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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The features are: the ring portion, a mounting portion, one or more securing mechanisms, a handle portion, a hinge portion, the mounting portion attaching or clamping to bass boats, pontoon boats, canoes, and kayaks, the ring portion secures the combination fishing net mud spike around a tree, mud spike is capable of being secured to a dock or pier, the one or more securing mechanisms are slots, the mounting portion is a clamp, the mounting portion is movable to more than one position on the combination fishing net mud spike, the mounting portion is affixed to a bar that is capable of being folded, the bar has a hinge portion that folds the mounting portion against the mud spike, wherein the mounting portion is affixed to a pole that is capable of being folded, the handle portion is securable at a right angle relative to a topmost part of the mud spike portion, the ring portion is secured to the mud spike portion through a hinge, the ring portion is capable of being used as part of an anchor ring, the mud spike portion is telescopic and/or adjustable.
No new matter should be entered. (Some of these claimed features appear to be shown but not labeled. Some appear to belong to another embodiment not illustrated. It’s not clear if the some claimed features are considered to be conventional by Applicant in the combination of features claimed.)
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.
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
“securing mechanism” (synonymous with “mechanism for securing” or “means for securing” in claim 1.
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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by over Sheridan (US 20120125247 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike that is capable of attaching or clamping to a personal watercraft to secure the personal watercraft when fishing or other water activities, the combination fishing net mud spike comprising: a mud spike portion (Element 120 and 108); a ring portion (Element 132) attached to the mud spike portion having one or more securing mechanisms to receive a fishing net (the interior of the ring is a mechanism that allows a net to be secured); a mounting portion that is capable of attaching (The portion of 108 above the ring, in way of leaderline for “108” in Fig 2 is capable of attaching to a watercraft with a rope. Also see cited prior art below.) or clamping to the personal watercraft, the mounting portion positioned above the ring portion on the mud spike portion; and a handle portion at a top of the mud spike portion that permits a user to manipulate the combination fishing net mud spike, the handle having a hinge portion that allows the handle to be movable relative to the mud spike. (Element 204 is allows Element 112 to be folded against 108).
Regarding Claim 2, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike of claim 1, wherein the personal watercraft is selected from the group comprising: bass boats, pontoon boats, canoes, and kayaks. (An anchor line of the mounting portion is capable of attaching to all of those craft. See MPEP 2114 regarding functional claims of an apparatus.)
Regarding Claim 4, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike of claim 1, wherein the combination fishing net mud spike is capable of being secured to a dock or pier. (It is capable of being secured with an line or rope.)
Regarding Claim 7, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike of claim 1, wherein the mounting portion is removable from the combination fishing net mud spike. (Element 108 is removable from Element 120)
Regarding Claim 8, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike of claim 1, wherein the mounting portion is movable to more than one position on the combination fishing net mud spike. (Element 108 is movable relative to Element 120.)
Regarding Claim 12, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike of claim 1, wherein the handle portion is securable at a right angle relative to a topmost part of the mud spike portion. (See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 14, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike of claim 1, wherein the ring portion is capable of being used as part of an anchor ring. (paragraph 44)
Regarding Claim 15, Sheridan discloses the combination fishing net mud spike of claim 1, wherein the mud spike portion is telescopic and/or adjustable. (paragraph 41)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13 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. (Applicant still needs to show in the drawings all the claimed features in order to overcome the drawing objections. If they are present, they must be labeled. Examiner suggests submitting draft drawings and claims in an interview before the next action.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schwiebert (US 20140007487 A1) discloses anchor lines may be tied to a mounting portion of a spike. Perry (US 7870829 B1) and Baker (US 20180334223 A1) discloses a spike with a mounting bracket. Roemer (US 20080115401 A1) discloses a spike with a rod carrier capable of holding a net. Lenz (US 20220087235 A1) discloses a net mounting portion. Winkler (US 20050126064 A1) discloses a net on a spike. Brooks (US 20050279391 A1) discloses a pivoting handle on a spike.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 30 March 2026