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 October 31st, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 4 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the disclosure and claims have overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 1st, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 16, for clarity, Examiner suggests “the variable brake is open in one side surface thereof” should read --the variable brake is open on the one side surface of the variable brake--
Claim 1, Ln. 19, “the other side surface” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests “the other side surface” should read --a second side surface--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginjo (JP H03050865) in view of Sekimoto (Espacenet English translation of JP 2011206013A and Figures of corresponding Foreign Patent Literature provided with Information Disclosure Statement), Gen (JP 2005245365 A), and Muckridge (US 5,655,722).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1 from Ginjo
Regarding Claim 1, Ginjo, Figures 1-5 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a fishing reel (fishing reel; See Ginjo, Claim 1, Ln. 1) comprising:
a spool 2 configured such that a shaft 5 extends therethrough to be axially mounted on a reel body 1 and a fishing line is wound thereon (See Ginjo, Fig. 1);
magnet holders 20 provided in a circumferential direction of the facing portion 31, coupled in a direction of an inner or outer circumferential surface of the facing portion 31 to be movable forwards and backwards in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the spool 2 (See Ginjo, Claim 1, Ln. 5-8), and comprising magnets 22 mounted to form opposing surfaces with respect to the facing portion 31 (See Ginjo, Fig. 1); and
a braking force control means 10’ for moving the magnet holders 20 forwards and backwards (See Ginjo, Claim 1, Ln. 3-8),
Ginjo teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for a variable brake able to be moved along the axial direction of the spool and biased toward the spool, further comprising a shaft fitting portion, a plurality of holes, a fixed cam, and a variable cam.
However, Sekimoto, Figures 1-3, teaches a variable brake 50 comprising a facing portion 54 provided in a circumferential direction of the spool 18, wherein the variable brake 50 is coupled to one end of the shaft 14 to be movable forwards and backwards in an axial direction of the spool 18 (See Sekimoto, Para. 0013, Ln. 4-5) and is elastically supported toward the spool 18 (See Sekimoto, Para. 0015, Ln. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ginjo with a variable brake movable forwards and backwards in an axial direction of the spool, as taught by Sekimoto, for the purpose of improving casting distance and preventing backlash (i.e. allowing for different braking performance in each region the variable brake moves through along the axis of the spool) (See Sekimoto, Para. 0007, Ln. 1-9).
PNG
media_image2.png
501
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 5 from Gen
Gen, Figures 1-2, Figures 5-6, and annotated Figure 2 above, teaches wherein a shaft fitting portion 200a protrudes from a central portion of one side surface 200’ of the variable brake 200, the shaft 1b extends through and is coupled to the shaft fitting portion 200a, a diameter of the variable brake 200 gradually increases from the shaft fitting portion 200a towards the facing portion 30a, and the facing portion 30a has a cylindrical shape (circular tube; See Gen, Para. 0017, Ln. 2) and is connected to one end of the variable brake 200 such that the variable brake 200 is open on the one side surface 200’,
wherein the variable brake 200 comprises a fixed cam 10 coupled to an open area on one side of the spool 1 and a variable cam 21a coupled to the other side surface 200’’ of the variable brake 200, and
wherein the fixed cam 10 and the variable cam 21a are matingly coupled to each other in an engagement structure, and contact surfaces of the fixed cam 10 and the variable cam 21a have cam slope portions 13, 22 having a predetermined degree of slope (See Gen, Para. 0011, Ln. 1-4).
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 Ginjo and Sekimoto, with a shaft fitting portion, a fixed cam, and a variable cam, as taught by Gen, for the purpose of reducing manufacturing costs and improving device durability and reliability for the prevention of backlash (See Gen, Para. 0007, Ln. 6 - Para. 0008, Ln. 4).
Muckridge, Figures 1-5, teaches a plurality of through-holes 110 arranged radially around the shaft fitting portion 82.
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 Ginjo, Sekimoto, and Gen with a plurality of through holes, as taught by Muckridge, for the purpose of weight reduction (See Muckridge, Col. 5, Ln. 44-52).
Regarding Claim 2, Ginjo in view of Sekimoto, Gen, and Muckridge are advanced above.
Ginjo further teaches wherein the braking force control means 10’ comprises: a dial cam 10 configured to rotate in the circumferential direction of the spool 2 at one side of each of the magnet holders 20 and comprising a cam portion 11 configured to press and move the magnet holder 20 forwards and backwards in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the spool 2 (See Ginjo, Fig. 1 and 4-5); and
a control dial 12 provided on a side cover 3 to rotate the dial cam 10 (See Ginjo, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ginjo in view of Sekimoto, Gen, and Muckridge are advanced above.
Ginjo further teaches wherein each of the magnet holder 20 comprises a protrusion 21 protruding from one side surface thereof and configured to be pressed, and
the cam portion 11 comprises a pressing groove circumferentially formed in the other side surface of the dial cam 10 such that the protrusion 21 configured to be pressed is fitted thereto, wherein the cam portion 11 is configured to press the protrusion 21 configured to be pressed, with a distance thereof from a center of the dial cam 10 gradually increasing in a direction from one end to the other end thereof (See Ginjo, Fig. 4, Claim 1, Ln. 5-8).
Regarding Claim 4, Ginjo in view of Sekimoto, Gen, and Muckridge are advanced above.
Ginjo further teaches a spool cover 30 comprising:
a receiving portion 33 on one side of the magnet holders 20 so as to receive the magnet holders 20 (See Ginjo, Claim 1, Ln. 9-11) and
guide projections 34 configured to guide the magnet holders 20 in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the spool 2 (See Ginjo, Claim 2, Ln. 4-7); and
guide recesses 23 configured to guide the magnet holders 20 in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the spool 2 (See Ginjo, Claim 2, Ln. 4-7).
Although the guide recesses are located on the magnet holders instead of the spool cover, these recesses mate with the guide projections located on the spool cover for the purpose of guiding the magnet holders in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the spool. Switching the location of the recesses and projections is an obvious matter of design choice and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the guide recess on the spool cover.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 5-8, filed October 31st, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn. However, new objections are raised based on lack of antecedent basis and to improve clarity.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, 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.
Ginjo in view of Sekimoto, Gen, and Muckridge are utilized in the current rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2-4, 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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights