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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
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 8-10 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "end body" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the tackle tray latch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the tackle tray" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tackle tray latch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tackle tray" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiromasa (JP 2021160730 A), with an English translation provided herein.
Regarding Claim 1, Hiromasa teaches a handle conversion unit (1) comprising: a rectangular material (4) having a first end (20 in Annotated Figure 17 below) and a second end (21 in Annotated Figure 17 below) that is distal from the first end (20 in Annotated Figure 17 below); a first set of protrusions (5, 8) at the first end (20 in Annotated Figure 17 below); and a second set of protrusions (5, 8) at the second end (21 in Annotated Figure 17 below).(Figs. 1-17:
PNG
media_image1.png
27
31
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
27
30
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
207
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
22
176
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Hiromasa further teaches wherein the rectangular material (4) is of a sufficient thickness (wherein the main part 2 has a thickness) to prevent bending to occur (wherein Hiromasa teaches “Further, instead of omitting the mounting part 3, the main part 2 may be configured to include a locking portion that can be locked to a predetermined portion of the container 31” which would keep the part flat to the container) while also allowing for some flexibility. (Wherein Hiromasa teaches “The main part 2 and the mounting part 3 are integrally formed of polypropylene”, which is known in the art to have durability with corresponding flexibility)
Regarding Claim 3, Hiramasa further teaches wherein the first set of protrusions (5, 8) are sized and configured to engage with a first latch (wherein 7 folds over the ribs of the container 31 handle 40) of a tackle tray (31). (Figs. 7-11; [0024])
Regarding Claim 4, Hiramasa further teaches wherein the first set of protrusions (5, 8) are sized and configured to engage with a first latch (wherein 7 folds over the ribs of the container 31 handle 40) of a tackle tray (31). (Figs. 7-11; [0024])
Regarding Claim 5, Hiromasa further teaches wherein the first set of protrusions (5, 8) has an end body (folded portion 7). (Fig. 16; [0024])
Regarding Claim 7, Hiromasa further teaches wherein the second set of protrusions (5, 8) has a main body (folded portion 7). (Fig. 16; [0024])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 8-10, so far as they are definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hiromasa (JP 2021160730 A), and further in view of Buckner (US 5234124 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Hiramasa teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 5 above except; wherein the end body has a first lip and a second lip to engage with a tackle tray latch.
Regarding the engagement lips, Buckner further teaches wherein an end body (97) has a first lip (100) and a second lip (102) to engage with a tackle tray latch (at engagements 82, 84). (Figs. 5-11; Col. 7, Lines 4-11; Col 8. Lines 29-41)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the tray as taught by Hiramasa, and provide for the end body of a handle conversion unit having lips as taught by Buckner. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide lips on the end body of a handle conversion unit, in order to achieve secure engagement with the latch of case.
Regarding Claim 8, Hiramasa teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 7 above except; wherein the end body has a first lip and a second lip to engage with a tackle tray latch.
Regarding the engagement lips, Buckner further teaches wherein an end body (97) has a first lip (100) and a second lip (102) to engage with a tackle tray latch (at engagements 82, 84). (Figs. 5-11; Col. 7, Lines 4-11; Col 8. Lines 29-41)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the tray as taught by Hiramasa, and provide for the end body of a handle conversion unit having lips as taught by Buckner. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to provide lips on the end body of a handle conversion unit, in order to achieve secure engagement with the latch of case.
Regarding Claim 9, Hiramasa, modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 6 above except; wherein the first lip and the second lip are each configured to engage with the tackle tray latch in a manner that allows it to be opened or closed when the handle conversion unit is coupled to the tackle tray.
Buckner further teaches wherein a first lip (100) and the second lip (102) are each configured to engage with a tray latch (at engagements 82 and 84) in a manner that allows it to be opened or closed (Figs. 6A-6B with 132) when the handle conversion unit (97) is coupled to the tackle tray (wherein the cassette as taught by Buckner could function as a tackle tray). (Figs. 5-11; Col. 7, Lines 4-11; Col 8. Lines 29-41)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the tray as taught by Hiramasa, and provide for a case be open or closed with a handle conversion unit attached as taught by Buckner. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to allow the opening and closing of a case with a handle conversion unit attached, in order to prevent the user from having to remove the handle conversion unit while operating the latch.
Regarding Claim 10, Hiramasa, modified above, teaches all of the elements of the invention described in claim 8 above except; wherein the first lip and the second lip are each configured to engage with the tackle tray latch in a manner that allows it to be opened or closed when the handle conversion unit is coupled to the tackle tray.
Buckner further teaches wherein a first lip (100) and the second lip (102) are each configured to engage with a tray latch (at engagements 82 and 84) in a manner that allows it to be opened or closed (Figs. 6A-6B with 132) when the handle conversion unit (97) is coupled to the tackle tray (wherein the cassette as taught by Buckner could function as a tackle tray). (Figs. 5-11; Col. 7, Lines 4-11; Col 8. Lines 29-41)
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the tray as taught by Hiramasa, and provide for a case be open or closed with a handle conversion unit attached as taught by Buckner. Wherein through use of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; one would be motivated to allow the opening and closing of a case with a handle conversion unit attached, in order to prevent the user from having to remove the handle conversion unit while operating the latch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Zhou et al. (CN 213909928 U), teaches a handle assembly with a cover.
Barenbrug et al. (US 10532758 B2), teaches a removable hand grip.
Whiteaker (US 5704158 A), teaches a tackle management system.
Sellers (US 20110119986 A1) teaches a tackle box.
Khalifa et al. (US D665166 S), teaches a tackle box.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R CAUDILL whose telephone number is (303)297-4349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30 MT.
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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached on (571) 270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN CAUDILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 21 January 2026