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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on June 15th, 2026 (directed to amendment and remarks filed May 20th, 2026) has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, 7 are currently amended. Claim 8 is newly added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the drawings and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed February 24th, 2026.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “wherein the lubricant holding portion is disposed to extend in an axial direction,” (Claim 5, Ln. 3) is unclear. If this term refers to "an axial direction" as defined in claim 1 (Claim 1, Ln. 6), it should be referenced as "the axial direction" in claim 5 so it is clear that a new axial direction is not being defined.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the wall extends transverse to the axial direction and the waterproofing member contacts the wall along the portion of the wall that extends transverse to the axial direction” is unclear. Claim 1 appears to use the terminology "wall portion" to refer to wall portion 9b which is inclusive of a wall body 9b1, a support portion 9b2, and a rotor collar 9b3, whereas claim 6 references "a portion of the wall" which appears to include only the portions of wall body 9b1 and support portion 9b2 which extend transversely to the axial direction defined in claim 1 and "the wall" which appears to reference wall portion 9b as a whole. The naming convention used in the claims should be modified so that the description of the components relative to each other is clear and consistent across the claims.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “at least a portion of the wall extends extending transverse to the axial direction and the waterproofing member contacts contacting the wall along the portion of the wall that extends transverse to the axial direction, and at least one of the first and second convex portions contacting contact the wall along the portion of the wall that extends transverse to the axial direction” is unclear. The claim appears to use the terminology "wall portion" to refer to wall portion 9b which is inclusive of a wall body 9b1, a support portion 9b2, and a rotor collar 9b3, and then later references "a portion of the wall" which appears to include only the portions of wall body 9b1 and support portion 9b2 which extend transversely to the axial direction and "the wall" which appears to reference wall portion 9b as a whole. The naming convention used in the claims should be modified so that the description of the components relative to each other is clear and consistent across the claims.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “wherein the lubricant holding portion is disposed to extend in the axial direction so as to enable the lubricant to contact the wall” is unclear. Claim 1 appears to use the terminology "wall portion" to refer to wall portion 9b which is inclusive of a wall body 9b1, a support portion 9b2, and a rotor collar 9b3. However, when claim 8 references "the wall" it is unclear whether "the wall" corresponds only to the portions of wall body 9b1 and support portion 9b2 which extend transversely to the axial direction defined in claim 1 or if “the wall” is referencing wall portion 9b as a whole. The naming convention used in the claims should be modified so that the description of the components relative to each other is clear and consistent across the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochiai (US 2013/0206889), hereinafter Ochiai ‘889.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4 from Ochiai '889
Regarding Claim 1, Ochiai ‘889, Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a spinning reel (spinning reel; See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0026, Ln. 1) for fishing, comprising:
a reel body 2 including a main body portion 2a and a cylindrical portion 2e disposed in the main body portion 2a;
a rotor 3 configured to rotate with respect to the reel body 2 (spinning reel; See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0026, Ln. 5-6) and including a rotor body portion 16 disposed radially outward from the cylindrical portion 2e and a wall portion 33’ disposed in the rotor body portion 16 and disposed opposite the cylindrical portion 2e in an axial direction; and
a waterproofing member 70 disposed radially inward from the cylindrical portion 2e, the waterproofing member 70 including a portion 70a contacting the wall portion 33’, and the portion 70a contacting the wall portion 33’ including a lubricant holding portion 74 configured to hold a lubricant 90 (See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0040, Ln. 14-15).
Regarding Claim 4, Ochiai ‘889 is advanced above.
Ochiai ‘889 further teaches wherein the wall portion 33’ has a collar member 33c (See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0044, Ln. 1-2) contacting the waterproofing member 70 (See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0040, Ln. 15-20).
Regarding Claim 5, Ochiai ‘889 is advanced above.
Ochiai ‘889 further teaches wherein the lubricant holding portion 74 is disposed to extend in an axial direction and is in contact with the wall portion 33’ (lubricant holding portion 74 extends diagonally which corresponds to extension in both the radially inward and axial directions; See Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Ochiai ‘889 is advanced above.
Ochiai ‘889 further teaches wherein at least a portion 33’’ of the wall 33’ extends transverse to the axial direction and the waterproofing member 70 contacts the wall 33’ along the portion 33’’ of the wall 33’ that extends transverse to the axial direction (See Figure 1 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Ochiai ‘889 is advanced above.
Ochiai ‘889 further teaches wherein the lubricant holding portion 74 is disposed to extend in the axial direction so as to enable the lubricant 90 to contact the wall 33’ (lubricant holding portion 74 extends diagonally which corresponds to extension in both the radially inward and axial directions; See Figure 1 above; See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0040, Ln. 14-15).
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 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai ‘889 (US 2013/0206889), as applied to claims 1 and 4-6 above, and further in view of Ochiai (JP 2019115285A), hereinafter Ochiai ‘285.
Regarding Claim 2, Ochiai ‘889 is advanced above.
Ochiai ‘889 further teaches wherein the waterproofing member 70 has a first portion 76 and a second portion 72 disposed radially inward from the first portion 72 and contacting the wall portion 33’ (See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0040, Ln. 15-20), and
the lubricant holding portion 74 is disposed between the first portion 76 and the second portion 72 (See Ochiai ‘889, Fig. 4).
Ochiai ‘889 teaches all the elements of the spinning reel except for the first and second portions being convex.
However, Ochiai ‘285, Figures 1 and 3, teaches wherein the waterproofing member 122 has a first convex portion 122a and a second convex portion 122b disposed radially inward from the first convex portion 122a (See Ochiai ‘285, Fig. 3, Para. 0034, Ln. 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ochiai ‘889 with convex portions, as taught by Ochiai ‘285, for the purpose of preventing moisture from entering the internal structure of the reel body (See Ochiai ‘285, Fig. 3, Para. 0034, Ln. 5-9).
