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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“biasing element” in claim 4, line 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morise (US6572041B2) in view of Ochiai (US20210153487A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morise discloses a line guide mechanism for a spinning reel comprising: a spool (4; Figures 1-2); rotor arms (5, 6) configured to wind fishing line around the spool (4); a support part (8) supported by the rotor arms (5, 6); a line roller (12) disposed on the support part (8) and configured to guide the fishing line onto the spool (4); and a fin (137; Figures 8-9) having a proximal end part (bottom portion of 137 that connects with support part 8 and arm 5) disposed on the support part (8) and a distal end part (137b) facing the line roller (12) and being configured to pivotably move (fin 137 pivots about shaft 30), but fails to teach wherein the fin being configured to pivotably move to prevent damage to the fin when a knot in the fishing line passes through the fin.
Ochiai teaches a similar line guide mechanism and further teaches wherein the fin (17; Figure 4-11) being configured to pivotably move (fin 17 pivots about the insertion groove 23b) when a knot in the fishing line passes through the fin (17; ¶0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the line guide mechanism of Morise to include the fin pivoting due to a knot in the fishing line as taught by Ochiai in order to increase the gap between the line roller and fin to prevent the knot from becoming caught and preventing line breakage; and further include wherein the fin pivotably moves to prevent damage to the fin due to a knot in the fishing line in order to reduce stressing at the tip of the fin to prevent breakage or failure of the fin.
Regarding claim 2, Morise discloses wherein the proximal end part of the fin (137) has a pivot shaft (30) supporting the fin (137) so as to pivotably move with respect to the support part (8).
Regarding claim 3, Morise discloses wherein the pivot shaft (30) is a detachable pin element and supports the fin (137).
Regarding claim 4, Morise discloses wherein the support part (8) has a holding part (39) holding the fin (137) in a holding position in which the distal end part (137a) of the fin (137) faces the line roller (12), and the holding part (39) has a biasing element (column 10, lines 7-43, bail 8 and interlocking nib 39 engages with slot 137c of the fin 137 to pivot the fin 137) configured to bias the fin (137) in a second direction opposite a first direction to guide the fishing line onto the spool (4) around the pivot shaft (30).
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai.
Regarding claim 1, Ochiai discloses a line guide mechanism for a spinning reel comprising: a spool (3; Figure 1); rotor arms (4b, 4c) configured to wind fishing line around the spool (3); a support part (11) supported by the rotor arms (4b, 4c); a line roller (14) disposed on the support part (11) and configured to guide the fishing line onto the spool (3); and a fin (17; Figures 4-11) having a proximal end part (33) disposed on the support part (11) and a distal end part (31) facing the line roller (14) and being configured to pivotably move (fin 17 pivots about the insertion groove 23b) when a knot in the fishing line passes through the fin (17; ¶0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the line guide mechanism of Ochiai to include wherein the fin pivotably moves to prevent damage to the fin due to a knot in the fishing line in order to reduce stressing at the tip of the fin to prevent breakage or failure of the fin.
Regarding claim 5, Ochiai discloses wherein the fin (17) has a connecting portion (area between 31 and 32) disposed between the proximal end part (33) and the distal end part (31) and pivotably connecting the distal end (31) part to the proximal end part (33).
Regarding claim 6, Ochiai discloses wherein the connecting portion (the two reduced step width areas of 31; Figure 8) has an elastically deformable portion (¶0054, upper portion 31 of fin 17 is capable of bending since it is formed of a resin with low rigidity).
Regarding claim 7, Ochiai discloses wherein the fin (17) includes an elastically deformable section (ES; see Ochiai annotated Figure 8 below) connecting a guide part (GP) to the proximal end part (33) so as to pivotably move at a position between the proximal end part (33) and the guide part (GP; ¶0054, upper portion 31 of fin 17 is capable of bending since it is formed of a resin with low rigidity).
PNG
media_image1.png
141
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ochiai, Annotated Figure 8
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), in the last two paragraphs of page 4, the applicant argued that a biasing element is an understood structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner construed that the biasing element has an undefined structure in which can be broadly interpreted as any device that may differ from the intended purpose and function. For example, the biasing element can be interpreted as a spring, magnet, detent contours, or etc. Therefore, the claim limitation should recite sufficient structure.
Regarding claim 1, in page 5, and first four paragraphs of page 6, the applicant argued that the disclosures of Morise and Ochiai fail to teach a fin having a proximal end part disposed on a support part and a distal end part facing a line roller and being configured to pivotably move to prevent damage to the fin when a knot in a fishing line passes through the fin.
The examiner construed that the disclosure of Morise teaches a fin having a proximal end part disposed on a support part and a distal end part facing a line roller, however, the examiner agrees that the disclosure of Morise fails to teach wherein the fin being configured to pivotably move to prevent damage to the fin when a knot in a fishing line passes through the fin. However, the examiner construed that the disclosure of Ochiai teaches the fin pivoting due to a knot in the fishing line in order to increase the gap between the line roller and fin to prevent the knot from becoming caught and preventing line breakage; since the disclosure of Ochiai increases the gap between the line roller and fin, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to further include wherein the fin pivotably moves to prevent damage to the fin due to a knot in the fishing line in order to reduce stressing at the tip of the fin to prevent breakage or failure of the fin.
The examiner further construed that the disclosure of Ochiai teaches a fin 17 that has an insertion part 33 defining the proximal end part disposed on a groove 23b in the extension part 23 which is integral to the support part 11 and an upper portion 31 of the fin defining the distal end part facing a line roller 14 and being configured to pivotably oscillate within the width of the extension part of the support part when a knot in a fishing line passes through the fin in order to increase the gap between the line roller and fin to prevent the knot from becoming caught and preventing line breakage. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the examiner construed that it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to further include wherein the fin pivotably moves to prevent damage to the fin due to a knot in the fishing line in order to reduce stressing at the tip of the fin to prevent breakage or failure of the fin. Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, such amendment/argument does not overcome the prior art.
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 HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm 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.
/H.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights