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 20th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3 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 30th, 2025.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginshosha (JP H03050865 U) in view of Sung (US 7,850,109).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1 from Ginshosha
Regarding Claim 1, Ginshosha, Figures 1-5 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a fishing reel (fishing reel; See Ginshosha, Claim 1, Ln. 1) including:
a spool 2 including a drum 2’ on which a fishing line is wound and a shaft 5 provided on a central portion 5’;
a facing member 40 provided on one side of the drum 2’ of the spool 2 and including a facing portion 41;
a magnetic brake 20’ including holders 20 provided in a circumferential direction of the facing portion 41 of the facing member 40 to be movable forwards and backwards in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the shaft 5 (See Ginshosha, Claim 1, Ln. 5-8) and magnets 22 mounted on the holders 20 to respectively have a facing surface 22’ facing the facing portion 41; and
a braking force control means 10’ for pushing the holders 20 by a cam operation to move the holders 20 forwards and backwards (See Ginshosha, Claim 1, Ln. 3-8) and controlling a braking force by adjusting a distance between the facing portion 41 and the magnets 22 (See Ginshosha, Brief Description of the Drawings, Ln. 3-13, Fig. 3-5).
Ginshosha teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for an elastic member.
However, Sung, Figures 1-7, teaches an elastic member 17 for elastically supporting the holders 23 by pushing the holders 23 towards an original position of the magnets 23a (See Sung, Col. 4, Ln. 22-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ginshosha with an elastic member, as taught by Sung, for the purpose of preventing backlash while increasing the casting distance (See Sung, Col. 4, Ln. 48-56).
Regarding Claim 2, Ginshosha in view of Sung are advanced above.
Ginshosha further teaches wherein the braking force control means 10’ includes:
a dial cam 10 configured to rotate in a circumferential direction of the spool 2 at one side of each of the holders 20 and including a cam portion 11 configured to push the holders 20 inwards or outwards to move forwards or backwards (See Ginshosha, Fig. 1 and 4-5); and
a control dial 12 provided on a side cover 3 to rotate the dial cam 10 (See Ginshosha, Fig. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginshosha (JP H03050865 U) in view of Sung (US 7,850,109) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Sekimoto (JP 2011206013 A) and Sakaguchi (US 6,328,240).
Regarding Claim 3, Ginshosha in view of Sung are advanced above.
Ginshosha further teaches a dial cam 10, and a control dial 12 provided on a side cover 3 to rotate the dial cam 10 (See Ginshosha, Fig. 1).
Ginshosha in view of Sung teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for an operating cam and the dial cam being configured to push the operating cam in an axial direction.
However, Sekimoto, Figures 6-9, teaches wherein the braking force control means includes:
an operating cam 110 configured to move forwards and backwards in an axial direction of the spool 18 (See Sekimoto, Para. 0037, Ln. 9-11) at one side of each of the holders 118 and including a cam portion 120, and
a dial cam 130 configured to rotate in a circumferential direction of the spool 18 at one side of the operating cam 110 and push the operating cam 110 in an axial direction to move forwards (See Sekimoto, Para. 0041, 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 provide Ginshosha with an operating cam, as taught by Sekimoto, for the purpose of improving casting distance and preventing backlash (i.e. allowing for adjustment of initial and final magnetic braking force) (See Sekimoto, Para. 0007, Ln. 1-23, Para. 0041, Ln. 9-12).
Ginshosha in view of Sung and Sekimoto teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for the cam portion being configured to push the holders inwards or outwards to move forwards or backwards.
However, Sakaguchi, Figures 1-8, teaches a cam portion (cam surfaces; See Sakaguchi, Col. 4, Ln. 36) configured to push the holders 18 inwards or outwards to move forwards or backwards (See Sakaguchi, Col. 5, Ln. 59 - Col. 6, Ln. 9);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ginshosha with a cam portion being configured to push the holders, as taught by Sakaguchi, for the purpose of making the braking force adjustment easier to perform by the user (i.e. adjusting the braking force without requiring disassembly) (See Sakaguchi, Col. 1, Ln. 33-38).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginshosha (JP H03050865 U) in view of Sung (US 7,850,109) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Sekimoto (JP 2011206013 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Ginshosha in view of Sung are advanced above.
Ginshosha further teaches wherein the holders 20 of the magnetic brake 20’ are provided in the circumferential direction of the facing portion 41 and are configured to move forwards and backwards in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the spool 2 in a direction of an inner surface or an outer surface of the facing portion 41 (See Ginshosha, Fig. 1 and 4-5).
Ginshosha in view of Sung teach all the elements of the fishing reel except for the facing member being a variable body able to be moved along the axial direction of the spool.
However, Sekimoto, Figures 1-3, teaches wherein the facing member 42 is a variable body (moving body; See Sekimoto, Para. 0012, Ln. 4) coupled to one edge of the shaft 14 (See Sekimoto, Para. 0012, Ln. 4-5) to move forwards and backwards in an axial direction of the spool 18 (See Sekimoto, Para. 0013, Ln. 4-5),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ginshosha with a variable body 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 body moves through along the axis of the spool) (See Sekimoto, Para. 0007, Ln. 1-9).
Regarding Claim 5, Ginshosha in view of Sung and Sekimoto are advanced above.
Sekimoto further teaches wherein the variable body (moving body; See Sekimoto, Para. 0012, Ln. 4) 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 Ginshosha with a variable body elastically supported toward 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Ginshosha in view of Sung and Sekimoto are advanced above.
Ginshosha further teaches wherein the braking force control means 10’ includes:
a dial cam 10 configured to rotate in a circumferential direction of the spool 2 at one side of the holders 20 and push the holders 20 in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction of the spool 2 to move forwards (See Ginshosha, Fig. 1 and 4-5); and
a control dial 12 provided on a side cover 3 to rotate the dial cam 10 (See Ginshosha, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Ginshosha in view of Sung and Sekimoto are advanced above.
Ginshosha further teaches a spool cover 30 at one side of the holders 20, wherein a receiving portion 33 in which the holders 20 are received is defined by the spool cover 30 (See Ginshosha, Claim 1, Ln. 9-11), and the spool cover 30 includes guide grooves 23 configured to guide the holders 20 in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the spool 2 (See Ginshosha, 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. 4-7, filed December 20th, 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’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.
Ginshosha (JP H03050865 U) in view of Sung (US 7,850,109) 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 2-7, 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
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights