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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The protrusions 271 and 272 shown in Figures 2-3 are arranged in a cross shape, but each protrusion itself is not cross-shaped. Therefore, the “cross-shaped protrusions” (Claim 10, Ln. 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner suggests “cross-shaped protrusions” should read --protrusions arranged in a cross shape--
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) because the section view hatching in Figures 4B and 5B does not enable the components to be easily distinguished from one another.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) because the quality of the lines cause difficulty in understanding the invention, structural shape of the components, and positional relationship between components, particularly in Figures 4B and 5B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because Figures 2, 3, 4A, 5A, and 6B have reference characters which use parentheses.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and 37 CFR 1.84(q) because Figures 2, 3, 4A, 5A, and 6B have reference characters which use multiple reference characters to designate a component being labeled by a single lead line (See Figure 2, “270(271)”) and it is unclear which number is referencing which particular component. Additionally, reference character “240” appears to designate the magnet housing in the specification and Figures 2-3, 4B, 5B, 6A, and 6B while it appears to designate the magnet retainer in Figure 4C, 7A, and 7B and designate the magnet itself in Figure 5C.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(2) because Figures 7A’, 7B’, and 8’ use inverted commas in their figure labels.
Figures 8 and 8’ should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4, 15-16, and 18-19 are 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 1,
Claim 1, Ln. 15-16, “a second control dial slider engaged with the first control dial slider to move it forward or backward” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “it” refers to the second control dial slider or the first control dial slider. For examination purposes, Examiner has interpreted “it” as referring to “the first control dial slider.”
Claim 1, Ln. 17-18, “a control dial which is gear-coupled with the second control dial slider to drive it upon rotation” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear which component “it” refers to and what the scope of the term “drive” entails. Which component is moving axially? Which component is rotating? For examination purposes, Examiner has interpreted “it” as referring to “the second control dial slider,” and “a control dial … to drive it upon rotation” as meaning rotation of the control dial causes the second control dial slider to move.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claim 2 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 1
Claim 2, Ln. 4-5, “a ring-shaped magnet retainer which is coupled to an upper circumference of the magnet housing, and protrudes inward to securely support the plurality of square column magnets” is indefinite. The term “securely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “securely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how the magnet retainer is limited in order to satisfy a “secure” support for the magnets. For examination purposes, Examiner has interpreted “to securely support the plurality of square column magnets” as meaning the magnets are held in place by the magnet retainer.
Regarding Claim 3,
Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 1
Claim 3, Ln. 3-4, “an upper ring with a small diameter, which is coupled to the spool shaft, and a lower ring with a large diameter” is indefinite. The terms “small” and “large” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “small” and “large” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how small or large these components are limited to in order to satisfy the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner has interpreted “a small diameter” and “a large diameter” as being greater than or less than each other (i.e., a small diameter is any diameter of the upper ring which is smaller than the diameter of the of the lower ring).
Claim 3, Ln. 2-6, “the magnet brake ring includes an upper ring with a small diameter, which is coupled to the spool shaft, and a lower ring with a large diameter, which mutually interferes with magnetic fields of the plurality of magnets moving forward or backward to exert a braking force” is vague and indefinite. The limitation “mutually interferes with magnetic fields” implies that more than one component is interfering with the magnetic fields, but it is unclear which components are included in this group. Furthermore, it is unclear what the scope of interference is for the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner has interpreted “mutually interferes with magnetic fields” as referring to multiple sections of the magnetic brake ring interfering with the magnetic fields caused by the plurality of magnets
Regarding Claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 3
Claim 4, Ln. 5-6, “the braking force that mutually interferes with the magnetic fields” is vague and indefinite. The limitation “mutually interferes with magnetic fields” implies that more than one component is interfering with the magnetic fields, but it is unclear which components are included in this group. Furthermore, it is unclear what the scope of interference is for the claim. Additionally, claim 3 appears to refer to specific components causing the interference while claim 4 refers to the braking force itself. Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and this inconsistency renders claim 4 unclear as well. For examination purposes, Examiner has interpreted “the braking force that mutually interferes with magnetic fields” as referring to the braking force which results from the magnetic brake ring interferes with the magnetic fields caused by the plurality of magnets.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15, Ln. 3-4, “by opening a portion of the palm side cover, the control dial is operated” is vague and indefinite. The limitation “by opening” implies that a cover must be displaced to access the control dial, but neither the drawings nor the specification supports this interpretation. It is unclear whether there is a moving cover or if the control dial merely sits partially inside the cover and partially exposed through an opening (as shown in Figure 1A) at all times. For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed this limitation refers to the control dial protruding through an opening in the cover.
Claim 16 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 15.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18, Ln. 4-6, “a ratio of a width to a length is in a range of 1.0 to 1.5, the length is greater than or equal to the width, and a thickness thereof is smaller than the width” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear which dimensions “width”, “length”, and “thickness” refer to and whether the ratio is defined relative to the plurality of magnets as a whole or each individual magnet. For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed that the “ratio” applies to each of the plurality of magnets individually, the “width” is the dimension of each magnet in the axial direction of the magnet holder, the “length” is the dimension of each magnet in the circumferential direction of the magnet holder, and the “thickness” is the dimension of each magnet in the radial direction of the magnet holder.
Regarding Claim 19,
Claim 19, Ln. 4-5, “a ratio of an upper width to a lower width is in a range of 1.1 to 2.0, and a thickness thereof is smaller than a short horizontal length” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear which dimensions “upper width”, “lower width”, “thickness”, and “horizontal length” refer to and whether the ratio is defined relative to the plurality of magnets as a whole or each individual magnet. For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed that the “ratio” applies to each of the plurality of magnets individually, the “thickness” is the dimension of each magnet in the radial direction of the magnet holder, and the trapezoidal face of the magnet is characterized by two opposing parallel sides (i.e., “upper width” and “lower width”) with the “upper width” being the side shorter than the “lower width.”
Claim 19, Ln. 5, “a thickness thereof is smaller than a short horizontal length” is indefinite. The term “short” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how short the horizontal length must be in order to satisfy the scope of the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear which dimension “a short horizontal length” refers to. For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed the “short horizontal length” is the dimension of one of the sides of the trapezoidal face of the magnet which connects the “upper width” and “lower width.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,234,423) in view of Jeong (KR 200151236 Y1) and Sejourne (US 8,887,898).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4 from Chen
Regarding Claim 1, Chen, Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a brake 3 for a bait casting reel 1 with magnets 40, comprising:
a spool 27 installed between both sides of a left-right frame 1a;
a double ring-shaped magnet brake ring 26 coupled to one end of a spool shaft 2a;
a magnet housing 39 coupled to the magnet brake ring 26 (See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 7-14);
a plurality of magnets 40 mounted in a circumferential direction between the magnet brake ring 26 and the magnet housing 39;
a spool cover 36 in which the magnet housing 39 is accommodated;
a first control dial slider 34 configured to move the plurality of magnets 40 forward or backward within the spool cover 36 (See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 2-9); and
a control dial 31.
Chen teaches all the elements of the brake except for a second control dial slider, the control dial being gear coupled with the second control dial slider, and the magnets being square column magnets.
However, Jeong, Figures 2-4, teaches a second control dial slider 23 engaged with the first control dial slider 24 to move it forward or backward (See Jeong, Pg. 3, Ln. 14-29); and
a control dial 21 which is gear-coupled with the second control dial slider 23 to drive it upon rotation (See Jeong, Pg. 3, Ln. 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Chen with a second control dial slider gear coupled to the control dial, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of transmitting rotational motion from the control dial into linear motion of the first control dial slider at a different rate than by a mechanism in which the control dial drives the first control slider directly (i.e., modifying gear ratio between the control dial, the second control slider, and the first control slider). Using a gear train to alter the rotational output characteristics of a control dial to be different than the rotational input characteristics (i.e., change in speed or degree of rotation) is a well-known and commonly used technique.
Furthermore, Sejourne, Figures 8-10, teaches a plurality of square column magnets 52 (flat bar magnets; See Sejourne, Col. 11, Ln. 25) mounted in a circumferential direction between the magnet brake ring 54 and the magnet housing 53 (See Sejourne, Col. 11, Ln. 23-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Chen with square column magnets, as taught by Sejourne, for the purpose of cost reduction (i.e., arc shaped magnets which match a specific diameter can be replaced by inexpensive square column magnets while maintaining a sufficiently uniform circumferential magnetic braking force). Simple substitution of a commercially available, cheaper alternative part is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
PNG
media_image2.png
234
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 2 from Chen
Chen, annotated Figure 2 above, further teaches wherein the magnet brake ring 26 includes an upper ring 26a with a small diameter, which is coupled to the spool shaft 2a, and a lower ring 26b with a large diameter, which mutually interferes with magnetic fields of the plurality of magnets 40 moving forward or backward to exert a braking force (See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 7-14), wherein the upper and lower rings 26a, 26b are integrally formed with each other.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen further teaches wherein the plurality of magnets 40 are arranged symmetrically about a centerline thereof and uniformly in a circumferential direction of the magnet housing 39 (See Chen, Fig. 3, Col. 6, Ln. 27-28).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen further teaches wherein the plurality of magnets 40 are arranged symmetrically about the centerline thereof and uniformly in the circumferential direction of the magnet housing 39, and includes 6 or 8 magnets (See Chen, Fig. 3, Col. 6, Ln. 27-30).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
PNG
media_image3.png
219
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 3 from Chen
Chen, annotated Figure 3 above, further teaches wherein the spool cover 36 has a circular recess 36a formed in an outer central portion thereof and a central axis 36b formed in the center thereof, such that the first control dial slider 34 is axially coupled therewith to slide forward or backward (See Chen, Col. 5, Ln. 48-54).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Jeong further teaches wherein the first control dial slider 24 is moved forward or backward by clockwise or counterclockwise rotation of the second control dial slider 23 (See Jeong, Pg. 3, Ln. 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Chen with the first control dial slider being moved forward or backward by clockwise or counterclockwise rotation of the second control dial slider, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of transmitting rotational motion from the control dial into linear motion of the first control dial slider at a different rate than by a mechanism in which the control dial drives the first control slider directly (i.e., modifying gear ratio between the control dial, the second control slider, and the first control slider). Using a gear train to alter the rotational output characteristics of a control dial to be different than the rotational input characteristics (i.e., change in speed or degree of rotation) is a well-known and commonly used technique.
Regarding Claim 15, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen further teaches wherein the control dial 31 is formed inside of a palm side cover 32, and by opening a portion (hole; See Chen, Col. 5, Ln. 67) of the palm side cover 32, the control dial 31 is operated (See Chen, Col. 5, Ln. 67 - Col. 6, Ln. 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
PNG
media_image4.png
716
589
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 4 from Jeong
PNG
media_image5.png
624
803
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Annotated Figure 2 from Jeong
Jeong, annotated Figures 4-5 above, further teaches wherein the control dial 21 has a disk shape and includes a gauge indication part 21a formed on an outside of an outer upper surface thereof, and a concavo-convex part 21b is formed on a circumferential surface of the control dial 21.
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 Chen, Jeong, and Sejourne to provide a gauge indication part and a concavo-convex part formed on a circumferential surface of the control dial, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of indicating an increase or decrease in the braking force (i.e., a visual indicator via the physical position/orientation of a part on the control dial and an audible indicator via the clicking means engaging with the concavo-convex part. Providing visual and audible indicators within a fishing reel for the adjustment dial of a brake is a well-known and commonly used technique for indicating braking force characteristics (e.g., increase, decrease, magnitude) to a user.
Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Although Chen is silent regarding the uniformity of the magnetic fields between neighboring magnets, Chen discloses “magnets 40 are spliced to form a ring structure of the magnetic ring, according to the way of magnetic pole staggered and seamless,” (See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 30-32) and illustrates the group of magnets 40 being formed in a uniform shape along the axial direction (See Chen, Fig. 3). Therefore, it is implied that the strengths of magnetic fields formed between neighboring magnets of the plurality of magnets are uniform regardless of the positions thereof in the axial direction, 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 uniform magnetic fields along the axial direction of the reel for the purpose of “improving the stability of magnetic braking,” (See Chen, Col. 2, Ln. 52-57).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,234,423) in view of Jeong (KR 200151236 Y1) and Sejourne (US 8,887,898) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Umezawa (US 2024/0298626).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Sejourne further teaches a ring-shaped magnet retainer 56 which is coupled to an upper circumference of the magnet housing 53, to securely support the plurality of square column magnets 52 (See Sejourne, Col. 14, Ln. 32-35).
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 Chen, Jeong, and Sejourne to provide a ring shaped magnet retainer, as taught by Sejourne, for the purpose of anchoring the magnets (See Sejourne, Col. 14, Ln. 32-35).
Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne teach all the elements of the brake except for the ring shaped magnet retainer protruding inward.
However, Umezawa, Figure 5, teaches a ring-shaped magnet retainer 40 which is coupled to an upper circumference of the magnet housing 22, and protrudes inward to securely support the plurality of square column magnets 21 (“ring-shaped magnet 21 … can be composed of a large number of magnets disposed side by side in an annular shape”; See Umezawa, Para. 0028, 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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Umezawa to provide a ring shaped magnet retainer protruding inward, as taught by Umezawa, for the purpose of reducing the leakage of magnetic fluxes and suppressing the magnetic force acting on the spool itself (See Umezawa, Para. 0056, Ln. 10-17).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,234,423) in view of Jeong (KR 200151236 Y1) and Sejourne (US 8,887,898) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Kano (US 11,172,662).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne teach all the elements of the brake except for a horizontal flange shaped protrusion.
However, Kano, Figure 2, teaches wherein the lower ring 25a of the magnet brake ring 25 has a horizontal flange-shaped protrusion 25b formed on an upper portion thereof, thus to increase an area on which the braking force that mutually interferes with the magnetic fields of the plurality of magnets 21 (“the magnet 21 … may be configured by serially arranging (in a ring shape) a large number of magnets along the circumferential direction”; See Kano, Col. 4, Ln. 4-9) acts (See Kano, Col. 5, Ln. 13-19).
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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Kano to provide a horizontal flange shaped protrusion, as taught by Kano, for the purpose of increasing braking efficiency and decreasing the size of the magnetic field generating portion (See Kano, Col. 6, Ln. 39-47).
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,234,423) in view of Jeong (KR 200151236 Y1) and Sejourne (US 8,887,898) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Kim (US 6,206,311).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen further teaches a slide cam spring 35, and the first control dial slider 34 is coupled thereto, such that, when the first control dial slider 34 is moved forward, the slide cam spring 35 is compressed (See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 7-14), and when the first control dial slider 34 is moved backward, the slide cam spring 35 is relaxed to be returned to its original position (See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 14-24).
Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne teach all the elements of the brake except for the slide cam spring being inserted into the central axis.
However, Kim, Figures 1-5, teaches wherein a slide cam spring 30 is inserted into the central axis 48, and the first control dial slider 40 is axially coupled thereto (See Kim, Col. 4, Ln. 66 - Col. 5, Ln. 5).
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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Kim to locate the slide cam spring on the central axis, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of biasing the first cam slider towards the second cam slider such that they remain in operative contact (See Kim, Col. 4, Ln. 67 - Col. 5, Ln. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen further teaches wherein the first control dial slider 34 is formed in a cap shape having protrusions 34a (See Figure 3 above).
Although Chen does not explicitly teach the protrusions being formed in a cross shape, Chen illustrates three protrusions being equally spaced around the circumference of the first cam slider (See Figure 3 above). Adding a fourth protrusion would be a mere duplication of parts and maintaining equal spacing between the protrusions would yield protrusions forming a cross shape. Therefore, arranging the protrusions in a cross shape would be 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 cross-shaped protrusions for the purpose of modifying the braking force (i.e., moving the magnet housing and magnets forward and backward along the axial direction) (See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 7-9).
Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne teach all the elements of the brake except for the protrusions being on the upper portion of the first control dial slider and a pair of protrusions having a vertical semicircular column shape so as to slid forward or backward by rotation of the second control dial slider.
However, Kim, Figures 1-5, teaches wherein the first control dial slider 40 is formed in a cap shape having protrusions 44 on the upper portion thereof, and a pair of protrusions 66 have a vertical column shape so as to slid forward or backward by rotation of the second control dial slider 186 (See Kim, Col. 4, Ln. 37-41).
Although Kim does not explicitly teach the pair of protrusions having a semicircular shape, changes in shape without evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component is significant is an obvious matter of design choice.
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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Kim to provide the protrusions on the upper portion of the first control dial slider and a pair of protrusions having a vertical semicircular column shape, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of modifying the braking force (i.e., moving the magnet housing and magnets forward and backward along the axial direction) (See Kim, Col. 5, Ln. 11-13).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen in view of Jeong, Sejourne, and Kim are advanced above.
Chen further teaches wherein the protrusions 34a of the first control dial slider 34 come into contact with a lower surface of the magnet housing 39 to slide forward or backward (See Figure 3 above; See Chen, Col. 6, Ln. 7-9).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,234,423) in view of Jeong (KR 200151236 Y1) and Sejourne (US 8,887,898) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Noh (KR 101248958 B2), hereinafter Noh ‘958.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne teach all the elements of the brake except for the first control dial slider and the second control dial slider engaging in spiral contact.
However, Noh ‘958, Figures 1-3, teaches wherein the first control dial slider 200 is engaged in spiral surface contact with the rotatable second control dial slider 400 (See Noh ‘958, Para. 0032, Ln. 1-4), and slides forward or backward by rotation of the second control dial slider 400 (See Noh ‘958, Para. 0045, Ln. 1-2).
