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 .
Drawings
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 handle arm from claim 1 (Note: Paragraph 0028 discloses that the handle arm is not shown)
The interior housing from claims 5 and 16 (Note: Claims 5 and 16 appear to be directed to Figure 4, but Figure 4 does not show two housings such that one of the housings can be viewed as an interior housing)
The plastic core from claims 6 and 17
The elastomeric over-molding from claims 6 and 17
The cap that applies a downward pressure on the fastening device from claims 9 and 19 (Note: Claims 9 and 19 appear to be directed to Figure 6 which shows a cap (530), a bearing (520), and a fastening device (515). The cap (530) in Figure 6 appears to only contact the bearing (520) and not the fastening device (515). How does the cap (530) apply any force to the cap (530) as shown in Figure 6?)
The first pocket from claim 11
The second pocket from claim 12
The second bearing from claim 13
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claim limitations that do not have proper antecedent basis in the specification are:
The plastic core from claims 6 and 17
The elastomeric over-molding from claims 6 and 17
The first pocket from claim 11
The second pocket from claim 12
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2, recites “the knob handle” which should be changed to --the handle knob-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 5, line 3, recites “the first bearing” which should be changed to --the bearing-- because claim 1 only uses the term “bearing”.
Claim 16, line 2, recites “the knob handle” which should be changed to --the handle knob-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Claim 19, line 2, recites “the bearing” which should be changed to --the first bearing-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
FASTENING DEVICE FOR AFFIXING:
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 is: fastening device for affixing in claim 1, line 6.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph 0028 discloses that a screw is an example of a fastening device.
BIASING MEANS FOR APPLYING:
Claim limitation “biasing means for applying” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a non-structural term “means” coupled with functional language “for applying” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 11 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the specification that achieve the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
the living springs in Figures 2A and 2B (Note: as disclosed in Paragraph 0009)
the springs in Figure 3A-4 (Note: as disclosed in Paragraphs 0010 and 0011)
the elastomeric material, protrusion, and flange in Figures 5A and 5B (Note: as disclosed in Paragraph 0012)
the cap in Figure 6 (Note: as disclosed in Paragraph 0013)
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 § 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.
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, line 5, recites “a second end of the shaft” which is indefinite because it is unclear what the difference is between the second end of the shaft from line 5 and the second end of the shaft from line 4. Should line 5 be amended to recite --the second end of the shaft--?
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-13, 15-17, and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikebukuro (US 10,349,644 B2) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2006-75108 A; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ikebukuro discloses a handle, the handle comprising:
a handle knob (33);
a handle arm (31) in mechanical connection with the handle knob;
a shaft (32) having a first end (the right end of 32 in Figure 4) and a second end (the left end of 32 in Figure 4), wherein the handle knob is connected to the first end of the shaft, and the handle arm connected at the second end of the shaft;
a fastening device (126) for affixing the handle knob to the shaft;
a bearing (122) positioned between the fastening device and the shaft.
Ikebukuro does not disclose a biasing means for applying an axial force against the bearing.
Kobayashi teaches a biasing means (S or 14) for applying an axial force against a bearing (10b).
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 handle of Ikebukuro to have a biasing means for applying an axial force against the bearing, as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of providing a force that aids in maintaining the position of the bearing in the handle.
Regarding claim 2, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob includes a lip (116) surrounding the shaft and abutting the bearing.
Regarding claim 4, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob is made of an elastomeric material (Column 3 / Lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 5, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob includes at least one protrusion (116) extending inwardly from an interior housing (111 extends towards the center of the handle thus is viewed as an interior housing) of the handle knob, the at least one protrusion abutting the bearing (116 abuts against 124).
Regarding claim 6, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob further includes a plastic core (100 is made of synthetic resin; Column 11 / Lines 37-39) and an elastomeric over-molding (Column 11 / Lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 8, Ikebukuro in view of Kobayashi discloses that the biasing means is a spring (S and 14 are springs; Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 10, Ikebukuro in view of Kobayashi discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the handle knob is made by an additive manufacturing process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the handle knob may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
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 production method of the handle knob and make the handle knob by an additive manufacturing process, the handle knob may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 11, Ikebukuro discloses a handle, the handle comprising:
a handle knob (33) for a fishing reel (1), the handle knob including:
a first pocket (the area where 122 is located in Figure 4) at a first end (the right end of 33 in Figure 4); and
a first bearing (122) received in the first pocket.
Ikebukuro does not disclose a biasing means for applying an axial force against the first bearing.
Kobayashi teaches a biasing means (S or 14) for applying an axial force against a bearing (10b).
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 handle of Ikebukuro to have a biasing means for applying an axial force against the bearing, as taught by Kobayashi, for the purpose of providing a force that aids in maintaining the position of the bearing in the handle.
Regarding claim 12, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob further includes a second pocket (the area where 121 is located in Figure 4) at a second end (the left end of 33 in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob further includes a second bearing (121) received in the second pocket.
Regarding claim 15, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob is made of an elastomeric material (Column 3 / Lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 16, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob includes at least one protrusion (116) extending inwardly from an interior housing (111 extends towards the center of the handle thus is viewed as an interior housing) of the handle knob, the at least one protrusion abutting the bearing (116 abuts against 124).
Regarding claim 17, Ikebukuro discloses that the handle knob further includes a plastic core (100 is made of synthetic resin; Column 11 / Lines 37-39) and an elastomeric over-molding (Column 11 / Lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 20, Ikebukuro in view of Kobayashi discloses that the biasing means is a spring (S and 14 are springs; Kobayashi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 18, and 19 are 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.
Claims 3, 7, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamaguchi (US 5,328,122 A) discloses a handle for a fishing reel that is comprised of a handle body, a shaft that attaches the handle to the fishing reel, two bearings that are attached to the shaft, and a cap member that threads onto the shaft and directly contacts one of the bearings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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, John Olszewski can be reached on (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617