DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
In the IDS filed on 05/03/2024, US 20020174593 A1 is improper because it has a typographical error. The name of the inventor, “Sirtola”, is incorrectly spelled in the IDS. The proper spelling is --Siirtola--.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Ref 38A and 38B in Fig. 1.
Ref 44 in fig. 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Ref 34B’ on page 5, lines 5-6, and page 6, lines 5-6.
Ref 50A on page 6, line 3 and page 12.
Ref 40A on page 11.
Ref 32A on page 11.
Ref 34A on page 11.
Ref 44A on page 9, lines 5, 8 and 10 and page 11.
Ref 44B on page 12.
Refs. 48A and 48B on page 12.
Ref 64B on page 12.
Ref 68B on page 12.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “34B” in fig. 5 has been used to designate both the right pin stop and right pelvic fin. 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. 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 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "tail portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-12, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Signitzer (US 9439407 B2 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Signitzer discloses a flying fish lure (see figs. 23c-23f) for fishing, the lure having a body (82) and at least two flat elongate appendages (68) attached to the body to approximate the appearance of a flying fish (figs. 23c-23f, Col. 10, lines 66 to Col. 11, line 7 as the pivoting motion of the appendages 68 will further give the appearance of a flying fish), wherein the body and the appendages are constructed so that the lure floats (Col. 2, lines 22-23 as the appendage can be a feather and Col. 11, lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 2, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein the body is formed with one or more enclosed voids (Col. 3, lines 30-37 and claim 17 state an air pocket, a chamber or cavity).
Regarding claim 3, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein the body is constructed from a hard plastic (Col. 1, lines 61-62).
Regarding claim 4, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein the at least two appendages are comprised of a flexible material (Col. 3, lines 27-39).
Regarding claim 5, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein the at least two appendages are manually removable from the body (Col. 2, lines 28-35).
Regarding claim 6, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein each of the at least two appendages is attached to the body at a respective appendage mount (74), and wherein the appendage mounts are symmetrically disposed on the body (fig. 23f).
Regarding claim 7, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 6 wherein the body has two gill areas (see examiner’s illustration of figs. 23e and 23f) and wherein the appendage mounts are located proximate to respective gill areas (see examiner’s illustration of figs. 23e and 23f).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 6 wherein the body has a left side and a right side (figs. 23e-23f) and wherein the body comprises a lateral line (see examiner’s illustration of figs. 23e and 23f) located on each of the left side and on the right side, and wherein the appendage mounts are located below respective lateral lines (see examiner’s illustration of figs. 23e and 23f).
PNG
media_image2.png
770
901
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according claim 1 further comprising two additional, minor appendages (80 in fig. 23c-23e and Col. 11, lines 23-22).
Regarding claim 10, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 9 wherein the two additional, minor appendages are manually removable (Col. 11, lines 19-20 as the appendages can be fitted in a cavity and so are capable of being manually removable).
Regarding claim 11, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 further comprising a tail (71).
Regarding claim 12, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein each of the two appendages comprises a rounded underside, when viewed in profile (fig. 23f).
Regarding claim 15 Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein each of the appendages is moveable between an operational state and a stowed state (fig. 23d and Col. 10, line 66 to Col. 11, line 7 as the appendages 68 pivot from an operational state and a stowed state).
Regarding claim 17, Signitzer discloses the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein the body comprises a first rigging channel (75 and 84 fig. 23e) running through the body from a head portion (76 figs. 23e-23f) to a rear portion (rear of 82 of figs. 23e-23f).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Siirtola (US 20020174593 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 21, Siirtola discloses a method of manufacturing a body for a flying fish lure (10), the method comprising casting the body in two or more portions (14 and 18), the respective portions including indents (figs. 2-3 and [0012] and [0024] as the portions can be attached to each other by press fit, and so will have indents) and welding ([0031]) the portions together to form the body so that the respective indents form voids within the body (figs. 2-3 and [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signitzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moorhead (US 20220046906 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Signitzer teaches the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein each of the two appendages comprises a leading edge (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 23f) and a trailing edge (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 23f) wherein each appendage is mounted to the body (figs. 23d and 23f).
PNG
media_image3.png
509
881
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Signitzer does not teach wherein said each appendage is mounted to the body so that the leading edges are closer to an upper surface of the body than the respective trailing edges.
Moorhead teaches wherein said each appendage (101) is mounted to the body (figs. 1-3 and [0060]) so that the leading edges (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) are closer to an upper surface (upper surface of 104 in fig. 1) of the body (104) than the respective trailing edges (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and [0060] as the appendages 101 are curved to fit into the curved slot 103 depicted in fig. 4 and so will have the leading edges be closer to the upper surface than the respective trailing edges).
PNG
media_image4.png
375
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify said each appendage of Signitzer to be mounted to the body so that the leading edges are closer to an upper surface of the body than the respective trailing edges as taught by Moorhead in order to maximize the lift of the lure as it is being pulled along the water to enhance the appearance of a flying fish swimming naturally in the water ([0060] of Moorhead).
Regarding claim 16, Signitzer as modified by Moorhead teaches the flying fish lure according to claim 13, and Signitzer further teaches wherein: each of the at least two appendages is pivotally mounted to a respective appendage mount (74 and Col. 10, line 66 to Col. 11, line 7), the appendage mounts are symmetrically disposed on the body (figs. 23c-23f), and pivotal movement of each appendage moves the respective appendage between an operational state and a stowed state (Col. 10, line 66 to Col. 11, line 7).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signitzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Briccetti (US 20110010983 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 14, Signitzer teaches the flying fish lure according to claim 1 wherein the body has a lower surface (fig. 23e).
However, Signitzer is silent wherein the lower surface is substantially flat.
Briccetti teaches wherein the lower surface is substantially flat (figs. 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lower surface of Signitzer to be substantially flat as taught by Briccetti in order to make the lure easier to glide through the water ([0119] of Briccetti), since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signitzer as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Signitzer (US 9439407 B2 as cited in IDS, embodiment of figs. 23g-23h, hereon referred to as Signitzer’2) and Briccetti (US 20110010983 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 18, Signitzer teaches the flying fish lure according to claim 17 wherein one opening (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 23f and Col. 10, lines 57-58) at the head portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 23f and Col. 10, lines 57-58).
PNG
media_image5.png
486
933
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Signitzer does not explicitly teach wherein the first rigging channel comprises a first opening at the tail portion and two openings at the head portion and wherein a first of said openings at the head portion is located below a second of said openings at the head portion.
Signitzer’2 teaches two openings (opening of 82 of fig. 23h and Col. 11, lines 41-43 and opening of 75, Col. 10, lines 57-58) at the head portion (figs. 23g-23h) and wherein a first of said openings (opening of 82 of fig. 23h) at the head portion is located below a second of said openings (opening of 75) at the head portion (figs. 23g-23h as the first of said openings 82 will be below the second of said openings 75 as the concave forward projection 81 includes 82, and the projection 81 is below 75).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include two openings at the head portion and wherein a first of said openings at the head portion is located below a second of said openings at the head portion as taught by Signitzer’2 into the flying fish lure of Signitzer in order to allow the user to attach the line at a lower position based on the user’s preference (23g-23h of Signitzer’2), since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Briccetti teaches wherein the first rigging channel (102) comprises a first opening (opening at the very end of the tail portion in fig. 20) at the tail portion (fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tail portion of Signitzer as modified by Signitzer’2 to include wherein the first rigging channel comprises a first opening as taught by Briccetti in order to provide various passage ways so as to provide alternative hook members ([0143] of Briccetti).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signitzer as modified by Signitzer’2 and Briccetti as applied to claims 1, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Kress (US 4163337 A).
Regarding claim 19, Signitzer as modified by Signitzer’2 and Briccetti teaches the flying fish lure according to claim 18, and Signitzer further teaches a removable tail (Col. 11, lines 37-38 as the tail can be attached via friction, and so is a removable tail).
However, Signitzer as modified by Signitzer’2 and Briccetti does not explicitly teach wherein the first opening at the tail portion opens into a tail cavity formed in the body to receive the removable tail.
Kress teaches wherein the first opening (28) at the tail portion (22) opens into a tail cavity (24) formed in the body to receive the removable tail (40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying fish lure of Signitzer as modified by Signitzer’2 and Briccetti to be wherein the first opening at the tail portion opens into a tail cavity formed in the body to receive the removable tail as taught by Kress in order to closely couple the tail to the lure (Col. 2, lines 47-51 of Kress).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signitzer as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2884733 A as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 20, Signitzer teaches the flying fish lure according to claim 17 but is silent wherein the body further comprises a second rigging channel, wherein the second rigging portion is a substantially open channel formed in an upper surface of the body.
Smith teaches wherein the body (10) further comprises a second rigging channel (26), wherein the second rigging portion is a substantially open channel (11) formed in an upper surface of the body (upper surface of 10 in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a second rigging channel, wherein the second rigging portion is a substantially open channel formed in an upper surface of the body as taught by Smith into the flying fish lure of Signitzer in order to adjust the placement of the hook (figs. 1-2 of Smith), since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MORRILL (US 2760294 A) teaches a flying fish lure with appendages pivotally mounted.
Lane (US 1068908 A) teaches a flying fish lure with appendages pivotally mounted.
Dora (US 2373417 A) teaches two openings.
Hall (US 4098017 A) teaches an opening in the tail portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643 /DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647