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 20th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claim 5 is newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the disclosure and claims have overcome the objections to the disclosure previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 24th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 states “The fishing spinning reel according to claim 1, wherein the surface of the edge portion circumferentially surrounds the axis of the insertion hole.” This limitation does not appear to further limit claim 1 due to the limitation in claim 1 which states “an opening edge portion that has a surface that … extends … circumferentially around the axis of the insertion hole.” The limitations in both claim 1 and claim 5 appear to be directed toward the surface of the opening edge portion being located circumferentially around the axis of the insertion hole.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP H10276629, English translation from Espacenet which was provided by Applicant) in view of Hwang (English translation for application publication of KR 960000075U with figures from corresponding utility model specification KR 970006844Y1).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 7 from Sato
PNG
media_image2.png
517
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 3 from Sato
Regarding Claim 1, Sato, Figures 1-3, 7, and annotated Figures 1-2 above, teaches a fishing spinning reel (spinning reel; See Sato, Ln. 156) comprising:
a rotor 3 rotated by a winding operation of a handle 1;
a bail support member 40 attached to a support arm 31 of the rotor, and supporting a bail 46;
a line roller 45 supported by the bail support member 40, and configured to guide a fishing line to a spool 4 around which the fishing line is able to be wound and held (See Sato, Ln. 330-333); and
a line slider 44 supporting one end 46c of the bail 46, and configured to guide the fishing line picked up by the bail 46 to the line roller 45 (See Sato, Ln. 349-351),
wherein a side surface 44b of the line slider 44 includes an insertion hole 44g into which the one end 46c of the bail 46 is inserted (See Sato, Ln. 347-348), and
the insertion hole 44g including (i) an axis 44g’ extending in a direction of a depth of the insertion hole 44g; and (ii) an opening edge portion 44b’ that has a surface that (a) extends circumferentially around the axis 44g’ of the insertion hole 44g, and (b) is configured to receive the fishing line when the fishing line that is picked up by the bail 46 is guided to the line slider 44 (See Sato, Ln. 43-44).
Sato teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for the opening edge portion having a surface that extends substantially orthogonal to the axis of the insertion hole.
PNG
media_image3.png
632
649
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 5 from Hwang
However, Hwang, Figures 1-6 and annotated Figure 3 above, teaches the insertion hole 5b including (i) an axis 5b’ extending in a direction of a depth of the insertion hole 5b; and (ii) an opening edge portion 5’’ that has a surface that (a) extends substantially orthogonal to the axis of the insertion hole 5b and circumferentially around the axis 5b’ of the insertion hole 5b, and (b) is configured to receive the fishing line when the fishing line that is picked up by the bail is guided to the line slider.
Although Hwang is silent regarding the interaction between the fishing line and the line slider, it is implied that the side of the surface of the opening edge portion which is closer to the line roller would be configured to receive the fishing line when the fishing line that is picked up by the bail is guided to the line slider. A configuration utilizing a line slider and/or line guide surface being placed between a bail and a line roller for this function is a well-known and commonly used configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the opening edge portion to receive the fishing line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sato with a surface substantially orthogonal to an axis of the insertion hole, as taught by Hwang, for the purpose of increasing ease of assembly (i.e. increasing simplicity of coupling between the bail arm and line slider) (See Hwang, Pg. 5, Ln. 4-7).
Regarding Claim 2, Sato in view of Hwang are advanced above.
Sato further teaches wherein the one end 46c of the bail 46 is bent toward the side surface 44b of the line slider 44 (See Sato, Fig. 7).
Sato teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for the bend being a substantially right angle.
However, the angle of the bend shown in Sato is an obtuse angle slightly larger than 90 degrees which could be reduced to a substantially right angle while maintaining the general exit direction of the bail from the line slider. The exact angle is an obvious matter of design choice.
Additionally, Hwang further teaches the one end 4’ of the bail 4 is bent at a substantially right angle toward the side surface 5’ of the line slider 5 (See Figure 3 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sato with a bend at the end of the bail at a substantially right angle, as taught by Hwang, for the purpose of increasing ease of assembly (i.e. increasing simplicity of coupling between the bail arm and line slider) (See Hwang, Pg. 5, Ln. 4-7).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato in view of Hwang are advanced above.
Sato further teaches wherein the insertion hole 44g has an inner diameter larger than an outer diameter of the one end 46c of the bail 46 (inner diameter of the insertion hole 44g must be larger than outer diameter of the one end of the bail 46c to allow for penetration of the hole by the bail; See Sato, Fig. 7).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP H10276629, English translation from Espacenet which was provided by Applicant) in view of Hwang (English translation for application publication of KR 960000075U with figures from corresponding utility model specification KR 970006844Y1), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Fujioka (JP 2009278915A).
Regarding Claim 4, Sato in view of Hwang are advanced above.
Sato further teaches an attachment portion 46c’ (See Figure 1 above) provided at the one end 46c of the bail 46, and disposed in the line slider 44 through the insertion hole 44g (See Sato, Ln. 500-505); and a fixing screw 56 for fixing the line slider 44 to the bail support member 40 (See Sato, Ln. 291-293).
Sato teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for wherein the attachment portion is fixed to the line slider by tightening the fixing screw from a line slider side.
Although Sato is silent on forces fixing the attachment portion other than the friction created by shape memory allow deformation causing the end 46c of the bail 46 to wrap around shaft 43, it is implied that when screw 56 is secured, it could contribute to the force fixing the attachment portion to the line slider.
Additionally, Fujioka, Figures 1-6, teaches tightening the fixing screw 75 from a line slider 35 side (See Fujioka, Para. 0032, Ln. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Sato with a fixing screw which is tightened from the line slider side, as taught by Fujioka, for the purpose of preventing damage to the fishing line while in operation (i.e. the fishing line does not hit the screw when it becomes tangled) (See Fujioka, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 5-8, filed November 20th, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Specification, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection.
Applicant asserts “claim 1 recites "wherein a side surface of the line slider includes an insertion hole into which the one end of the bail is inserted, and the insertion hole including (i) an axis extending in a direction of a depth of the insertion hole; and (ii) an opening edge portion that has a surface that (a) extends substantially orthogonal to the axis of the insertion hole and circumferentially around the axis of the insertion hole, and (b) is configured to receive the fishing line when the fishing line that is picked up by the bail is guided to the line slider."”
Applicant argues “the portion of Hwang alleged to constitute the opening edge portion (labeled 5") abuts the upper surface of the bale. This surface would not be configured to receive fishing line caught by the bail.”
However, the surface labeled 5’’ is meant to identify the entirety of the portion of the side surface 5’ which circumferentially surrounds and extends orthogonally from the insertion hole 5b. Although Hwang is silent regarding the interaction between the fishing line and the line slider, it is implied that the side of the surface of the opening edge portion which is closer to the line roller would be configured to receive the fishing line when the fishing line that is picked up by the bail is guided to the line slider. A configuration utilizing a line slider and/or line guide surface being placed between a bail and a line roller for this function is a well-known and commonly used configuration Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the opening edge portion to receive the fishing line.
Applicant further argues “to the extent the Office Action alleges that it is obvious to modify the shape of Sato's convex apex based on Hwang's edge portion 5", Sato teaches against modifying the configuration of the lower fishing line contact surface since it discloses that the configuration is specifically designed so that the bail 46 hides the convex apex surface 44a to avoid catching the fishing line.”
The Office Action asserts that the combined teachings of Sato and Hwang would have rendered the opening edge portion as claimed to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). An insertion hole and orthogonal opening edge can be provided in a line slider side surface without affecting the shape of an apex or any other surface on the slider. Additionally, in the case that a modified conical structure based on Sato is utilized, Sato teaches the importance of the apex being located in such a way that it is “hidden by the bail” in order to prevent the apex from “catching the fishing line,” (See Sato, Ln. 484-486). Thus, conical shapes which meet these criteria while also providing an opening edge portion as claimed would still be obvious over Sato in view of Hwang. It is not necessary that the exact arrangement of all the components in the claimed invention be replicated in Sato in order to suggest that providing an opening edge portion as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2-4, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding newly added Claim 5, the claim is a dependent of rejected claim 1, and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Additionally, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been made for the limitations outlined in claim 5. (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above)
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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654