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 October 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are currently amended. Claims 11-12 are newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the disclosure and claims have overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 30th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, Ln. 4, “would” should read --wound--
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.
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,
“an operating part that is configured to wind the fishing line around the spool”
“a restoring force generation unit that is configured to generate a restoring force between the support shaft portion and the spool”
“a restricting part which is fixed to the support shaft portion, that is configured to restrict a rotational movement amount of the spool relative to the support shaft portion to within a predetermined angular range”
“a detection unit that is configured to detect the rotational movement amount of the spool”
Claim 2,
“a fishing line diameter detection unit that is configured to detect a diameter of the fishing line wound around the spool”
“a tension calculation unit that is configured to calculate a tension from the diameter of the fishing line and the rotational movement amount of the spool”
Claim 3,
“an operating part capable of rotatably operating the support shaft portion”
“a restoring force generation unit that is configured to apply a restoring force between the support shaft portion and the spool”
“a detection unit that is configured to detect an axial displacement of the part to be detected”
“a conversion mechanism that is configured to convert a movement in a rotation direction of the spool relative to the support shaft and transmit the converted movement to the part to be detected”
“a restricting part, which is fixed to the support shaft portion, that is configured to restrict a movement amount of the spool in a rotation direction relative to the support shaft portion to within a predetermined angular range”
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 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP H04267832A) in view of Toda (US 4,938,433).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakajima, Figures 1-8, teaches a line-winding device (fishing reel; See Nakajima, Para. 0003, Ln. 17) comprising: a spool 3 capable of winding a fishing line 2; an operating part 5 that is configured to wind the fishing line 2 around the spool 3; a support shaft portion 15 that is configured to rotatably support the spool 3; a restoring force generation unit 17 that is configured to generate a restoring force between the support shaft portion 15 and the spool 3; and a detection unit (measuring mechanism S; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 12) that is configured to detect the rotational movement amount of the spool 3 (See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 12-14).
Nakajima teaches all the elements of the line-winding device except for a restricting part which is fixed to the support shaft portion and is configured to restrict a rotational movement amount of the spool relative to the support shaft portion to within a predetermined angular range.
However, Toda, Figures 3-5, teaches a restricting part 30, which is fixed to the support shaft portion 5, that is configured to restrict a rotational movement amount of the spool 6 relative to the support shaft portion 5 to within a predetermined angular range (See Toda, Col. 6, Ln. 63 - Col. 7, Ln. 8; Col. 16, Ln. 41-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima with a restricting part, as taught by Toda, for the purpose of preventing the spool from “rotating in the line drawing-out direction due to a pulling force of a hooked fish during fishing” (See Toda, Col. 7, Ln. 43-49).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakajima in view of Toda are advanced above.
Nakajima further teaches wherein the line-winding device is a fishing reel (fishing reel; See Nakajima, Para. 0001, Ln. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakajima in view of Toda are advanced above.
Although Nakajima does not explicitly teach wherein the line-winding device is a winch. Fishing reels and winches are both reeling devices consisting of a line which is wound around a spool or drum wherein one end of the line is subjected to a load which creates tension in the line. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Nakajima to a winch for the purpose of measuring tension in the line.
Regarding Claim 11, Nakajima in view of Toda are advanced above.
Toda further teaches wherein the restricting part 30 is separate from the restoring force generation unit 35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima with a separate restricting part, as taught by Toda, for the purpose of preventing the spool from “rotating in the line drawing-out direction due to a pulling force of a hooked fish during fishing” (See Toda, Col. 7, Ln. 43-49).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP H04267832A) in view of Toda (US 4,938,433), as applied to claims 1 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Hirose (US 5,639,038).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakajima in view of Toda are advanced above.
Nakajima further teaches a tension calculation unit 10 for calculating a tension from the rotational movement amount of the spool 3 (See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 17-22).
Nakajima teaches all the elements of the line-winding device except for a fishing line diameter detection unit and the tension calculation unit using the diameter of the fishing line to calculate tension.
However, Hirose, Figure 8, teaches a fishing line diameter detection unit (line length measuring device; See Hirose, Col. 7, Ln. 14-15) for detecting a diameter (line winding radius r; See Hirose, Col. 7, Ln. 12-13) of the fishing line 43 wound around the spool 13 (See Hirose, Col. 7, Ln. 50-64); and a tension calculation unit (line tension measuring device; See Hirose, Col. 8, Ln. 14-15) for calculating a tension from the diameter (line winding radius r; See Hirose, Col. 7, Ln. 12-13) of the fishing line 43 wound around the spool 13 and the rotational movement amount of the spool 13 (spool 13 is engaged with spool shaft 11 and torque is calculated from measured twist of spool shaft 11 which corresponds to rotation amount of spool 13; See Hirose, Col. 5, Ln. 28-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima in view of Toda with a fishing line diameter detection unit and a tension calculation unit using the diameter of the fishing line to calculate tension, as taught by Hirose, for the purpose of improving ease of use and reliability for intended use (i.e. adjustment of the drag device to reduce line breaks can be based on real time calculated tension rather than an imprecise estimation which relies on experience and is based on the diameter of the fishing line used and the target fish (See Hirose, Col. 1, Ln. 26-52).
Claims 3-5, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP H04267832A) in view of Goto (JP 2003329403A) and Toda (US 4,938,433).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakajima, Figures 1-8, teaches a line-winding device (fishing reel; See Nakajima, Para. 0003, Ln. 17) comprising a spool 3 capable of winding a fishing line 2; a support shaft portion 15 for pivotally supporting the spool 3 rotatably; an operating part 5 capable of rotatably operating the support shaft portion 15; a restoring force generation unit 17 for applying a restoring force between the support shaft portion 15 and the spool 3; a part to be detected 21 (See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 1-5); and a detection unit (measuring mechanism S; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 12).