Regarding Claim 3, Ochiai ‘889 in view of Ochiai ‘285 are advanced above.
Ochiai ‘889 further teaches wherein the first portion 76 or the second portion 72 forms a lip shape that tapers toward the wall portion 33’ (See Ochiai ‘889, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Ochiai ‘889, Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a spinning reel (spinning reel; See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0026, Ln. 1) for fishing comprising:
a reel body 2 including a main body portion 2a and a cylindrical portion 2e disposed in the main body portion 2a;
a rotor 3 configured to rotate with respect to the reel body 2 (spinning reel; See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0026, Ln. 5-6) and including a rotor body portion 16 disposed radially outward from the cylindrical portion 2e and a wall portion 33’ disposed in the rotor body portion 16 and disposed opposite the cylindrical portion 2e in an axial direction; and
a waterproofing member 70 disposed radially inward from the cylindrical portion 2e, contacting the wall portion 33’, the waterproofing member 70 including a lubricant holding portion 74 configured to hold a lubricant 90 (See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0040, Ln. 14-15).
a first portion 76 and a second portion 72 disposed radially inward from the first portion 76 and contacting the wall portion 33’ (See Ochiai ‘889, Para. 0040, Ln. 15-20),
the lubricant holding portion 74 disposed between the first portion 76 and the second portion 72 (See Ochiai ‘889, Fig. 4),
at least a portion 33’’ of the wall 33’ extending transverse to the axial direction and the waterproofing member 70 contacting the wall 33’ along the portion 33’’ of the wall 33’ that extends transverse to the axial direction (See Figure 1 above), and
at least one of the first 76 and second 72 portions contacting the wall 33’ along the portion 33’’ of the wall 33’ that extends transverse to the axial direction (See Figure 1 above).
Ochiai ‘889 teaches all the elements of the spinning reel except for the first and second portions being convex.
However, Ochiai ‘285, Figures 1 and 3, teaches wherein the waterproofing member 122 has a first convex portion 122a and a second convex portion 122b disposed radially inward from the first convex portion 122a (See Ochiai ‘285, Fig. 3, Para. 0034, Ln. 5-8).
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 Ochiai ‘889 and Ochiai ‘285 to provide the first and second portions as convex portions, for the purpose of preventing moisture from entering the internal structure of the reel body (See Ochiai ‘285, Fig. 3, Para. 0034, Ln. 5-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 4-7, filed May 20th, 2026, have been fully considered.
In response to the Drawing Objection related to Claim 7, Applicant has amended the claim limitation "the first and second convex portions contact the wall along the portion of the wall that extends transverse to the axial direction" to "at least one of the first and second convex portions contacting the wall along the portion of the wall that extends transverse to the axial direction. This amendment remedies the Drawing objection. However, the previously indicated allowable subject matter pertains specifically to the second convex portion contacting the wall and this amendment changes the scope of the claim. The term "at least one of" indicates that the second convex portion is not required to contact the transverse portion of the wall for a case in which the first convex portion does contact the transverse portion of the wall. Thus, this limitation renders claim 7 unpatentable over Ochiai ‘889 in view of Ochiai ‘285 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
In response to the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 USC 112, Applicant has amended the claim to clarify its scope. Examiner agrees that the claim is no longer indefinite for the reasons stated in the previous Office Action and this rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been raised due to the term "an axial direction" being unclear. If this term refers to "an axial direction" as defined in claim 1, it should be referenced as "the axial direction" in claim 5 so it is clear that a new axial direction is not being defined.
In response to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102, Applicant has amended the claim to further limit the scope of the claim regarding the portion of the waterproofing member which contacts the wall portion and holds the lubricant.
Applicant argues "amended independent claim 1 recites a spinning reel for fishing, comprising a waterproofing member disposed radially inward from a cylindrical portion, the waterproofing member including a portion contacting a wall portion, and the portion contacting the wall portion including a lubricant holding portion configured to hold a lubricant.
The cited art fails to disclose such a spinning reel for fishing. In particular, the Office Action suggests that the water proofing member 70 in Ochiai contacts a wall portion (i.e., lip portion 76 contacts the front wall 33) and includes lubricant holding portion 74. However, even assuming that the Office Action is correct, Ochiai clearly fails to disclose the subject matter now recited in claim 1 of this application."
Applicant further argues "claim 1 requires that the portion contacting the wall portion includes the lubricant holding portion. As clearly illustrated in Figure 4 of Ochiai, the lubricant holding portion 74 is not disposed in the lip portion 76. Rather, the lubricant holding portion 74 is separate from the lip portion 76, and at best, lubricant holding portion 74 contacts that cap member 33c. Therefore, the lubricant holding portion 74 or any portion that includes the lubricant holding portion 74 does not contact the front wall 33."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The component 33c is included in the wall portion 33' which is highlighted in annotated Figure 1 and mapped to wall portion 9b of the instant application. Wall portion 33' is considered to be analogous to the wall portion 9b because both subassemblies (i.e., 9b of the instant application and 33' of Ochiai '889) include sections which extend parallel to the axial direction and perpendicular to the axial direction. Therefore, the lubricant holding portion 74 does contact wall portion 33' and Applicant's arguments to the rejection of claim 1 are unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2-6, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding newly added Claim 8, the claim is a dependent of rejected claim 1, and Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited art, as it applies to claim 1, are not persuasive. Additionally, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been made for additional limitations outlined in claim 8.
Conclusion
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 10:30am-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