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 December 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 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 October 31st, 2025.
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, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (JP H11313582 A) in view of Amano (US 5,848,757), hereinafter Amano ‘757.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 8 from Tsutsumi
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutsumi, Figures 1-4 and 7-8, and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a fishing spinning reel comprising:
a rotor 2 rotated by a winding operation of a handle 12;
a bail support member 4 attached to a support arm 2a, 2b of the rotor 2, and supporting a bail 8;
a line roller 7 supported by the bail support member 4, and guiding a fishing line 15 to a spool 3 around which the fishing line is wound and held (See Tsutsumi, Para. 0015, Ln. 3-4); and a line slider 6 supporting one end of the bail 8, and guiding the fishing line 15 picked up by the bail 8 to the line roller 7 (See Tsutsumi, Para. 0020, Ln. 9-10),
wherein an external inclined surface 4’ is over a region where the line roller 7 is projected on an outer surface of the bail support member 4 opposite to a side to which the line roller 7 is attached and a curved surface 4b’ is on the external inclined surface 4’ at an end portion 4b of a tip side of the bail support member 4 (See Figure 1 above),
a first reference plane is vertical and includes a central axis of the rotor 2, and
a second reference plane includes a central axis of the line roller 7, and
the external inclined surface 4’ is inclined from a proximal end side of the bail support member 4 toward a distal end side of the bail support member 4 to approach an inner surface side of the bail support member 4 when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the second reference plane in a state where the bail support member 4 is disposed such that the first reference plane and the second reference plane are parallel (See Figure 1 above).
Tsutsumi teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for the external inclined surface being continuous over all of a region where the line roller is projected on an outer surface of the bail support member opposite to a side to which the line roller is attached.
PNG
media_image2.png
337
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 2 from Amano '757
However, Amano ‘757, Figures 1-3 and annotated Figure 2 above, teaches an external surface 3’ is continuous over all of a region where the line roller 8 is projected on an outer surface of the bail support member 3 opposite to a side to which the line roller 8 is attached.
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 external inclined surface which is continuous over all of a region where the line roller is projected on an outer surface of the bail support member opposite to a side to which the line roller is attached, as taught by Amano ‘757, for the purpose of increasing device reliability (i.e., preventing fishing line snags, snarls, and entanglements around the bail support member).
Regarding Claim 7, Tsutsumi in view of Amano ‘757 are advanced above.
Tsutsumi further teaches a hood portion 4h partially covering the line roller 7 integrally formed on the bail support member 4 (See Tsutsumi, Para. 0019, Ln. 2-3),
wherein the hood portion 4h extends from a bail support member 4 side toward the line slider 6 (See Tsutsumi, Fig. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 8, Tsutsumi in view of Amano ‘757 are advanced above.
Tsutsumi further teaches an engagement portion 6i with which an extension end 4h’ of the hood portion 4h engages is on the line slider 6 (See Figure 1 above), and
wherein the extension end 4h’ of the hood portion 4h protrudes outward from an outer peripheral surface of the line slider 6 in a radial direction in a state where the extension end 4h’ is engaged with the engagement portion 6i (See Tsutsumi, Para. 0020, Ln. 2-3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano (US 5,845,858), hereinafter Amano ‘858, in view of Neufeld (US 7,222,809).
PNG
media_image3.png
330
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 2 from Amano ‘858
PNG
media_image4.png
335
317
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 3 from Amano ‘858
Regarding Claim 3, Amano ‘858, Figures 1-9 and annotated Figures 3-4 above, teaches a fishing spinning reel comprising:
a rotor 3 rotated by a winding operation of a handle 2;
a bail support member 7 attached to a support arm 3a of the rotor 3, and supporting a bail 10; and
a line roller 9 supported by the bail support member 7, and guiding a fishing line to a spool 5 around which the fishing line is wound and held; and a line slider 10a supporting one end of the bail 10, and guiding the fishing line picked up by the bail 10 to the line roller 9,
wherein an external inclined surface 7’’ is in a region where the line roller 9 is projected on an outer surface of the bail support member 7 opposite to a side to which the line roller 9 is attached (See Figure 4 above),
a side inclined surface 7’ is continuous over all of a region where the line roller 9 is projected on a side surface of the bail support member 7 on a side away from the spool 5 when the bail support member 7 is viewed in a central axis direction of the line slider 10a (See Figure 3 above),
a first reference plane is vertical and includes a central axis of the rotor 3,
a second reference plane includes a central axis of the line roller 9,
the external inclined surface 7’’ is inclined from a proximal end side of the bail support member 7 toward a distal end side of the bail support member 7 to approach an inner surface side of the bail support member 7 when viewed orthogonal to the second reference plane in a state where the bail support member 7 is disposed such that the first reference plane and the second reference plane are parallel (See Figure 4 above), and
the side inclined surface 7’ is inclined to approach a spool 5 side as the side inclined surface 7’ extends from the proximal end side of the bail support member 7 toward the distal end side of the bail support member 7 (See Amano ‘858, Col. 3, Ln. 63 - Col. 4, Ln. 4).
Amano ‘858 teaches all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for a curved surface on the external inclined surface.
PNG
media_image5.png
503
693
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 4 from Neufeld
However, Neufeld, Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 5 above, teaches a curved surface 28 is on the external inclined surface 28’ at an end portion 30 of a tip side of the bail support member 26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Amano ‘858 with a curved surface on the external inclined surface, as taught by Neufeld, for the purpose of increasing device reliability (i.e., “to assist in line management and to greatly reduce or eliminate snagging, looping, and other problems”) (See Neufeld, Col. 3, Ln. 13-17).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (JP H11313582 A) in view of Amano ‘757 (US 5,848,757), as applied to claims 1, 7, and 8 above, and further in view of Morise (US 6,572,041).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsutsumi in view of Amano ‘757 are advanced above.
Tsutsumi in view of Amano ‘757 teach all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for the external inclined surface extending down to an intersection point corresponding to the bail and the line slider.
PNG
media_image6.png
465
529
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 5 from Morise
However, Morise, Figures 1-7 and annotated Figure 6 above, teaches wherein a first reference line L1 is parallel to a central axis of the line slider 11 and passes through a joint point P between the line slider 11 and the bail 13 when viewed orthogonal to the second reference plane, and
the external inclined surface 32’ extends toward the distal end side of the bail support member 8 with an intersection point P1 between the first reference line L1 and the outer surface of the bail support member 8 as a starting point (See Figure 6 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tsutsumi, Amano ‘757, and Morise to provide an external inclined surface extending down to an intersection point corresponding to the bail and the line slider, as taught by Morise, for the purpose of preventing fishing line snags, snarls, and entanglements around the bail support member (See Morise, Col. 7, Ln. 28-37).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsutsumi in view of Amano ‘757 are advanced above.
Tsutsumi in view of Amano ‘757 teach all the elements of the fishing spinning reel except for a curved bail leg portion.
However, Morise, Figures 1-7 and annotated Figure 6 above, teaches wherein the bail support member 8 comprises a bail leg portion 33 rotatably attached to the support arm 5, and a support portion 32 continuous with the bail leg portion 33 and supporting the line roller 12, and
an inner portion 33’ having a curved recess shape is in the bail leg portion 33 on a side facing the spool 4 in a bottom view orthogonal to a rotation axis of the bail support member 8 and the support arm 5 (See Figure 6 above).
Although Morise does not explicitly teach a radius of curvature of the inner portion in a range 10 to 20 mm, Morise discloses a dimensional relationship of the curvature of the inner portion of the bail support member relative to a reference point located at the junction between the bail and line slider for the purpose of preventing and/or remedying entanglements of the fishing line occurring near the bail support member as the fishing reel is operated (See Morise, Col. 7, Ln. 6-27). Because the importance of the radius of curvature is highlighted, determining the preferred range for the radius of curvature to achieve smooth operation of the fishing line would be a part of routine optimization. Depending on the size of the reel and the location of the reference point, the radius of curvature for the inner portion could be designed to fall within the 10 to 20 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 combine the teachings of Tsutsumi, Amano ‘757, and Morise to provide a curved bail leg portion with an inner portion having a particular radius of curvature, as taught by Morise, for the purpose of preventing fishing line snags, snarls, and entanglements around the bail support member (See Morise, Col. 7, Ln. 28-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 6-10, filed December 30th, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant has amended the claims. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejections. Therefore, this rejection has 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.
Tsutsumi in view of Amano ‘757 are utilized in the current rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejection of Claim 3 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 asserts “Claim 3 recites a side inclined surface is continuous over all of a region where the line roller is projected on a side surface of the bail support member on a side away from the spool when the bail support member is viewed in a central axis direction of the line slider and a curved surface is on the external inclined surface at an end portion of a tip side of the bail support member.”
Applicant further asserts “The Office Action alleges that the inclined surface corresponds to element 7" Fig. 3 of Amano as annotated in the Office Action.”
However, it appears that Applicant has conflated the “side inclined surface” and the “external inclined surface” of the present application. In the annotated figures from Amano ‘858 presented in the previous Office Action and the current rejection of claim 3 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above), element 7’ refers to the side inclined surface, while 7’’ refers to the external inclined surface.
Applicant argues “It is evident from at least Fig. 2 of Amano … that there is a break in the surface where the screw is inserted (unlabeled) and therefore the alleged external inclined surface (7") is not continuous over all of a region where the line roller (9) is projected”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a “continuous external inclined surface”) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 3 recites “a side inclined surface is continuous over all of a region where the line roller is projected on a side surface of the bail support member on a side away from the spool when the bail support member is viewed in a central axis direction of the line slider” and is silent on the continuity of the external inclined surface.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 4 and 6-8, 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