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 15th, 2025 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1, 3-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3, 10, and 20 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the claims and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 15th, 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, 3-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 7,165,737) in view of Globeride (JP 6416693B2, Espacenet English translation used for text references).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1 from Nakagawa
PNG
media_image2.png
967
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 4 from Nakagawa
Regarding Claim 1, Nakagawa, Figures 1-10 and annotated Figures 1-2 above, teaches a fishing reel 1 comprising:
a housing 5’;
a shaft 20 supported in the housing 5’ and configured to rotate relative to the housing 5’ around a shaft axis 20’ extended in a longitudinal direction of the shaft 20 (See Nakagawa, Col. 7, Ln. 23-28);
a spool 12 fixed with the shaft 20 to rotate with the shaft 20 around the shaft axis 20’ for winding and unwinding a fishing line (See Nakagawa, Col. 7, Ln. 19-21);
a stator 66 fixed with the housing 5’, wherein the spool 12 is configured to rotate with the shaft 20 relative to the stator 66 and the housing 5’ (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 57 - Col. 12, Ln. 2);
a stator magnet 62 that is an electromagnet (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 29-33, 41-43) fixed with the stator 66 (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 40); and
a rotor 60 including a first rotor plate 28 fixed with the shaft 20 to rotate with the shaft 20 around the shaft axis 20’, and a first rotor magnet 61 fixed with the first rotor plate 28 (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 37-38, 46-48),
wherein the stator magnet 62 is configured to receive an electrical current and generate a magnetic field from the stator 66 to the first rotor magnet 61 (See Nakagawa, Col. 13, Ln. 55-57).
Nakagawa teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for a second rotor plate and a second rotor magnet.
PNG
media_image3.png
668
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 2 from Globeride
However, Globeride, Figures 1-2 and annotated Figure 3 above, teaches a second rotor plate 47’’ fixed with the shaft 21 to rotate with the shaft 21 around the shaft axis (See Globeride, Para. 0034, Ln. 1-2), and positioned on the shaft 21 at a side of the stator 45 opposite the first rotor plate 47’ such that the stator 45 that is interposed between and separates the first rotor plate 47’ and the second rotor plate 47’’ in the longitudinal direction of the shaft 21 (See Figure 3 above).
Although Globeride does not explicitly teach a second rotor magnet fixed with the second rotor plate, wherein the stator magnet is configured to generate a magnetic field from the stator to the second rotor magnet, Globeride discloses the second rotor plate 47’’ as being made of a ferromagnetic material (See Globeride, Para. 0034, Ln. 6-7), and an excitation coil 51 configured to receive an electrical current and generate a magnetic field from the stator 45 to the second rotor plate 47’’ (See Globeride, Para. 0039, Ln. 3-10).
Although Nakagawa does not explicitly teach a second rotor magnet fixed with the second rotor plate, wherein the stator magnet is configured to generate a magnetic field from the stator to the second rotor magnet, the configuration of the first rotor plate and the first rotor magnet taught by Nakagawa can be duplicated for the second rotor plate and the second rotor magnet due to the identical function and operation of the first rotor plate (and corresponding rotor magnet) and the second rotor plate (and corresponding rotor magnet).
The combined teachings of Nakagawa and Globeride suggest that the first rotor plate and the first rotor magnet of Nakagawa can be duplicated provided that the stator is interposed between the first rotor plate and the second rotor plate, and the magnetic field generated by the stator magnet is configured to pass from the stator to both rotor plates, as taught by Globeride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the teachings of Nakagawa and Globeride to provide a second rotor plate and a second rotor magnet for the purpose of increasing braking force capacity (See Globeride, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the first rotor magnet 61 is included in a plurality of first rotor magnets that are permanent magnets fixed with the first rotor plate 28 and arranged in a circumferential direction of the first rotor plate 28 perpendicular to the shaft axis 20 (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 46-53, Fig. 6), and
Although Nakagawa in view of Globeride do not explicitly teach wherein the second rotor magnet is included in a plurality of second rotor magnets that are permanent magnets fixed with the second rotor plate and arranged in a circumferential direction of the second rotor plate perpendicular to the shaft axis this limitation is a mere duplication of the parts and configuration associated with the first rotor plate, the planar first rotor surface, and the first rotor magnet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa in view of Globeride with duplicate parts (a plurality of second rotor magnets) for the second rotor plate for the purpose of increasing the braking capacity (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 7-14; See Globeride, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the stator magnet 62 is a coil winding disposed on the first stator surface 66’, and configured to receive electric current and generate a magnetic field (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 41-43).
Globeride further teaches wherein the stator 45 defines a planar first stator surface 45’ and a planar second stator surface 45’’ on a side of the stator 45 opposite the first stator surface 45’ in the longitudinal direction of the shaft 21, wherein the first stator surface 45’ and the second stator surface 45’’ extend along the first rotor plate 47’ and the second rotor plate 47’’, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the shaft 21 (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 Nakagawa with a planar first stator surface and a planar second stator surface, as taught by Globeride, for the purpose of increasing the braking capacity (See Globeride, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the first rotor plate 28 defines a planar first rotor surface 28’, and the first rotor magnet 61 is disposed on the first rotor surface 28’ to define a space between the first rotor magnet 61 and the stator 66 in the longitudinal direction of the shaft 20 (See Figure 2 above).
Although Nakagawa in view of Globeride do not explicitly teach wherein the second rotor plate defines a planar second rotor surface, and the second rotor magnet is disposed on the second rotor surface to define a space between the second rotor magnet and the stator in the longitudinal direction of the shaft, this limitation is a mere duplication of the parts and configuration associated with the first rotor plate, the planar first rotor surface, and the first rotor magnet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa in view of Globeride with duplicate parts (a planar second rotor surface) for the second rotor plate for the purpose of increasing the braking capacity (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 7-14; See Globeride, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the stator 66 defines a planar first stator surface 66’ that extends along the first rotor plate 28 in a radial direction of the shaft 20 perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the shaft 20 (See Figure 2 above), and
the stator magnet 62 is a coil winding (coil; See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 26) disposed on the first stator surface 66’ (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 40), along the first rotor plate 28 to define a space 62’ (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 20-24) between the stator magnet 62 and the first rotor plate 28 in the longitudinal direction of the shaft 20, the coil winding (coil; See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 26) being configured to receive electric current and generate a magnetic field (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 41-43).
Regarding Claim 7, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the stator 66 is a printed circuit board (circuit board; See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 40) and the stator magnet 62 is disposed on a planar first stator surface 66’ defined by the printed circuit board (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 40).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the first rotor plate 28 defines a planar first rotor surface 28’, and the first rotor magnet 61 is disposed on the first rotor surface 28’ to define a space 61’ between the first rotor magnet 61 and the stator 66 in the longitudinal direction of the shaft 20 (See Figure 2 above).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches an electric storage element 57 disposed in the housing 5’ and connected with the stator 66 through a circuit 58 (See Nakagawa, Col. 13, Ln. 41-49), wherein the rotor 60 rotating relative to the stator 66 induces current in the stator magnet 62 (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 39-41) such that the stator 66 generates current in the circuit 58 and charges the electric storage element 57 (See Nakagawa, Col. 14, Ln. 40-44).
Although Nakagawa does not explicitly teach the electric storage element as a battery, Nakagawa discloses an electrolytic capacitor by example (See Nakagawa, Col. 13, Ln. 41-42) which is an alternative method of electrical energy storage. Batteries are a well-known and commonly used method of storing and discharging electrical energy. Therefore, it is implied that the electric storage element could be comprised of a battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa with a battery for the purpose of storing electrical energy from the current generated in the stator magnet.
