Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/241,046

MAIN BODY FRAME AND DUAL BEARING FISHING REEL COMPRISING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 31, 2023
Priority
Sep 09, 2022 — JP 2022-144008
Examiner
SOTO, HENRIX
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Globeride Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allowance Rate
99 granted / 141 resolved
+18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
82.0%
+42.0% vs TC avg
§102
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 141 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furomoto (JPH0631459U) in view of Morimoto (JPH0515771U). Regarding claims 1 and 3, Furomoto discloses a dual bearing fishing reel, comprising: a reel leg; (4; Figures 1-2); a spool (8) around which a fishing line is wound; and a frame main body (1, 2) comprising a left frame (1A) and a right frame (2A) in which the spool (8) is disposed, and three connecting members (3, 5; two 3 members and one 5 member) for connecting the left and right frames (1A, 2A), wherein a geometric configuration and dimensions of exterior contours of respective contact surfaces (C; see Furomoto annotated Figure 1 below) of the three or more connecting members (3, 5) are in contact with the left and right frames (1A, 2A), and the reel leg (4) is fixed to one (5) of the three or more connecting members (3, 5), but fails to teach wherein the geometric configuration and dimensions of exterior contours of respective contact surfaces of the three or more connecting members are the same. PNG media_image1.png 262 333 media_image1.png Greyscale Furomoto, Annotated Figure 1 Morimoto teaches a similar fishing reel and further teaches wherein the geometric configuration and dimensions of exterior contours (7A; 7B; Figures 3-4) of respective contact surfaces of the three or more connecting members (7) are the same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fishing reel of Furomoto to include wherein the geometric configuration and dimensions of exterior contours of respective contact surfaces of the three or more connecting members are the same as taught by Morimoto in order to produce repetitive product that allows for faster production and assembly, improves quality and efficiency, and reduces manufacturing costs. Regarding claim 2, Furomoto discloses wherein to prevent exposure of a contact region between the left and right frames (1A, 2A) and the connecting members (3, 5) to outside, the connecting members (3, 5) comprise an edge portion (E; see Furomoto annotated Figure 1 above; the edge of the end surfaces of the connecting members 3,5 contact and surround the recess edge of the contacting surface of the left and right frames 1A,2A) that covers the contact surfaces (C) of the left and right frames (1A, 2a). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 with respect to claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 3, in the last four lines of pages 4-5, the applicant argued that there is no disclosure in Furomoto wherein the geometric configuration and dimensions of exterior contours of respective contact surfaces of the three or more connecting members are the same. The examiner agrees that the disclosure of Furomoto fails to teach wherein the geometric configuration and dimensions of exterior contours of respective contact surfaces of the three or more connecting members are the same. However, the examiner construed the disclosure of Morimoto teaches the limitation as described above. Furthermore, it is known in the art to produce components of the same shape within an assembly for standardization purposes in order to be easily replaceable, provide faster production and assembly, improve quality and efficiency, and reduce manufacturing costs. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment/argument does not overcome the prior art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm 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. /H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Aug 05, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Dec 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §103
May 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637333
AIRCRAFT MOUNTED CARGO LIFTING CRANE AND ADAPTER FOR MOUNTING THE SAME
2y 6m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12623888
WORK MACHINE
2y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12618510
Game Feeder Hook and Hoist Apparatus
2y 10m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12617657
METHOD FOR PROTECTING A LIFTING MEMBER AGAINST AN OVERLOAD AND DEVICE IMPLEMENTING THIS METHOD
2y 7m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12589265
RESCUE HOIST WITH CABLE RELEASE SAFETY PROVISION
1y 11m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.8%)
2y 7m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 141 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month