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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claim 1 is amended, claims 2-12 are previously presented or original, Claim 13 is new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 02/20/2024, 07/01/2024; 03/07/2025, 04/09/2025, 11/21/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The limitations of Claim 13 are indefinite as it is unclear as to what applicant is claiming. It appears applicant is claiming the location of the buttock portion and where it is attached to the rod, while being attached to the area without involving the reel seat, but it is unclear from this limitation the location that applicant is describing.
For example, the phrasing of “the area of the rod body is between the pair of hoods and is where the reel seat is not located” appears to be a single clause describing where the previously recited ‘area’ is located. However it is unclear based on the drawings and specification if this is intended to describe that the area is located between the pair of hoods but not where the reel seat is located. This interpretation however doesn’t appear to be described by the drawings, as the hoods define the reel seat area and the buttock portion doesn’t appear to be connected to an area between the hoods but also where the reel seat is not located. Another possible interpretation of this limitation is that the limitation is attempting to claim that the previously recited ‘area’ is between the “pair of hoods” and “where the reel seat is not located” as two separate structures. However this is also unclear as there does not appear to be a certain location defined as “where the reel seat is not located”. It appears that there may be either an extra or missing word in the phrasing of this limitation, which makes it difficult to understand.
As best understood for the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as describing that the previously recited “area” is in a location between the pair of hoods and a general area where the reel seat is not located, and where the buttock portion is configured to be attached to the area without engaging with the reel seat.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 6, 9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 3372510 A) to Arsenault.
In regards to claim 1, Arsenault anticipates a reel seat grip member comprising: a fairing portion (Arsenault; annotated A1 below); and a buttock portion (Arsenault; annotated A2 below) connected to the fairing portion (Arsenault; see FIG 2), wherein the fairing portion is configured to be attached at one end of the fairing portion to at least one hood of a pair of hoods provided on a rod body for fixing a reel leg (Arsenault; A1 attached at one end to hood 18 for fixing a reel leg), the buttock portion is configured to be attached at one end of the buttock portion to the rod body via an attachment member provided on the rod body (Arsenault; A2 attached at one end to the rod body 12 via attachment member comprised of 27 and clamping portions which surround 12, 13), and the buttock portion is configured to be attached to an area of the rod body between the at least one hood of the pair of hoods and a rear end of the rod body (Arsenault; A2 is attached to an area which is between an end of 12, 13 at the rightmost end of FIG 2, and between the hood 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Arsenault anticipates the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein the fairing portion is configured to be attached to the at least one hood by adhesion, fitting, or mechanical fastening (Arsenault; where A1 is attached to the hood 18 by fitting and mechanical fastening via clamping and 26).
In regards to claim 3, Arsenault anticipates the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein the buttock portion is configured to be attached to the attachment member by adhesion, fitting, or mechanical fastening (Arsenault; where A2 is attached to the attachment member via mechanical fastening 27 being a screw mechanically fastened to A2).
In regards to claim 4, Arsenault anticipates the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein the fairing portion and the buttock portion are configured to be fixed to the rod body or fixed to the rod body to be movable (Arsenault; A1 and A2 can be fixed when the screws 26, 27, 32 are tightened; or fixed to be movable when the screws 26, 27, 32 are loosened to allow movement).
In regards to claim 5, Arsenault anticipates the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein the fairing portion and the buttock portion are configured to be fixed to the rod body (Arsenault; A1 and A2 fixed to the rod body 12, 13 when 26, 27, 32 are tightened), and the at least one hood and the attachment member are configured to be fixed to the rod body by adhesion, fitting, or mechanical fastening (Arsenault; hood 20 fixed via mechanical fastening or threads; attachment members 27 and clamping portion fixed via fitting and mechanical fastening of 27 and the clamping portion).
In regards to claim 6, Arsenault anticipates the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein the fairing portion and the buttock portion are configured to be fixed to the rod body to be movable (Arsenault; A1 and A2 fixed to the rod body 12, 13 when 26, 27, 32 are loosened), and the at least one hood and the attachment member are configured to be movable with respect to the rod body in an axial direction of the rod body (Arsenault; hood 20 movable via threading on 12; attachment members 27 and clamping portion movable when 27 is loosened such that it can move along or off of 12 as desired by a user).
In regards to claim 9, Arsenault anticipates the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein one or a plurality of notches are formed in a part of the reel seat grip member (Arsenault; notches formed at 40 on either side of 24).
In regards to claim 11, Arsenault anticipates a reel seat grip structure comprising: the reel seat grip member according to claim 1; the pair of hoods for fixing a reel leg provided on the rod body (Arsenault; 18, 20, on 12, 13); and the attachment member for attaching the reel seat grip member to the rod body (Arsenault; attachment member 27 and clamping portions which surround 12, 13).
In regards to claim 12, Arsenault anticipates a fishing rod comprising: the reel seat grip member according to claim 1; the rod body (Arsenault; 12, 13); the pair of hoods for fixing the reel leg provided on the rod body (Arsenault; 18, 20, on 12, 13); and the attachment member for attaching the reel seat grip member to the rod body (Arsenault; attachment member 27 and clamping portions which surround 12, 13).
In regards to claim 13 as best understood, Arsenault anticipates the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein the area of the rod body is between the pair of hoods and is where the reel seat is not located (Arsenault as best understood; see annotated FIG 2 above where the buttock portion at A2 is attached at an area between the pair of hoods 18, 20, and an area where the reel seat is not located such as the furthest end to the right of the rod 12, 13, in FIG 2) and the buttock portion is configured to be attached to the area without involving the reel seat (Arsenault; A1 is connected to 13, 12 without involving the reel seat, as the reel seat is defined by the hoods between 18, 20).
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 3372510 A) to Arsenault in view of (US 4850130 A) to Childre.
In regards to claim 7, Arsenault teaches the reel seat grip member according to claim 6, wherein the at least one hood and the attachment member are configured to be movable with respect to the rod body in the axial direction of the rod body (Arsenault; hood 20 movable via threading on 12; attachment members 27 and clamping portion movable when 27 is loosened such that it can move along or off of 12 as desired by a user) such that the inner peripheral surface of the at least one hood is screwed to an outer peripheral surface of the rod body (Arsenault; hood 20 is threaded and screwed to the outer peripheral surface of 12 on 13).
Arsenault fails to teach the attachment member is configured to be movable with respect to the rod body such that inner peripheral surface of the attachment member is screwed to an outer peripheral surface of the rod body.
Childre teaches the attachment member is configured to be movable with respect to the rod body such that inner peripheral surface of the attachment member is screwed to an outer peripheral surface of the rod body (Childre; attachment member being 24 which is fittingly attached to a portion of the reel sear grip member 10, see FIG 5; is movable via the threads 19 such that it is screwed to the outer peripheral surface of 19 on rod 17).
PNG
media_image2.png
272
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arsenault such that it includes a portion such as 24 which is fitted to the reel seat grip member and is screwed onto the threaded portion of the fishing rod with the hood such as taught by Childre. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a component to secure the movable hood in the axial direction or provide adjustability of the hood in the axial direction while being securely fitted with the reel seat grip member.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 3372510 A) to Arsenault in view of (US 20190166816 A1) to Iwata.
In regards to claim 8, Arsenault teaches the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, wherein the fairing portion and the buttock portion are integrally formed (Arsenault; Col 1 lines 39-41; where the device can be “formed as an integral part of the rod handle”), but fails to teach wherein the reel seat member is carbon fiber reinforced plastic.
Iwata teaches the reel seat member is carbon fiber reinforced plastic (Iwata; [0060] where 11, which is the reel seat grip member, is an integral piece formed by injection molding using synthetic resins (plastics) with carbon fibers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arsenault such that the reel seat grip member in its integral form is made of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic, such as taught by Iwata. The motivation for doing so would be to utilize material which can be easily manufactured into desired shapes via injection molding, which has qualities of rust resistance, a lightweight construction, and sturdiness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 3372510 A) to Arsenault in view of (KR 101899833 B1).
In regards to claim 10, Arsenault teaches the reel seat grip member according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein one or a plurality of honeycomb structures are formed in a part of the reel seat grip member.
KR’833 teaches wherein one or a plurality of honeycomb structures are formed in a part of the reel seat grip member (KR’833; “A fishing rod handle made of a honeycomb structure made of a polygonal hollow body” see also FIGs 4 and 3 where the honeycomb structure is on 130, 190 of the reel seat grip member).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arsenault such that the honeycomb structure is formed in a part of the reel seat grip member such as taught by KR’833. The motivation for doing so would be to utilize a structure which could enhance grip, prevent slippage, and remove excess material to provide a lightweight grip.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the fairing portion of Arsenault (labeled A1) is not attached to element 18 (the hood), and therefore does not teach the claimed language of “the fairing portion is configured to be attached at one end of the fairing portion to at least one hood of a pair of hoods” according to claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that A1 is broadly interpreted as being attached to 18 by its securement around 12 at 26. However, it is also interpreted as being configured to be attached directly to 18 due to the grip being in two halves, where the screws 32, 26 could be secured to clamp around a portion of 18 in the situation of a longer rod or a different position of 18 further to the left of FIG 2. Because the claim as-written includes the phrase “configured to be attached”, it is asserted that Arsenault teaches a grip which is configured to be attached to the hood 18.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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, KIMBERLY BERONA can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647