DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Prosecution Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/2/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “includes a groove” but it is unclear if it is the same groove in claim 1 or another groove.
Claim 4 recites “a branch” but it is unclear if it is the same branch in claim 1 or another branch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bach et al. (EP 2567615), hereinafter Bach.
Regarding claim 1, Bach teaches of (fig. 1) an artificial bait (lure 15) comprising:
a body (casing 16) having an upper side (upper portion 20) and a lower side (lower portions 19);
a guide (blind hole 36) received in the body (16) (seen in fig. 1), the guide (36) including:
a component (hollow component of the guide 36) positioned and located at least partially in the body (hollow component of guide 36 is positioned and located within the body 16); and
a branch (fig. 8, first branch extending from entry channel 30 to slot 37 and fig. 6, second branch extending from the entry channel 30 to the outlet 29) including a groove (fig. 5, ¶0036, groove 37 is a groove of the first branch) to engage an eyelet of a hook (¶0036, groove 37 is adapted to house the eyelet 7 of the hook 5);
wherein when the artificial bait (15) is in a first position (fig. 4), a fishing line (4) extends through the guide (36) to the upper side of the body (16) (extends to the upper side 20) such that the hook (hook 5) is selectively couplable with the fishing line proximate to the upper side of the body (16) (fig. 1, hook 5 in the position in fig. 1 is coupled to the fishing line 4 proximate to the upper side 20); and
wherein when the artificial bait (15) is in a second position (fig. 2), the fishing line (4) extends through the guide to the lower side of the body (fishing line extends to the lower side 19) such that the hook (4) is selectively couplable with the fishing line proximate to the lower side of the body (fig. 2, hook 4 is coupled to the fishing line proximate to the lower side of the body).
Regarding claim 2, Bach teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 1) wherein the guide (36) is configured to receive a proximal end of the hook (4) (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Bach teaches of claim 2, and (fig. 1) wherein the guide (36) includes a groove (37) configured to engage with an eyelet (7) of the hook (5) (¶0036, groove 37 is adapted to house the eyelet 7 of the hook 5).
Regarding claim 4, Bach teaches of claim 3, and (fig. 1) wherein the guide (36) further includes a branch having a cross-section sized and shaped to receive a knot coupled with the eyelet (figs. 1 and 8, the first branch extending from entry channel 30 to slot 37 has a cross-section sized and shaped to receive a knot coupled with the eyelet 7).
Regarding claim 5, Bach teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 6) further including a slot (compartment 35) positioned and located proximate to the upper side (20) of the body (slot 35 is positioned and located proximate to the upper side 20), the slot (35) configured to receive the hook at least partially therein (¶0036, slot 35 has a shape suitable for receiving the shaft 6 of the hook 5).
Regarding claim 7, Bach teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 2) further including an inlet (first orifice 30) formed in the body (16), the inlet (30) configured to receive the fishing line (4) and to direct the fishing line (4) to the guide (36) (¶0037, inlet 30 is dimensioned to allow the passage and the sliding of fishing line 4).
Regarding claim 10, Bach teaches of claim 1, and wherein (fig. 1) the body (16) is configured to resemble a bait fish or another natural source of food for fish (¶0030, resembles a bait fish).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Fike (US 5586405).
Regarding claim 6, Bach teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the body is molded from polyurethane foam.
Fike teaches of wherein the body is molded from polyurethane foam (col. 2 lines 60-64, the lure is preferably made from polyurethane foam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bach to incorporate the teachings of Fike of wherein the body is molded from polyurethane foam in order to use a material that is known for its longevity and resistance to wear and tear.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Shemesh et al. (US 20230337648), hereinafter Shemesh.
Regarding claim 8, Bach teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the body is molded around the guide such that the body is integrally formed with the guide.
Shemesh teaches of wherein (fig. 3) the body (central body 8, hair collar 6, and tail 9) is molded around the guide (molded hook cavity 13) such that the body is integrally formed with the guide (seen in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bach to incorporate the teachings of Shemesh of wherein the body is molded around the guide such that the body is integrally formed with the guide in order to use a manufacturing method that have efficient production, have high detail, and can manufacture identical products over and over, especially for the dimensions and complexity of the guide.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Trammell (US 20230107358).
Regarding claim 9, Bach teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the guide is formed of at least one of PVC and ABS.
Trammell teaches of wherein (fig. 1) the guide (opening 138 and weighting compartment 114) is formed of at least one of PVC (fig. 1, ¶0111, For pliable/flexible components (e.g., swimbait body) appropriate elastomers include, e.g., PVC (polyvinyl chloride), polyurethane, silicones, and rubber. The swimbait body enclosure 100 has guides 138, 114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bach to incorporate the teachings of Trammell of wherein the guide is formed of at least one of PVC and ABS in order to an appropriate elastomer for pliable/flexible components as motivated by Trammell in para. 0111 and PVC is known for its durability and high abrasion resistance.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Ingram (US 4139963).