Regarding Claim 10, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches a controller 55 configured to control flow of current to the stator 66 (See Nakagawa, Col. 12, Ln. 8-10, 31-33); and
a rotary sensor 41 fixed with the housing 5’, configured to generate rotary position information (position is sensed with reading pattern 67; See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 46-55) of at least one of the shaft 20, the spool 12, and the rotor 60 with respect to the housing 5’ during a casting operation (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 13-15), and configured to transmit the rotary position information to the controller 55 (See Nakagawa, Col. 12, Ln. 18-20),
wherein the controller 55 is configured to:
determine a rotational speed of the at least one of the shaft 20, the rotor 60, and the spool 12 during the casting operation based on the rotary position information received from the rotary sensor 41 (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 52-55),
compare the determined rotational speed to a predetermined threshold (See Nakagawa, Col. 15, Ln. 21-25, Col. 17, Ln. 1-3),
when the determined rotational speed is below the predetermined threshold, direct current through stator windings such that the stator magnet 62 generates an active braking force magnetic field on the rotor 60 through the first rotor magnet 61, the active braking force magnetic field being opposed to a rotational direction of the spool 12 while unwinding the fishing line (See Nakagawa, Col. 15, Ln. 27-29, 39-42), and
when the determined rotational speed exceeds the predetermined threshold, direct current through the stator windings such that the stator magnet 62 generates a passive braking force magnetic field on the rotor 60 through the first rotor magnet 61, the passive braking force magnetic field being in the same direction as the active braking force magnetic field but relatively smaller in magnitude or duration (See Nakagawa, Col. 15, Ln. 26-27, Ln. 33-38).
Regarding Claim 11, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein the rotary sensor 41 is mounted to the stator 66 such that the rotary sensor 41 is fixed with the housing 5’ through the stator 66 (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 43-46, Col. 11, Ln. 67 - Col. 12, Ln. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches a controller 55 configured for actuating the stator 66 such that the shaft 20 experiences a braking force from the stator 66 through the rotor 60 (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 39-41, Col. 12, Ln. 8-10, Ln. 31-33),
wherein, during a casting operation which rotates the shaft 20 relative to the housing 5’ in a first rotational direction around the shaft axis 20’, the controller 55 is configured to direct current through the stator magnet 62 to perform reverse current braking with the rotor 60 such that the shaft 20 experiences a braking force from the stator 66 through the rotor 60 in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction (See Nakagawa, Col. 12, Ln. 8-10, 31-33, Col. 13, Ln. 55-59).
Regarding Claim 18, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein when a rotational speed of the shaft 20 is below a predetermined threshold, the controller 55 is configured to perform the reverse current braking by directing current through stator windings such that the stator magnet 62 generates an active braking force magnetic field on the rotor 60 through the first rotor magnet 61, the active braking force magnetic field being opposed to the first rotational direction (See Nakagawa, Col. 15, Ln. 27-29, 39-42).
Regarding Claim 19, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches wherein when the rotational speed of the shaft 20 exceeds the predetermined threshold, the controller 55 is configured to perform the reverse current braking by directing current through the stator windings such that the stator magnet 62 generates a passive braking force magnetic field on the rotor 60 through the first rotor magnet 61, the passive braking force magnetic field being in the same direction as the active braking force magnetic field but relatively smaller in magnitude or duration (See Nakagawa, Col. 15, Ln. 26-27, Ln. 33-38).
Regarding Claim 20, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches a controller 55 fixed with the housing 5’ and configured for actuating the stator 66 such that the shaft 20 experiences a braking force from the stator 66 through the rotor 60 (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 39-41, Col. 12, Ln. 8-10, Ln. 31-33),
wherein the controller 55 is configured to direct current through the stator magnet 62 such that the stator 66 and the rotor 60 form a three phase motor (three braking control processes; See Nakagawa, Col. 16, Ln. 47-52) configured to exert a braking force on the shaft 20 from the stator 66, and the controller 55 is further configured to control a duration of the braking force via pulse-width modulation or signal control based on a sensed rotational speed of the shaft (See Nakagawa, Col. 12, Ln. 25-30).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 7,165,737) in view of Globeride (JP 6416693 B2), as applied to Claims 1, 3-11, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Ishikawa (US 10,130,085).
Regarding Claim 12, Nakagawa and Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa in view of Globeride teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for the rotary sensor including a Hall effect sensor.
However, Ishikawa, Figures 1-9, teaches wherein the rotary sensor 31 includes a Hall effect sensor 31a fixed with respect to the housing 5 and configured for detecting a magnitude of a magnetic field to generate rotary position information of the rotor (directly measures spool 12 which is analogous to the rotor which rotates with the spool of Nakagawa), wherein the controller 25 receives the rotary position information of the rotor to determine rotational speed of the rotor (See Ishikawa, Col. 7. Ln. 23-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa with a Hall effect sensor, as taught by Ishikawa, for the purpose of cost reduction (See Ishikawa, Col. 7, Ln. 27-29).
Regarding Claim 13, Nakagawa in view of Globeride and Ishikawa are advanced above.
Although Ishikawa does not explicitly teach wherein the rotary sensor includes a plurality of Hall effect sensors configured to detect a magnetic field of the first rotor plate and cooperate with each other for generating the rotary position information, Ishikawa discloses the use of a plurality of Hall effect sensors working together to determine other characteristics of the fishing reel such as the selection of a brake mode (See Ishikawa, Col. 7, Ln. 27-29). Therefore, it is implied that a plurality of Hall effect sensors can be used in cooperation with each other to generate additional rotary position information. Also, the additional hall effect sensors would provide the same purpose as the first Hall effect sensor and would be a mere duplication of parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa with Hall effect sensors, as taught by Ishikawa, for the purpose of cost reduction (See Ishikawa, Col. 7, Ln. 27-29).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 7,165,737) in view of Globeride (JP 6416693 B2), as applied to Claims 1, 3-11, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Cologni (US 2023/0354794, effectively filed September 21, 2020), and as evidenced by Sony (Sony Semiconductor ToF (Time of Flight) Technology NPL).
Regarding Claim 14, Nakagawa in view of Globeride are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches a controller 55 fixed with the housing 5’ and configured for actuating the stator 66 such that the shaft 20 experiences a braking force from the stator 66 through the rotor 60 (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 39-41, Col. 12, Ln. 8-10, Ln. 31-33),
wherein the controller 55:
actuates the stator 66 with a current directed through the stator magnet 62 such that the stator magnet 62 generates a magnetic field from the stator 66 to the first rotor magnet 61, and the shaft 20 experiences a braking force from the stator 66 through the rotor 60 (See Nakagawa, Col. 12, Ln. 8-10, 31-33, Col. 13, Ln. 55-59).
Nakagawa in view of Globeride teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for a fishing line status sensor.
PNG
media_image4.png
486
804
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 3 from Cologni
However, Cologni, Figures 1-8 and annotated Figure 4 above, teaches a fishing line status sensor 48 fixed with the housing 12 (See Cologni, Para. 0038, Ln. 5-6, Para. 0042, Ln. 1-3, Fig. 3-4), the fishing line status sensor 48 being configured to detect a section of fishing line 18 unwinding from the spool 16 to generate line status information (See Cologni, Para. 0043, Ln. 1-5), and configured to transmit the line status information to the controller 44 (See Cologni, Para. 0043, Ln. 5-7),
wherein the controller 44:
determines whether the line status information indicates a loop is forming in the fishing line 18 unwinding from the spool 16 during a casting operation (See Cologni, Para. 0043, Ln. 7-10), and
the shaft 16’ experiences a braking force when the controller determines a loop is forming in the fishing line unwinding from the spool during the casting operation (See Cologni, Para. 0046, Ln. 5-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa with a fishing line status sensor, as taught by Cologni, for the purpose of preventing tangling of the fishing line on the spool (See Cologni, Para. 0015 - Para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 15, Nakagawa in view of Globeride and Cologni are advanced above.
Nakagawa further teaches a rotary sensor 41 fixed with the housing 5’, configured to generate rotary position information (position is sensed with reading pattern 67; See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 46-55) of at least one of the shaft 20, the spool 12, and the rotor 60 with respect to the housing 5’ during a casting operation (See Nakagawa, Col. 10, Ln. 13-15), and configured to transmit the rotary position information to the controller 55 (See Nakagawa, Col. 12, Ln. 18-20),
wherein the controller 55 is configured to:
determine a rotational speed of the at least one of the shaft 20, the rotor 60, and the spool 12 during the casting operation based on the rotary position information received from the rotary sensor 41 (See Nakagawa, Col. 11, Ln. 52-55),
when the determined rotational speed is below the predetermined threshold, direct current through stator windings such that the stator magnet 62 generates an active braking force magnetic field on the rotor 60 through the first rotor magnet 61, the active braking force magnetic field being opposed to a rotational direction of the spool 12 while unwinding the fishing line (See Nakagawa, Col. 15, Ln. 27-29, 39-42), and
when the determined rotational speed exceeds the predetermined threshold, direct current through the stator windings such that the stator magnet 62 generates a passive braking force magnetic field on the rotor 60 through the first rotor magnet 61, the passive braking force magnetic field being in the same direction as the active braking force magnetic field but relatively smaller in magnitude or duration (See Nakagawa, Col. 15, Ln. 26-27, Ln. 33-38).
Cologni further teaches wherein the controller 44 is configured to:
determine a rotational speed of the at least one of the spool 16 during the casting operation based on the rotary position information received from the rotary sensor 52 (See Cologni, Para. 0045, Ln. 1-3),
when the controller 44 determines a loop is forming in the fishing line 18 unwinding from the spool 16, compare the determined rotational speed to a predetermined threshold (See Cologni, Para. 0053, Ln. 1-12),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa with a determination of rotational speed of the spool when a loop is forming in the fishing line, as taught by Cologni, for the purpose of preventing tangling of the fishing line on the spool (See Cologni, Para. 0015 - Para. 0017).
Regarding Claim 16, Nakagawa in view of Globeride and Cologni are advanced above.
Cologni further teaches wherein the fishing line status sensor 48 includes a light source and an optical sensor (ToF (Time of Flight) sensor; See Cologni, Para. 0043, Ln. 11-12), fixed with the housing (See Cologni, Para. 0038, Ln. 5-6, Para. 0042, Ln. 1-3, Fig. 3-4), the optical sensor being configured to detect light emitted from the light source, across the section of fishing line 18 unwinding from the spool 16, to generate the line status information (See Cologni, Para. 0043, Ln. 1-5), and configured to transmit the line status information to the controller (See Cologni, Para. 0043, Ln. 5-7).
Although Cologni does not directly name a light source and optical sensor separately, ToF (Time of Flight) sensors are comprised of a light source and light detector, as evidenced by Sony.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Nakagawa with a light source and optical sensor, as taught by Cologni, for the purpose of preventing tangling of the fishing line on the spool (See Cologni, Para. 0015 - Para. 0017).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 8-14, filed December 15th, 2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to the Claims, Applicant has submitted acceptable amendments. Therefore, the objections have 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 asserts “Claim 1 recites that the stator with the electromagnetic stator magnet fixed thereto is interposed between and separates the first and second rotor plates. It further recites that the magnetic field is generated via the electromagnetic stator magnet from the stator to the first and second rotor magnets.”
Applicant argues “Globeride does not cure the deficiencies of Nakagawa with respect to amended claim 1 because Globeride does not describe that an electromagnet is fixed to the first brake plates 45 between the second brake plates 47.”
Applicant further argues “Globeride also does not describe that a magnetic field is generated by the first brake plates 45. Globeride's magnetic braking device 40 relies on an excitation coil 51 to generate the magnetic field between the brake plates 45 and 47 via current received by the coil 51 from an external power source. The coil 51 is not fixed to the first brake plates 45; rather, the coil 51 is separate from and located radially outward of the first brake plates 45. Nakagawa in view of Globeride therefore do not describe or suggest all the elements of amended claim 1.”
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Nakagawa is relied upon to explicitly teach a stator magnet that is an electromagnet fixed with the stator, whereas Globeride is relied upon to explicitly teach a second rotor plate fixed with the shaft to rotate with the shaft around the shaft axis, and positioned on the shaft at a side of the stator opposite the first rotor plate such that the stator that is interposed between and separates the first rotor plate and the second rotor plate in the longitudinal direction of the shaft (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
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 magnetic field is generated by the stator) 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 1 recites “the stator magnet is configured to receive an electrical current and generate a magnetic field from the stator to the first rotor magnet and from the stator to the second rotor magnet.” This recitation does not indicate that the stator itself generates the magnetic field. Examiner has interpreted “the stator magnet is configured to … generate a magnetic field from the stator to the first rotor magnet and from the stator to the second rotor magnet” as indicating that that magnetic field created by the stator magnet must pass from the stator to the first and second rotor plates but not necessarily originate on the stator itself. Globeride discloses a magnetic circuit induced by the stator magnet (excitation coil 51) which generates a magnetic field from the stator (brake plates 45) to the rotor plates (brake plates 47) (See Globeride, Para. 0037, Ln. 3-6). This teaching is relied upon in combination with teachings from Nakagawa, which disclose the configuration and operation of the stator, the stator magnet, the first rotor plate, and the first rotor magnet, to suggest that the first rotor plate and the first rotor magnet can be duplicated provided that the stator is interposed between the first rotor plate and the second rotor plate, and the magnetic field generated by the stator magnet is configured to pass from the stator to both rotor plates (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Applicant asserts “Referring to FIG. 4 of Nakagawa, the rotor 60 and the rotor magnets 61 are fixed to an end flange 12b of the spool 12. The coils 62 are mounted to a circuit board 66 that is attached to an end cover 6 of the reel body 1. See also FIG. 2 of Nakagawa.”
Applicant argues “There is no rotating portion on the opposite side of the coils 62 from the rotor magnets 61 that could accommodate additional rotor magnets. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore need to entirely reconfigure Nakagawa's spool 12 and housing 1 to accommodate rotor magnets 61 on the opposite side of the coils 62. This would not have been an obvious modification to Nakagawa because there is no reason or motivation to make such modification and such modification would require substantial reconstruction and redesign that would change the principle of operation of Nakagawa's reel.”
Applicant further argues “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Nakagawa in the manner asserted by the Office Action because this would frustrate Nakagawa's intended purpose. See MPEP 2143.01(V). Nakagawa explains that its object is to "suppress the increase in the size of the reel that occurs when the spool braking device is arranged on the outside of the spool." Col. 2, 11. 33-36. As such, Nakagawa describes that coils of the spool braking unit are arranged to face toward a side face of a rotor arranged on the flange part of the spool to suppress the increase in the axial length. See Nakagawa, col. 3, 11. 1-22. The duplication of Nakagawa's rotor components asserted by the Office Action would go against Nakagawa's efforts to limit axial length and therefore would not have been an obvious modification to Nakagawa.”
In response to applicant’s argument that the structure in Nakagawa would need to be reconfigured in order to accommodate additional rotor magnets, 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).
It is not necessary that the exact arrangement of all the components in the claimed invention be replicated in Nakagawa in order to support a finding of obviousness for duplicating the first rotor and first rotor magnet. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI).
In response to applicant’s argument that this modification would change the principle of operation of Nakagawa's reel and would frustrate Nakagawa's intended purpose, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nakagawa discloses a principle of operation of a magnetic brake utilizing electromagnetic coils in an orientation which places their axes in parallel relationship to the spool’s rotational axis for the intended purpose of preventing an increase in size in the dimension of the reel body along a diameter of the spool shaft (See Nakagawa, Col. 1, Ln. 38-49, Col. 3, Ln. 6-16). Suppressing the increase in size of the reel in a dimension of the reel body along the axis of the spool shaft is an additional advantage, however, for an embodiment in which the addition of a second rotor and a second rotor magnet increases the axial length by an amount which is less than the winding diameter of the coils, the advantage of suppressing the axial length due to reorienting the coils is maintained (See Nakagawa, Col. 3, Ln. 16-22).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Globeride discloses a multi-plate configuration of the rotor “so that a large braking force acts on the spool” (See Globeride, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-2), Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention combine the teachings of Nakagawa and Globeride to provide a second rotor plate and a second rotor magnet for the purpose of increasing braking force capacity.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 3-20, 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