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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Noh ‘958 to provide the first control dial slider and the second control dial slider engaging in spiral contact, as taught by Noh ‘958, for the purpose of allowing for fine and gradual adjustment of the braking force (See Noh ‘958, Pg. 7, Ln. 6-8).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,234,423) in view of Jeong (KR 200151236 Y1) and Sejourne (US 8,887,898) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Noh ‘958 (KR 101248958 B2) and as evidenced by Kim (US 6,206,311) and Noh (KR 20200085059 A), hereinafter Noh ‘059.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne are advanced above.
Chen in view of Jeong and Sejourne teach all the elements of the brake except for a control dial clicker made of metal and elastically supported inside of the second control dial slider.
However, Noh ‘958, Figures 1-3, teaches wherein a control dial clicker 520 is elastically supported and a sound is generated as the control dial clicker 520 rotates.
Additionally, Noh ‘958 discloses the control dial clicker 250 as a spring, which implies that it can be made of a metallic material and thus would generate a metallic sound.
Although Noh ‘958 does not explicitly teach the control dial clicker being supported inside of the second control dial slider, Noh ‘958 illustrates structure within the inner circumference of the control dial for supporting the control dial clicker that could be utilized within the second control dial slider for a configuration which uses an eccentric control dial such as the structure illustrated in Jeong. Providing a clicking means attached to and engaged with various components within a fishing reel for the purpose of providing an audible indicator for the adjustment of a brake is a well-known and commonly used technique, as evidenced by Jeong, Kim, and Noh ‘059. Therefore, 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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Noh ‘958 to provide a control dial clicker made of metal and elastically supported inside of the second control dial slider for the purpose of producing a sound as the control dial is rotated (See Noh ‘958, Para. 0059, Ln. 1-4).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 11,234,423) in view of Jeong (KR 200151236 Y1), Sejourne (US 8,887,898), and Noh ‘958 (KR 101248958 B2) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 13, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Noh ‘059 (KR 20200085059 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Jeong, Sejourne, and Noh ‘958 are advanced above.
Noh ‘958 further teaches wherein the control dial clicker 520 has an annular ring shape whose one side is cut, and includes a protrusion 521 formed on the other side thereof, and when rotating, the protrusion 521 is inserted into and removed from a concavo-convex part 22 formed on a circumferential surface to generate a sound (See Noh ‘958, Para. 0058 - 0059).
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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Noh ‘958 to provide the control dial clicker in an annular ring shape with a protrusion, as taught by Noh ‘958, for the purpose of producing a sound as the control dial is rotated (See Noh ‘958, Para. 0059, Ln. 1-4).
Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, and Noh ‘958 teach all the elements of the brake except for the protrusion being inserted into and removed from a concavo-convex part being formed on a circumferential surface of the control dial.
However, Noh ‘059, Figures 1-8, teaches wherein the protrusion 662 is inserted into and removed from a concavo-convex part 450 formed on a circumferential surface of the control dial 400 to generate a sound (See Noh ‘059, Para. 0035 - 0039).
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 Chen, Jeong, Sejourne, Noh ‘958, and Noh ‘059 to provide the concavo-convex part being formed on a circumferential surface of the control dial, as taught by Noh ‘059, for the purpose of producing a sound as the control dial is rotated (See Noh ‘059, Para. 0037).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18 would be allowable for disclosing wherein a ratio of a width to a length is in a range of 1.0 to 1.5.
PNG
media_image6.png
479
593
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Annotated Figure 8 from Sejourne
Although Sejourne, annotated Figure 6 above, teaches wherein the plurality of square column magnets 52 form a rectangular hexahedron, the length is greater than the width, and a thickness thereof is smaller than the width, specific relative dimensions of the magnets are absent, and because the magnetic field generated by a permanent magnet, and the resulting braking force, is dependent on the size and shape of the magnet, the prior art would not have allowed for anticipation of nor an obvious modification resulting in a device with all the limitations of claim 18. Therefore, this combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claim 19 would be allowable for disclosing wherein the plurality of square column magnets form a trapezoidal hexahedron, and a ratio of an upper width to a lower width is in a range of 1.1 to 2.0, and a thickness thereof is smaller than a short horizontal length.
Although the prior art of record teaches circular, square, and rectangular shaped magnets, the use of trapezoidal shaped magnets as well as specific relative dimensions of the magnets are absent, and because the magnetic field generated by a permanent magnet, and the resulting braking force, is dependent on the size and shape of the magnet, the prior art would not have allowed for anticipation of nor an obvious modification resulting in a device with all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, this combination of features is considered to be allowable.
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