Regarding claim 11, Bach teaches of (fig. 1) an artificial bait (lure 15) comprising:
a body (casing 16) having a first side (upper portion 20) and a second side (lower portions 19);
an inlet (first orifice 30) positioned and located on the body (16);
a slot (compartment 35) extending into the body proximate to the first side of the body (fig. 5, slot 5 extends proximate to the first side 20), wherein the slot (35) is configured to receive a hook (5) therein (seen in fig. 1);
an outlet (fig. 6, water flow hole 29) positioned and located on the body proximate to the second side (positioned and located proximate to second side 19);
a guide (passage within the lure) positioned and located in the body (seen in fig. 6), the guide including:
an entry channel (channel of inlet 30) coupled with the inlet (30);
a first branch extending from the entry channel to the slot (35) (seen in fig. 6);
a second branch extending from the entry channel to the outlet (29) (seen in fig. 6); and
a structure separating the first branch and the second branch (interior chamber in the front separates the first and second branches).
Bach does not appear to teach of wherein a diameter of the second branch is smaller than the hook such that the hook is not receivable therein.
Ingram teaches of wherein a diameter of the branch (branch from mouth 14 to interior chamber 15) is smaller than the hook (hook member 19) such that the hook (19) is not receivable therein (col. 3 lines 12-32, diameter at the abutment 22 is smaller than the eye 25 of the hook such that the hook is not receivable therein and is blocked by the diameter at the abutment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bach to incorporate the teachings of Ingram of wherein a diameter of the second branch is smaller than the hook such that the hook is not receivable therein in order to prevent the hook from moving forwardly past the point into the body as motivated by Ingram in col. 3 lines 56-64.
Regarding claim 12, Bach as modified teaches of claim 11, and (fig. 1) wherein the slot (35) is configured to receive a hook (5) therein (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Bach as modified teaches of claim 12, and (fig. 2) wherein the artificial bait (15) is configured for the hook (5) to exit from the slot (35) when a fish pulls on the hook (fig. 2, a fish can pull on the hook 5 such that the hook 5 exits the slot 35).
Regarding claim 14, Bach as modified teaches of claim 11, and (fig. 1) wherein the guide (36) is configured for a fishing line (4) to extend through the entry channel (channel of inlet 30) and one of the first branch and the second branch (seen in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Bach as modified teaches of claim 14, and wherein the entry channel, the first branch, and the second branch are sized and shaped such that the fishing line may be pulled therethrough (fig. 1, fishing line 4 can be pulled through the first branch; fig. 6, second branch is sized and shaped such that the fishing line 4 can be pulled through).
Regarding claim 16, Bach as modified teaches of claim 11, and further including a groove (fig. 5, ¶0036, groove 37) positioned and located in the first branch (groove 37 is in the first branch to slot 35), the groove configured to receive an eyelet of a hook (¶0036, groove 37 is adapted to house the eyelet 7 of the hook 5).
Regarding claim 17, Bach as modified teaches of claim 16, and (fig. 5) wherein the first branch extends in an axial direction from the entry channel (channel of inlet 30) toward the slot (35) (extends in a longitudinal axial direction), and wherein the groove (37) extends in the axial direction along the first branch (along an axial direction along the first branch).
Regarding claim 18, Bach as modified teaches of claim 16, and (fig. 6) wherein the first branch includes a circular-shaped cross-section (second orifice 40 has a circular-shaped cross-section due to its tube shape and blind hole 36 has a circular-shaped cross-section) positioned and located concentrically with the groove (37) (circular-shaped cross-section at second orifice 40 and blind hole 36 is positioned and located concentrically with the groove 37) such that the circular-shaped cross-section is configured to receive a knot coupled with the eyelet (7) (the circular-shaped cross-sections are able to receive a knot coupled with the eyelet 7 such as a knot on the fishing line 4 or a knot on the eyelet 7).
Regarding claim 19, Bach as modified teaches of claim 11, and (fig. 1) wherein the first side of the body is an upper side of the body (upper portion 20), and wherein the second side of the body is a lower side of the body (lower portion 19).
Regarding claim 20, Bach as modified teaches of claim 11, and (fig. 1) wherein the first side (20) of the body is sized and shaped to resemble a dorsal region of a bait fish (seen in fig. 1), and wherein the second side (19) of the body is sized and shaped to resemble a ventral region of a bait fish (seen in fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm EST.
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 at 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647