Nakajima teaches all the elements of the line-winding device except for the part to be detected being movable in an axial direction of the support shaft portion, the detection unit detecting an axial displacement of the part to be detected, a conversion mechanism, and a restricting part.
However, Goto, Figure 1, teaches a part to be detected 22 movable in an axial direction of the support shaft portion 13 (See Goto, Para. 0008, Ln. 6-8); a detection unit 2 for detecting an axial displacement of the part to be detected 22 (See Goto, Para. 0011, Ln. 1-8); and a conversion mechanism 21 for converting a movement in a rotation direction of the spool 14 and transmitting the converted movement to the part to be detected 22 (See Goto, Para. 0013, Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima with a part to be detected, a detection unit, and a conversion mechanism, as taught by Goto, for the purpose of decreasing size and increasing simplicity of the tension measuring means for the wire winding function (See Goto, Para. 0004, Ln. 2-3).
Toda, Figures 3-5, teaches a restricting part 30, which is fixed to the support shaft portion 5, that is configured to restrict a movement amount of the spool 6 in a rotation direction relative to the support shaft portion 5 to within a predetermined angular range (See Toda, Col. 6, Ln. 63 - Col. 7, Ln. 8; Col. 16, Ln. 41-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima with a restricting part, as taught by Toda, for the purpose of preventing the spool from “rotating in the line drawing-out direction due to a pulling force of a hooked fish during fishing” (See Toda, Col. 7, Ln. 43-49).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda are advanced above.
Nakajima further teaches wherein the restoring force generation unit 17 is a spring member (coil spring; See Nakajima, Para. 0009, Ln. 12).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda are advanced above.
Goto further teaches wherein the conversion mechanism 21 is a screw structure (screw shaft; See Goto, Para. 0013, Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima with a screw structure, as taught by Goto, for the purpose of decreasing size and increasing simplicity of the tension measuring means for the wire winding function (See Goto, Para. 0004, Ln. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda are advanced above.
Nakajima further teaches wherein a permanent magnet 19 is provided in the part to be detected 21, and
the detection unit (measuring mechanism S; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 12) is a non-contact position detection means (“reed switches 22 … are arranged near the first and second wheels 20, 21”; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 3-5), and is a magnetic detection unit (“reed switches 22 … are subjected to the magnetic action of the magnet 19”; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 3-4) for detecting magnetism of the permanent magnet 19 provided in the part to be detected 21.
Regarding Claim 12, Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda are advanced above.
Toda further teaches wherein the restricting part 30 is separate from the restoring force generation unit 35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima with a separate restricting part, as taught by Toda, for the purpose of preventing the spool from “rotating in the line drawing-out direction due to a pulling force of a hooked fish during fishing” (See Toda, Col. 7, Ln. 43-49).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP H04267832A) in view of Goto (JP 2003329403A) and Toda (US 4,938,433) as applied to Claims 3-5, 7, and 12 above, and as evidenced by Sensor Tips (https://www.sensortips.com/featured/what-are-the-types-and-uses-of-position-sensors-faq/)
Regarding Claim 6, Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda are advanced above.
Nakajima further teaches wherein the detection unit (measuring mechanism S; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 12) is a non-contact position detection means (“reed switches 22 … are arranged near the first and second wheels 20, 21”; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 3-5).
Although Nakajima does not explicitly teach a light emitting part for projecting light to the part to be detected and a receiver for receiving light of the light emitting part, this combination is well known and commonly used for position detection, as evidenced by Sensor Tips (“Optical position sensors … light is sent to a receiver at the other end of the sensor”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda with an optical position sensor for the purpose of detecting axial displacement of the part to be detected.
Regarding Claim 8, Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda are advanced above.
Nakajima further teaches wherein the detection unit (measuring mechanism S; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 12) is a non-contact position detection means (“reed switches 22 … are arranged near the first and second wheels 20, 21”; See Nakajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 3-5).
Although Nakajima does not explicitly teach a sound wave reflecting part provided in the part to be detected, and the detection unit being a sound wave detection unit for detecting a sound wave from the sound wave reflecting part provided in the part to be detected, this combination is well known and commonly used for position detection, as evidenced by Sensor Tips (“Ultrasonic position sensors use a piezoelectric crystal transducer to emit a high-frequency, ultrasonic sound wave. The sensor measures the reflected sound.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakajima in view of Goto and Toda with an ultrasonic position sensor for the purpose of detecting axial displacement of the part to be detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 5-8, filed October 17th, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn. However, a new objection is raised based on a typographical error.
Regarding the invocation of claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant has not submitted acceptable amendments reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions in claims 1-3 to avoid these claims being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant has amended the claims. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejections. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
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’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Nakajima (JP H04267832A) and Toda (US 4,938,433) are utilized in the current rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2 and 9-10, 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 rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103, 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.
Amendments presented in claim 3 fall within the scope of the amendments presented in claim 1, Applicant supports amendment with the same reasoning presented with respect to claim 1 discussed above, and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, this claim is also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented with respect to claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 4-8, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 3 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
Regarding newly added Claim 11, the claim is a dependent of rejected claim 1, and Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited art, as it applies to claim 1, are moot. Additionally, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made for additional limitations outlined in claim 11. (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above)
Regarding newly added Claim 12, the claim is a dependent of rejected claim 3, and Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited art, as it applies to claim 3, are moot. Additionally, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been made for additional limitations outlined in claim 12. (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights