the rotation of the one-way clutch being regulated by the stopper of the first holder, in the interest of compact prosecution, Takada, Figures 1-9 and annotated Figure 2 above, is also relied upon to teach wherein the movement of the one-way clutch in the rotation direction is regulated by the stopper 45’ of the first holder 12 and the stopper 44’ of the outer ring 11 (See Takada, Para. 0042, Ln. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with stoppers on the first holder which regulate the rotation of the clutch, as taught by Takada, for the purpose of increasing ease of assembly (i.e., outer race does not rotate relative to the retainer) (See Takada, Para. 0017, Ln. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 2, Hayashi in view of Takada are advanced above.
Hayashi further teaches wherein the regulation portion 53 is a notch portion 53b which is formed along a circumferential direction on a circumferential wall 53a provided in the reel body 2a and in which the stopper 54b of the outer ring 54 is disposed (See Hayashi, Para. 0043, Ln. 1-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
448
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 5 from Takada
Takada, annotated Figure 3 above, teaches a notch portion 47’ which is formed along a circumferential direction on a circumferential wall 47a and in which the stopper 45’ of the first holder 12 and the stopper 44’ of the outer ring 11 are disposed (See Figure 3 above; See Takada, Figs. 6b and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with stoppers on the first holder and the outer ring which are disposed in a notch portion, as taught by Takada, for the purpose of increasing ease of assembly (i.e., outer race does not rotate relative to the retainer) (See Takada, Para. 0017, Ln. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 3, Hayashi in view of Takada are advanced above.
Hayashi further teaches wherein two or more notch portions 53b are provided at equal intervals in the circumferential direction of the circumferential wall 53a (“predetermined intervals” can be defined as equal intervals despite the preferred embodiment highlighting uneven intervals as superior for alignment; See Hayashi, Para. 0043, Ln. 1-4), wherein the first holder 57’ has the same number of stoppers 61’ as the number of notch portions 53b and the outer ring 54 has the same number of stoppers 54b as the number of notch portions 53b (See Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 10, Hayashi, Figures 1-7 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a one-way clutch 51 installed to allow rotation of a rotation drive shaft 20 supported in a reel body 2a of a fishing reel 2 in one direction and prevent rotation in the other direction (See Hayashi, Para. 0005, Ln. 1-6), wherein
the one-way clutch 51 has an assembly structure comprising an inner ring 55, an outer ring 54, a first holder 57’ comprising a holding portion 57 holding a biasing spring 58 for biasing a plurality of rolling members 56, and a second holder 59 attached to the first holder 57’ so as to hold the outer ring 54 in an axial direction, and
the first holder 57’ is provided with a stopper 61’ that protrudes radially outward and the outer ring 54 is provided with a stopper 54b that protrudes radially outward.
Hayashi teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for the stopper of the first holder overlapping with the stopper of the outer ring.
However, Takada, Figures 1-9 and annotated Figure 2 above, teach wherein the stopper 45’ of the first holder 12 and the stopper 44’ of the outer ring 11 overlap each other in the axial direction (See Takada, Para. 0042, Ln. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with stoppers on the first holder and the outer ring which are disposed in a notch portion, as taught by Takada, for the purpose of increasing ease of assembly (i.e., outer race does not rotate relative to the retainer) (See Takada, Para. 0017, Ln. 1-5).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2009/0057461) in view of Takada (US 2011/0108382) as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Ikebukuro (US 2019/0141971).
Regarding Claim 4, Hayashi in view of Takada are advanced above.
Hayashi in view of Takada teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for the outer ring having play with respect to the regulation portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
345
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 2 from Ikebukuro
However, Ikebukuro, Figures 1-7 and annotated Figure 4 above, teaches wherein the outer ring 2 has play with respect to the regulation portion 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with play between the outer ring and regulation portion, as taught by Ikebukuro, for the purpose of limiting the rotation of the outer ring (See Ikebukuro, Para. 0051, Ln. 5-7). Additionally, determining and adjusting the play needed between components would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, Hayashi in view of Takada and Ikebukuro are advanced above.
Hayashi further teaches wherein the first holder 57’ is in contact with the regulation portion 53 without a gap (See Hayashi, Para. 0046, Ln. 1-3, Para. 0061, Ln. 3-5).
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2009/0057461) in view of Takada (US 2011/0108382), as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Saito (US 10,010,061).
Regarding Claim 6, Hayashi in view of Takada are advanced above.
Hayashi in view of Takada teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for a positioning portion for positioning between the outer ring and the first holder or the second holder.
PNG
media_image5.png
701
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 4 from Saito
However, Saito, Figures 1-9 and annotated Figure 5 above, teaches wherein a positioning portion 74’ for positioning between the outer ring 74 and the first holder 78 or the second holder 62 is provided between the outer ring 74 and the first holder 78 or the second holder 62 (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 26-29, Col. 10, Ln. 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with a positioning portion, as taught by Saito, for the purpose of aligning and rotatably coupling components together (e.g. the outer ring and the handle) (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 15-17).
Regarding Claim 7, Hayashi in view of Takada and Saito are advanced above.
Saito further teaches wherein the positioning portion 74’ has a recess 74a formed in an outer circumferential surface 74’’ of the outer ring 74, and a projection portion 78c, 62b formed in the first holder 78 or the second holder 62 and fitted into the recess 74a (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 26-29, Col. 10, Ln. 40-44).
Although Saito teaches the outer ring without a stopper and therefore the recess being formed in the main circumferential surface of the outer ring, recesses and protrusions which correspond to each other and mate for the purpose of component alignment is a well-known and commonly used technique to those of ordinary skill in the art. Slight variations in the configurations of and locations at which the recess and protrusion are formed within the mating components is an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with a recess and a projection portion, as taught by Saito, for the purpose of aligning and rotatably coupling components together (e.g. the outer ring and the handle) (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 15-17).
Regarding Claim 11, Hayashi in view of Takada are advanced above.
Hayashi in view of Takada teach all the elements of the one-way clutch except for a positioning portion for positioning between the outer ring and the first holder or the second holder.
However, Saito, Figures 1-9 and annotated Figure 5 above, teaches wherein a positioning portion 74’ for positioning between the outer ring 74 and the first holder 78 or the second holder 62 is provided between the outer ring 74 and the first holder 78 or the second holder 62 (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 26-29, Col. 10, Ln. 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with a positioning portion, as taught by Saito, for the purpose of aligning and rotatably coupling components together (e.g. the outer ring and the handle) (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 15-17).
Regarding Claim 12, Hayashi in view of Takada and Saito are advanced above.
Saito further teaches wherein the positioning portion 74’ has a recess 74a formed in an outer circumferential surface 74’’ of the outer ring 74, and a projection portion 78c, 62b formed in the first holder 78 or the second holder 62 and fitted into the recess 74a (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 26-29, Col. 10, Ln. 40-44).
Although Saito teaches the outer ring without a stopper and therefore the recess being formed in the main circumferential surface of the outer ring, recesses and protrusions which correspond to each other and mate for the purpose of component alignment is a well-known and commonly used technique to those of ordinary skill in the art. Slight variations in the configurations of and locations at which the recess and protrusion are formed within the mating components is an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with a recess and a projection portion, as taught by Saito, for the purpose of aligning and rotatably coupling components together (e.g. the outer ring and the handle) (See Saito, Col. 8, Ln. 15-17).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US 2009/0057461) in view of Takada (US 2011/0108382) and Saito (US 10,010,061), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Amano (JP 2003265078A).
Regarding Claim 8, Hayashi in view of Takada and Saito are advanced above.
Hayashi in view of Takada and Saito teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for the positioning portion having a recess formed in an inner circumferential surface of the outer ring, and a radial protrusion portion being formed in the first holder or the second holder and fitted into the recess.
PNG
media_image6.png
372
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 3 from Amano
However, Amano, Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 6 above, teaches wherein the positioning portion 38’ has a recess 27c formed in an inner circumferential surface 27’ of the outer ring 27, and a radial protrusion portion 38a formed in the second holder 38 and fitted into the recess 27c (See Amano, Para. 0025, Ln. 5).
Although Amano teaches the recess extending through to the outer circumferential surface of the outer ring, recesses and protrusions which correspond to each other and mate for the purpose of component alignment is a well-known and commonly used technique to those of ordinary skill in the art. Slight variations in the configurations of and locations at which the recess and protrusion are formed within the mating components is an obvious matter of design choice.
PNG
media_image7.png
178
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. Example structure of modification to the outer ring and second holder using teachings of Amano
For example, as shown in Figure 7, the length of the radial protrusion portion can be reduced in the section at which the second holder mates with the outer ring such that the recess in the outer ring is not required to extend through the outer circumferential surface of the outer ring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with a recess and a radial protrusion portion, as taught by Amano (See Figure 7 above), for the purpose of preventing rotation between the second holder, the outer ring, and the reel body (See Amano, Para. 0025, Ln. 1-7).
Regarding Claim 13, Hayashi in view of Takada and Saito are advanced above.
Hayashi in view of Takada and Saito teach all the elements of the one-way clutch except for the positioning portion having a recess formed in an inner circumferential surface of the outer ring, and a radial protrusion portion being formed in the first holder or the second holder and fitted into the recess.
However, Amano, Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 6 above, teaches wherein the positioning portion 38’ has a recess 27c formed in an inner circumferential surface 27’ of the outer ring 27, and a radial protrusion portion 38a formed in the second holder 38 and fitted into the recess 27c (See Amano, Para. 0025, Ln. 5).
Although Amano teaches the recess extending through to the outer circumferential surface of the outer ring, recesses and protrusions which correspond to each other and mate for the purpose of component alignment is a well-known and commonly used technique to those of ordinary skill in the art. Slight variations in the configurations of and locations at which the recess and protrusion are formed within the mating components is an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hayashi with a recess and projection portion, as taught by Amano, for the purpose of preventing rotation between the second holder, the outer ring, and the reel body (See Amano, Para. 0025, Ln. 1-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 would be allowable for disclosing a fishing reel wherein an anticorrosion plate comprising a leg portion interposed between the stopper of the outer ring and the notch portion is disposed to overlap the one-way clutch in the axial direction.
Although Amano teaches an anticorrosion component (protection member 35, See Amano, Fig. 4), which protects the components of the fishing reel from galvanic corrosion caused by seawater exposure (See Amano, Para. 0004, Ln. 1-5), the structural configuration of this component is significantly different from the claimed anticorrosion plate and would not have allowed for anticipation of nor an obvious modification resulting in a fishing reel with all the limitations of claim 9. Therefore, this combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 7-11, filed September 23rd, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Specification and Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the invocation of claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the components “a regulation portion” and “a positioning portion” lack recitation of sufficient structure, within the claims in which they are initially introduced (claims 1, 6, and 11), to perform the claimed functions. Applicant has not submitted amendments reciting sufficient structure in order to avoid these claims being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Applicant asserts ”Independent claim 1 recites "the first holder is provided with a stopper protruding radially outward and the outer ring is provided with a stopper protruding radially outward, and the movement of the one-way clutch in the rotation direction is regulated by the regulation portion of the reel body, the stopper of the first holder, and the stopper of the outer ring."”
Applicant argues “the alleged stopper 61' cannot regulate any rotation movement of the one-way clutch 51 because it does not touch or engage with anything outside of the components of the one-way clutch. Even if the casing member 53 (alleged regulation portion) is integrated with the reel body, the alleged stopper 61' does not engage any of the grooves 53b or any other feature that would assist in regulating rotational movement.”
However, the claim does not necessitate that the stopper directly touch any component outside of the one-way clutch in order to regulate its movement. In Hayashi, the stoppers on 61 engage with the open circumferential spaces on 57 (i.e., interlocking protrusions 57d and interlocking recessed portions 61b mate) which regulates the movement of the clutch by allowing for positioning of the holding portions 57b and rollers 56 relative to the outer ring 54 (See Hayashi, Para. 0062, Ln. 9-14). Although within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Hayashi teaches the rotation of the one-way clutch being regulated by the stopper of the first holder, in the interest of compact prosecution, Takada is also relied upon to teach this limitation (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2-8, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
Regarding the objection to Claim 9, the claim is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims 1-2, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 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.
Hayashi in view of Takada are utilized in the current rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 11-13, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 10 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
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 TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm ET.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654