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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 9 December 2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-16 are currently presented in the instant application. Presently, claims 1-6, 8-12, and 16 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2025, 9/11/2025, and 11/17/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ueshima et al. (Publication No.: WO 2006/070741 A1, cited in the previous Office Action).
Examiner agrees that the amendments to the claim and the perfected translation of the specification, the 112 rejections have been overcome. In addition, the amendments render the claims clear and no longer questionably invoking 112(f), and will be examined in light of the claim language presented.
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)(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) 1-4, 7-8, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ueshima et al. (Publication No.: WO 2006/070741 A1, cited in the previous Office Action, herein known as D1).
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses a fishing reel comprising;
a throwing detection unit configured to detect a throwing start and a throwing end,
a handle rotation detection unit that detects a number of rotations of a handle of the fishing reel
a line length calculation unit that calculates a line length of a released fishing line,
wherein the line length calculation unit calculates the line length of the fishing line on a basis of the number of rotations of the handle detected by the handle rotation detection unit from the throwing start to the throwing end (processor 72 which receives the acceleration, rotation direction, and rotation speed, which is determined using photo interrupters as discussed in [0043], in which the photo interrupters are known rotary encoders to count the number of times the rotor is rotated as discussed in [0038], and in use, determines the start and end using this data as discussed in [0066]-[0067], the most important parts of these paragraphs are recited below.
[0066] “Then, the player swings the casting rod 20 to perform the casting operation. Then, the acceleration sensor circuit 76 detects the acceleration at that time (that is, the strength of casting), and acceleration data corresponding to the acceleration is transmitted to the cartridge 14 and input to the processor 72.
[0067] By the player's operation as described above, the processor 72 can know the casting direction and casting strength. Based on these, in step S6, the fishing rod 116 displayed on the television monitor 18 is displayed. The direction, the length of the fishing line 118 at that time, the position of the NORER 120, and the casting distance are calculated, and information (image data storage position information, display position information, etc.) to form an image is set in the internal memory.
With respect to claim 2, D1 further discloses a reel wherein the calculated line length or the number of rotations of the handle is initialized on a basis of detection of a current throwing end or detection of a next throwing start (see above [0066]-[0067] recitation, and the photo interrupters description of [0038]).
With respect to claim 3, D1 further discloses a reel further comprising a storage unit, wherein the storage unit stores information of a throwing start, a throwing end, and a the number of rotations of the handle, or a line length of a fishing line (from [0067] “The direction, the length of the fishing line 118 at that time, the position of the NORER 120, and the casting distance are calculated, and information (image data storage position information, display position information, etc.) to form an image is set in the internal memory”).
With respect to claim 4, D1 further discloses a reel wherein a throwing end of a current throwing is determined on a basis of detection of a next throwing start by the throwing detection unit (at the end of the throwing process and “reeling” steps discussed in [0068] for example).
With respect to claim 7, D1 further discloses a reel further comprising a display unit, wherein the display unit displays the line length of the fishing line (as discussed in for example [0067] above, the information is display on the television monitor 18).
With respect to claim 8, D1 further discloses a reel further comprising a transmission-detection unit, wherein the transmission-detection unit transmits the line length of the fishing line to an external device including a portable device, a wearable device, or a computer device (as discussed in for example [0067] above, the information is display on the television monitor 18).
With respect to claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1 which is rejected for similar reasons (having the throwing detection unit, handle rotation unit, and line length calculation unit).
With respect to claims 12-15, see the rejection of claim 8 above (the processor 72 and data gathering and transmission to monitor 18 all encompass these steps).
With respect to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 1 and 8 above for similar reasons (the reception unit can be considered the data collection as discussed in [0066]-[0067] and elsewhere to store and send the data to the monitor 18, the line length calculation as above, and the receiving of the acceleration/number of rotations/throwing start/end to calculate the line length).
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sadako (Publication No.: JP 2001321042, herein known as D2, cited and provided with the IDS on 8/10/2023, the translation provided being used in the recitations below).
With respect to claim 5, D1 does not disclose a reel wherein the throwing detection unit is a bail, and a throwing end of a current throwing is determined by detecting an operation of the bail operated at a time of throwing (rotation of the handle in the reeling direction signals the switch to the “reeling” mode, or an end of throwing, discussed in [0068]).
D1 further wishes to simulate a real fishing experience (abstract, [0001]).
D2 teaches detecting and wound or unwound state based on the switching operation of a bail (in paragraph [0026] of the submitted translation “Instead, only one reflective infrared sensor is installed, and for example, a detector is provided on the reel body 2 of the spinning reel to detect the swing switching operation of the bail 15, and based on the detection signal of this detector It may be determined whether the fishing line is reeled in or reeled out. Alternatively, when the fishing line is reeled out, continuous line detection is performed at extremely short detection intervals, and the fishing line is reeled out to reeled in. When it changes, the line is not detected for a while, and then a detection signal with a large level is obtained by the bail switching operation, so it is possible to detect whether the fishing line is being reeled out or reeling in from the change in this detection signal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the fishing reel of D1 to incorporate a bail into the reel of D1 to initiate the feeling of unlocking or locking of the reel to spin in the winding or unwinding directions such as taught by D2 to initiate the device to determine the casting/reeling state being started.
With respect to claim 6, D1 does not explicitly disclose a reel wherein the throwing detection unit detects an approach of a part to be detected provided on the fishing line, and a throwing end of a current throwing is determined on a basis of the detection (while the handle and photosensors are capable of detecting the reeling state, there is not really a line).
D2 teaches (as described above), using sensors and tracking of the bail to determine the reeling state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to either modify the reel of D1 to utilize tracking of a bail or other element that would be found on a “line” to determine the throwing end state, or alternatively, adding the acceleration and throwing start/end means of D1 to the fishing reel of D2, which has a line that is sensed as described, as both D1 and D2 utilize methods to sense a throwing start and recording of the reel state to determine a distance the line has been thrown.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
3/20/2025
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852