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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on November 24th, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2021-189802 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daniels (US 5,749,533).
Regarding Claim 1, Daniels, Figures 1-5d, teaches a reel device comprising:
a rotation input portion 34 to which a rotation force is input (See Daniels, Col. 6, Ln. 50-54);
a line winding portion 30 that is rotatably supported and around which a line-like body 32 is wound (See Daniels, Col. 6, Ln. 50-54); and
a speed change mechanism 40a that is capable of transmitting the rotation force input to the rotation input portion 34 to the line winding portion 30 by changing a speed through magnetic modulation (See Daniels, Col. 6, Ln. 61-63, Col. 8, Ln. 19-28).
Regarding Claim 10, Daniels is advanced above.
PNG
media_image1.png
325
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1(b) from Daniels
Daniels, annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a level wind mechanism 68’ that includes a shaft 68a disposed along an axial direction on an outer diameter side of the line winding portion 30, and a moving member 70 that guides the line-like body 32 while reciprocating in the axial direction along the shaft 68a (See Daniels, Col. 8, Ln. 49-52).
Regarding Claim 12, Daniels is advanced above.
Daniels further teaches wherein the rotation input portion 34 includes a grip 198 (See Daniels, Fig. 15(b)) that is gripped by a user, and an arm 34a includes one end provided with the grip 198 and another end connected to the speed change mechanism 40a (See Daniels, Fig. 2(a)-2(b)), and the arm 34a is supported by a frame 64 to be rotatable around a center axis via a one-way clutch 54 (See Daniels, Col. 8, Ln. 45-49).
Regarding Claim 13, Daniels is advanced above.
Daniels further teaches wherein the one-way clutch 54 rotates the rotation input portion 34 only in one direction corresponding to a direction in which the line-like body 32 is wound (See Daniels, Col. 8, Ln. 45-49).
Regarding Claim 14, Daniels is advanced above.
Daniels further teaches a brake 40b, wherein the brake 40b is connected to a spool shaft 42 of the line winding portion 30 (See Daniels, Col. 9, Ln. 3-13), and is provided on a side opposite to a clutch 72 in an axial direction of the line winding portion 30 (See Daniels, Fig. 3(a), Col. 8, Ln. 59-66).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (US 5,749,533) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Abe (WO 2023281809 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Daniels is advanced above.
Daniels teaches all the elements of the reel device except for the rotation input portion, the line winding portion, and the speed change mechanism having rotation center axes located on the same straight line.
However, Abe, Figure 9, teaches wherein the rotation input portion 24, the line winding portion 4, and the speed change mechanism 26 have rotation center axes located on the same straight line (See Abe, Para. 0057-0058)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Daniels with the rotation input portion, the line winding portion, and the speed change mechanism having rotation center axes located on the same straight line, as taught by Abe, for the purpose of reducing the overall size of the reel (See Abe, Para. 0058-0059).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (US 5,749,533) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Suginami (US 11,991,996).
Regarding Claim 3, Daniels is advanced above.
Daniels further teaches a clutch 72 that connects an output shaft 38 of the speed change mechanism 40a and the line winding portion 30 to each other (See Daniels, Col. 8, Ln. 56-66).
Daniels teaches all the elements of the reel device except for the clutch using a magnetic force.
However, Suginami, Figures 1A-11, teaches a clutch 91, 92 that connects an output shaft 52 of the speed change mechanism 53 and the line winding portion 20 to each other by using a magnetic force (See Suginami, Col. 10, Ln. 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Daniels with the clutch using a magnetic force, as taught by Suginami, for the purpose of securely and easily coupling the speed change mechanism and the line winding portion (i.e., the magnetic coupling makes it easy to attach and detach components and it is less likely for the clutch to slip out of place) (See Suginami, Col. 9, Ln. 12-31).
Regarding Claim 4, Daniels in view of Suginami are advanced above.
Daniels further teaches a clutch lever 46 attached to a frame 46’ (See annotated Figure 1 above).
Suginami further teaches wherein the clutch (coupling part 55 and clutch member 92) includes a clutch magnet 55a and a key member 90.
Although Daniels in view of Suginami and do not explicitly teach the clutch magnet itself being supported to be rotatable around a center axis and connected to a clutch lever, Daniels discloses “spool engaging mechanism 72 utilizes a construction similar to that of a conventional reel … spool engaging mechanism 72 is operable by the casting release lever 46 (shown in FIG. 1(b)) to disengage the spool gear 38 from the crank gear 36, so that during casting the spool 30 rotates without any resistance due to the fighting drag brake 40a and cranking components,” (See Daniels, Col. 8, Ln. 56 - Col. 9, Ln. 6). Because conventional reels use a rotating clutch cam connected to a clutch lever to drive the engagement and disengagement of the clutch in an axial direction, providing the clutch magnet as a rotatable component which is connected to the clutch lever is an obvious matter of design choice. 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 Daniels and Suginami to provide a clutch magnet and a key member for the purpose of securely and easily coupling the speed change mechanism and the line winding portion (i.e., the magnetic coupling makes it easy to attach and detach components and it is less likely for the clutch to slip out of place) (See Suginami, Col. 9, Ln. 12-31).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (US 5,749,533) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Kimoto (US 10,381,912).
Regarding Claim 5, Daniels is advanced above.
Daniels further teaches wherein the speed change mechanism 40a includes
a stator 96 that is fixed to a casing,
an inner rotor 92 that is disposed on an inner diameter side of the stator 96 (See Daniels, Fig. 4(b), Col. 8, Ln. 24-30), and
the inner rotor 92 is connected to the line winding portion 30 (via crank gear 36, engaging mechanism 72, and spool gear 38) (See Daniels, Col. 8, Ln. 59-62).
Daniels teaches all the elements of the reel device except for the stator having a plurality of magnetic pole pieces, the inner rotor having a plurality of inner pole magnets, an outer rotor, and the outer rotor being connected to the rotation input portion.
However, Kimoto, Figures 1-5, teaches wherein the speed change mechanism (magnetic transmission; See Kimoto, Col. 4, Ln. 26-27) includes
a stator 3 that includes a plurality of magnetic pole pieces 31a arranged in a circumferential direction,
an outer rotor 2 that is disposed on an outer diameter side of the stator 3 and includes a plurality of outer pole magnets 21a arranged in the circumferential direction, and
an inner rotor 1 that is disposed on an inner diameter side of the stator 3 and includes a plurality of inner pole magnets 11a arranged in the circumferential direction, and
the outer rotor 2 is connected to the rotation input portion 20 (“In the magnetic transmission according to the present disclosure … the following are provided: an input member that inputs a torque to the inner magnet array, the outer magnet array or the magnetic body array;”; See Kimoto, Col. 3, Ln. 33-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Daniels with the stator having a plurality of magnetic pole pieces, the inner rotor having a plurality of inner pole magnets, an outer rotor, and the outer rotor being connected to the rotation input portion, as taught by Kimoto, for the purpose of allowing the transmission gear ratio between the rotation input portion and the line winding portion to be changed continuously (See Kimoto, Col. 8, Ln. 38-41).
Regarding Claim 6, Daniels in view of Kimoto are advanced above.
Kimoto further teaches wherein the speed change mechanism is configured such that at least one of the stator 3, the outer rotor 2, and the inner rotor 1 is movable in an axial direction (See Kimoto, Col. 4, Ln. 48-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Daniels with axial movement of at least one of the stator, the outer rotor, and the inner rotor, as taught by Kimoto, for the purpose of allowing the transmission gear ratio between the rotation input portion and the line winding portion to be changed continuously (See Kimoto, Col. 6, Ln. 58 - Col. 7, Ln. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Daniels in view of Kimoto are advanced above.
Kimoto further teaches wherein the speed change mechanism rotates the outer rotor 2 and the inner rotor 1 in opposite directions to each other (See Kimoto, Col. 8, Ln. 9-15).
Although Kimoto is a widely applicable disclosure of a magnetic gear transmission that is not specific to a fishing reel, applying this configuration of magnetic gear transmission to a fishing reel would inherently cause rotation of the inner rotor and the outer rotor in opposite directions in a case where the line winding portion winds the line-like body.
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 Daniels and Kimoto to provide the speed change mechanism rotating the outer rotor and the inner rotor in opposite directions to each other in a case where the line winding portion winds the line-like body, as taught by Kimoto, for the purpose of allowing the transmission gear ratio between the rotation input portion and the line winding portion to be changed continuously (See Kimoto, Col. 6, Ln. 58 - Col. 7, Ln. 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (US 5,749,533) in view of Kimoto (US 10,381,912), as applied to claims 1, 10, 5-7, and 12-14 above, and further as evidenced by Rayner (US 2,638,762) and Seo (KR 20090117215 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Daniels in view of Kimoto are advanced above.
Although Daniels in view of Kimoto do not explicitly teach wherein the rotation input portion and the outer rotor are connected to each other via a friction-type second clutch that slips at a predetermined torque, the inclusion of a frictional slip element between the rotation input portion and the input drive of a reeling device is a well-known and commonly used technique for the purpose of preventing line breakage under heavy pulling load, as evidenced by Rayner (See Rayner, Col. 2, Ln. 9-47) and Seo (See Seo, Pg. 2, Ln. 1-9). In the instant application the input drive of the speed change mechanism corresponds to the outer rotor whereas in conventional reels the input drive is often a drive gear which is analogous in function to the outer rotor. 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 Daniels and Kimoto to provide the rotation input portion and the outer rotor connected to each other via a friction-type second clutch that slips at a predetermined torque for the purpose of extending the life of the fishing line.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniels (US 5,749,533) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 12-14 above, and further in view of Oishi (JP 2004081114 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Daniels is advanced above.
Daniels teaches all the elements of the reel device except for the speed change mechanism including an outer rotor and the shaft being configured to rotate by a magnetic force.
However, Oishi, Figures 1-4, teaches wherein the speed change mechanism 21 includes an outer rotor 23 that includes an outer pole magnet 23a arranged in a circumferential direction, and
the shaft 27 is configured to rotate by a magnetic force with rotation of the outer rotor 23 (See Oishi, Para. 0018-0019).
Although Oishi does not explicitly teach the outer rotor including a plurality of outer pole magnets, Oishi discloses “magnetic rotating body 23a is made of a magnetic material (permanent magnet) that is magnetized so that the north pole and south pole alternate,” (See Oishi, Para. 0018, Ln. 5-7). Thus, it is implied that the magnetic rotating body 23a could be separated into a plurality of outer pole magnets to achieve the same function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Daniels with an outer rotor and the shaft being magnetically driven by the outer rotor, as taught by Oishi, for the purpose of increasing durability of the reel device (i.e., because the shaft and speed change mechanism are not physically in contact, there are no engaging parts at risk of damage due to overload on the line while reeling in a large fish) (See Oishi, Para. 0005-0007, Para. 0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 8 would be allowable for disclosing a one-way clutch that connects the outer rotor and the inner rotor to each other,
wherein the one-way clutch restrains both the outer rotor and the inner rotor and rotates the outer rotor and the inner rotor in the same direction in a case where the inner rotor rotates in a direction in which the line winding portion unwinds the line-like body.
Although the prior art of record teaches a magnetic transmission comprising an outer rotor and inner rotor, this transmission is not taught in combination with a one-way clutch which causes the rotors to rotate in the same direction while winding from a reel or spool. Thus, the additional components described in the claim limitations are absent and it would not have allowed for anticipation of nor an obvious modification resulting in a device with all the limitations of claim 8. 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 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
/Victoria P Augustine/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights