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 14th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 22nd, 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: “an escape portion for allowing the fishing line that is wound to escape to prevent the fishing line from accumulating on the skirt portion of the spool and reducing the occurrence of a backlash during casting without undergoing forward taper winding even when the winding of the fishing line is performed with one of a high load and a low load” 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 § 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1, Ln. 15, the limitation “without undergoing forward taper winding” is vague and indefinite. The term “forward taper winding” is not defined by the claim nor the specification and it is unclear how “without undergoing forward taper winding” limits the scope of the claim.
Claim 1, Ln. 15-16, the limitation “even when the winding of the fishing line is performed with one of a high load and a low load” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear which component the “load” is acting on. For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed the “load” refers to a tension in the fishing line.
Claim 1, Ln. 16, the terms “high” and “low” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “low” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “load” is not quantified and it is unclear which range would define the scope of a “high load” and a “low load.”
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsutsumi (JP 2001333670A).
PNG
media_image1.png
264
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2 from Tsutsumi
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutsumi, Figures 1-8 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a fishing spinning reel comprising:
a reel body 1; and
a spool 7 comprising
a fishing line winding drum portion 7b having a cylindrical shape which is on the reel body 1 and around which a fishing line 12 is wound,
a front flange 7a having a ring shape and rising outward in a radial direction from a front end of the fishing line winding drum portion 7b,
a rear flange 7e’ having a ring shape and rising outward in the radial direction from a rear end of the fishing line winding drum portion 7b, and
a skirt portion 7f’ having a substantially cylindrical shape and extending rearward from the rear flange 7e’,
wherein the rear flange 7e’ of the spool 7 comprises an escape portion 7e for allowing the fishing line 12 that is wound to escape to prevent the fishing line from accumulating on the skirt portion 7f’ of the spool 7 and reducing the occurrence of a backlash during casting (See Tsutsumi, Ln. 60-63, Ln. 76-82) without undergoing forward taper winding even when the winding of the fishing line 12 is performed with one of a high load and a low load (invention is intended to prevent backlash and accumulation of the fishing line on the skirt despite the effects of tension in the fishing line, thus, anticipating operation with a high load/tension and a low load/tension; See Tsutsumi, Ln. 47-51, 76-82).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
Tsutsumi further teaches wherein a length of the escape portion 7e in the radial direction of the spool 7 is the same as or larger than a winding length of the fishing line 12 (unwound portion of fishing line 12 shown appears smaller than length of leading guide surface 7e; See Tsutsumi, Figure 2), which is released when the fishing spinning reel is used, in the radial direction of the spool 7.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
Tsutsumi further teaches wherein the escape portion 7e is an inclined portion that is inclined rearward in a front-rear direction of the spool 7 with respect to the radial direction of the spool 7 as the inclined portion extends outward in the radial direction of the spool 7 (See Tsutsumi, Ln. 161-164).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
PNG
media_image2.png
273
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 7 from Tsutsumi
Tsutsumi, annotated Figure 2 above, teaches wherein the escape portion 7o is a step portion comprising a bottom portion 7o’ and a wall portion 7o’’ (See Tsutsumi, Ln. 217-219).
Regarding Claim 7, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
Tsutsumi further teaches wherein the bottom portion 7o’ is perpendicular or inclined with respect to the radial direction of the spool 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
Tsutsumi further teaches wherein the wall portion 7o’’ extends in the same direction as an extending direction of the rear flange 7o’’’.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (JP 2001333670A) as applied to claims 1 and 4-8 above, and further in view of Kitajima (US 2007/0075172).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
Tsutsumi teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for wherein the escape portion is 10% to 30% of a radial length of the rear flange from a radially outer end of the rear flange when viewed in the radial direction of the spool.
However, Kitajima, Figures 1-5, teaches wherein the escape portion 18b is 10% to 30% of a radial length of the rear flange 18e from a radially outer end of the rear flange 18e when viewed in the radial direction of the spool 4 (See Kitajima, Para. 0050, Ln. 12-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tsutsumi with a 10% to 30% radial length of the escape portion, as taught by Kitajima, for the purpose of preventing backlash (i.e., limiting the fishing line from being wound up over the edges of the spool and bunching up) (See Kitajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 5-15).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
Tsutsumi teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for wherein a length of the escape portion in an axial direction of the spool is 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm.
However, Kitajima, Figures 1-5, teaches dimensions of the escape portion 18b relative to other dimensions on the spool and discloses an example set of dimensions. By example, Kitajima discloses that the length in the radial direction can be 2.5-3 mm in the case of a 10-12 mm radius for the rear flange (See Kitajima, Para. 0050, Ln. 6-8). Reducing the flange radius to 4-5 mm and maintaining the dimensional relationship would yield an escape portion length of 1-1.5 mm in the radial direction. Although the length of the escape portion in an axial direction is not explicitly specified, the embodiment shown in Figures 1-5 appears to depict the length in the axial direction being similar to the length in the radial direction (See Kitajima, Fig. 4). Therefore, it is implied that the length in the axial direction and the length in the radial direction are similar, and the length in the axial direction could fall within the 1-1.5 mm range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tsutsumi with a range of 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm for a length of the escape portion in an axial direction of the spool, as taught by Kitajima, for the purpose of preventing backlash (i.e., limiting the fishing line from being wound up over the edges of the spool and bunching up) (See Kitajima, Para. 0010, Ln. 5-15).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (JP 2001333670A) as applied to claims 1 and 4-8 above, and further in view of Okada (JP H11113458A).
Regarding Claim 9, Tsutsumi is advanced above.
Tsutsumi teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for wherein an extending direction of the fishing line winding drum portion in a front-rear direction of the spool is inclined with respect to a front-rear movement direction of the spool.
However, Okada, Figures 2A-2B, teaches wherein an extending direction of the fishing line winding drum portion 16 in a front-rear direction of the spool 4 is inclined with respect to a front-rear movement direction of the spool 4 (See Okada, Para 0015, Ln. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tsutsumi with an inclined fishing line winding drum portion, as taught by Okada, for the purpose of increasing the casting distance of the fishing line (i.e., decreasing the likelihood of the released line coming into contact with the wound line) (See Okada, Para. 0018, Ln. 5-9).
Regarding Claim 10, Tsutsumi in view of Okada are advanced above.
Okada further teaches wherein the extending direction of the fishing line winding drum portion 16 in the front-rear direction of the spool 4 is such that a rear end side of the fishing line winding drum portion 16 is inclined outward or inward in the radial direction of the spool 4 with respect to the front-rear movement direction of the spool 4 (See Okada, Para 0015, Ln. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tsutsumi with a fishing line winding drum portion inclined outward or inward in the radial direction of the spool, as taught by Okada, for the purpose of for the purpose of increasing the casting distance of the fishing line (i.e., decreasing the likelihood of the released line coming into contact with the wound line) (See Okada, Para. 0018, Ln. 5-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 4-6, filed November 14th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Tsutumi does not disclose that the leading guide surface 7e allows the fishing line that is wound to escape to prevent the fishing line from accumulating on the perfect circular surface 7f (alleged skirt portion) of the spool and reducing the occurrence of a backlash during casting without undergoing forward taper winding even when the winding of the fishing line is performed with one of a high load and a low load.”
Applicant further argues “The extent of the disclosure related to the leading guide surface 7e is that it ‘is formed in the front half of the skirt portion 7c of the spool 7, tapering toward the fishing line winding trunk portion 7b, and the rear half is formed into a perfect circular surface 7f.’”
However, Tsutsumi discloses “even if the fishing line 12 rides up on the skirt portion 7c of the spool 7 due the influence of slack in the tension of the fishing line 12 during the winding operation of the fishing line 12, the fishing line 12 is guided to the line winding body portion 7b by the guiding surfaces 7d, 7e, 7g, 7j, 7m, 7n, 7o, and 7p,” (See Tsutsumi, Ln. 76-80). Although the rear flange 7e’ and the skirt portion 7f’ (See annotated Figure 1 above) are collectively referred to as skirt portion 7c in the disclosure, it is clear from the description above, that guide surface 7e is configured to perform the function of the escape portion as claimed in the present application.
Additionally, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2-10, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights