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 November 25th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 2nd, 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.
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,
“a guide part for guiding the fishing line”
“an operating part for rotationally operating the guide part”
“a restoration unit for applying a restoring force between the support shaft portion and the device main body”
“a detection unit for detecting an angular position of the support shaft portion”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 4,
“the detection unit is a non-contact position detection means, and comprises a light emitting part for projecting light to the part to be detected, and a receiver for receiving light of the light emitting part.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US 4,650,161).
PNG
media_image1.png
519
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1 from Kaneko
PNG
media_image2.png
246
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 2 from Kaneko
Regarding Claim 1, Kaneko, Figures 1-6 and annotated Figures 1-2 above, teaches a line-winding device 100 capable of being fixed to a fishing rod (See Kaneko, Col. 3, Ln. 30-32), the line-winding device 100 comprising:
a spool 13 capable of winding a fishing line 14 around a central axis substantially parallel to an extending direction of the fishing rod (See Kaneko, Col. 3, Ln. 49-52);
a rotor 8 comprising a guide part 8’ for guiding the fishing line and rotatable around the spool 13;
an operating part 20 for rotationally operating the guide part 8’ (See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 21-22);
a support shaft portion 12 that is at a central axis of the spool 13 and is rotatably supported with respect to a device main body 1 (See Kaneko, Col. 3, Ln. 46-50);
a restoration unit 27 for applying a restoring force to the support shaft portion 12 (See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 35-41);
a detected portion 24 on the support shaft portion 12,
a detection unit 31 for detecting an angular position of the support shaft portion 12 (See Kaneko, Col. 5, Ln. 22-34); and
a level wind device 22 that reciprocates the support shaft 12 in an axial direction in response to a rotation of the rotor 8 (See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 12-28).
Although Kaneko does not explicitly teach wherein an axial length of the detected portion is greater than an amount of an axial movement of the support shaft portion caused by the level wind device and instead discloses the detected portion 24 being unable to shift in the axial direction of the support shaft portion 12 (See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 42-46), in a case where the detected portion is formed integrally with the support shaft portion and thus, the detected portion is axially fixed to the support shaft portion and forced to reciprocate with it, the length of the detected portion would need to be long enough to maintain sufficient sensor readings by the detection means. When a consistent sensor reading is desired along a movement path in one direction while maintaining the ability to detect changes in another direction, extending the length of the part to be detected which is moving relative to its length is an obvious design principle applied to numerous sensor applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Kaneko with an embodiment where the detected portion is forced to move axially with the support shaft, thus requiring an axial length of the detected portion being greater than an amount of an axial movement of the support shaft portion caused by the level wind device.
Regarding Claim 2, Kaneko is advanced above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein the support shaft portion 12 is connected to a movable end spring end member (torsion spring; See Kaneko, Col. 5, Ln. 21) that contacts one end of the restoration unit 27 and rotates in a rotation direction of the support shaft portion 12 in synchronization with the support shaft portion 12 and a rotatable range of the movable end spring end member is restricted by a rotation restricting part 1’ (See annotated Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Kaneko is advanced above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein the restoration unit 27 is an elastic spring (torsion spring; See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 37).
Regarding Claim 5, Kaneko is advanced above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein a permanent magnet 28 is in a part to be detected 24, and
the detection unit 31 is a non-contact position detection means (See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 51-56), and is a magnetic detection unit (reed switches; See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 53) for detecting magnetism of the permanent magnet 28 in the part to be detected 24 (See Kaneko, Col. 5, Ln. 25-31).
Regarding Claim 7, Kaneko is advanced above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein the line-winding device 100 is a fishing reel (spinning reel; See Kaneko, Col. 3, Ln. 28).
Regarding Claim 8, Kaneko is advanced above.
Although Kaneko 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 Kaneko to a winch for the purpose of measuring tension in the line.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (US 4,650,161), as applied to Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 above, and as evidenced by Sensor Tips (https://www.sensortips.com/featured/what-are-the-types-and-uses-of-position-sensors-faq/)
Regarding Claim 4, Kaneko is advanced above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein the detection unit 31 is a non-contact position detection means (See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 51-56).
Although Kaneko 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 Kaneko with an optical position sensor comprising a light emitting part and receiver for the purpose of detecting the angular position of the part to be detected.
Regarding Claim 6, Kaneko is advanced above.
Kaneko further teaches wherein the detection unit 31 is a non-contact position detection means (See Kaneko, Col. 4, Ln. 51-56).
Although Kaneko 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 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 Kaneko with an ultrasonic position sensor comprising a sound wave reflecting part and a sound wave detection unit for the purpose of detecting the angular position of the part to be detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 4-6, filed November 25, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections 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.
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.
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
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619