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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 53 is directed to a non-elected species (i.e., a species other than elected species E, sub-species I, elected without traverse 10/6/2025) for the following reasons:
To reiterate, Species E, including at least Fig. 6D details the sensing alarm unit fixed by the mount to a ground of the tip up by being fixed to the base of the tip with the unit oriented uprightly relative to the base with its magnetic sensor positioned to detect a magnetic field; and details a fourth embodiment of a magnetic sensor trigger magnet arrangement that is a housing configured for carrying at least one sensor trigger magnet and for releasable attachment to one of the spindle bar, crossbar and/or tip up rotary fishing reel drive shaft of an ice fishing tip up. The elected species does not include the magnets arranged with opposite poles and mounted at opposite ends of a fishing apparatus or an element of a fishing apparatus, for example the magnet arrangement of the fourth embodiment comprises the trigger magnet arrangement in a housing, so while the magnets may be spaced apart within the housing, arranging them on opposite sides of a moveable component or fishing apparatus appears to be drawn to one of the un-elected species.
Accordingly, amended claim 53 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims refer to the intended use of a fishing apparatus and various parts of a fishing apparatus. None of the fishing apparatus or any plurality of parts of a fishing apparatus (including but not limited to an ice fishing tip up, a base, a plurality of movable components, a flagpole, a crossbar, a rotary drive shaft) are positively claimed.
It is therefore suggested that the claims are amended so that functional language is used to clearly define the limitation is referring to the intended use of hypothetical components of a fishing apparatus. Appropriate correction is suggested in each claim, or clarification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 43-44, 51-52, 54-56, 58-69, 63 and 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West (US 2020/0375167), previously cited, and further, in view of Mason (WO 00/74480).
Regarding claim 43, West discloses a fishing apparatus alarm system for an ice fishing tip-up that has a base and at least one movable component that is configured to move relative to the base when a fish strikes, the fishing apparatus alarm system (ice fishing bite indicator alert device, §[0009]) comprising:
at least one magnet configured to be carried by at least one movable component of an ice fishing tip-up and move substantially in unison therewith (one or more movement indicator actuators which may be one or more magnets, §[0011]); and
a fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit (trigger switch or sensor, §[0010])) comprising:
(1) at least one magnet sensor configured to sense at least one of a magnetic field, a change in magnetic field, a magnetic flux, or a change in magnetic flux associated with the at least one magnet configured to be carried by at least one movable component of an ice fishing tip-up (housing 14 with trigger switch 24, §[0036]); and
(2) a processor in communication with the at least one magnet sensor (circuit, Figs. 6-7); and
wherein the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit is configured to be mounted to a base of an ice fishing tip-up with the at least one magnetic sensor positioned in sensing proximity to at least one magnet during movement of the movable component relative to the base (as evidenced by at least §[0031]: Also, the housing need not be mounted to the axle of the reel, as it may be mounted to a different structure. As one skilled in the art will appreciate, the mount 16 securely holds the housing 14 in place relative to a reel assembly 4 and accordingly, compatibility with the reel's mounting/support hardware may be an important factor in selection of the mount); and
wherein the fishing apparatus alarm system is configured to (i) detect movement of at least one moveable component of an ice-fishing tip-up relative to a base of an ice-fishing tip-up through the at least one magnet sensor sensing movement of the at least one magnet configured to be carried by at least one movable component of an ice fishing tip-up and move substantially in unison therewith, and (ii) generate an alarm (Figs. 6-7; sound source 38, light source 26).
West does not appear to disclose details of the processor in communication with the at least one magnet sensor, specifically wherein the processor is configured to (i) detect movement of at least one moveable component of an ice-fishing tip-up relative to a base of an ice-fishing tip-up through the at least one magnet sensor sensing movement of the at least one magnet configured to be carried by at least one movable component of an ice fishing tip-up and move substantially in unison therewith, and (ii) generate an alarm.
However, Mason teaches a fishing apparatus alarm system for an ice-fishing tip-up that has a base and at least one moveable component that is configured to move relative to the base when a fish strikes, including a sensing alarm unit (sensor 293, pg. 27, line 11) comprising a processor (circuit in Fig. 25 comprising microprocessor 262, pg. 28, lines 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fishing apparatus alarm system for an ice-fishing tip-up that has a base and at least one moveable component that is configured to move relative to the base when a fish strikes including the sensing alarm unit and circuit disclosed by West with the microprocessor/circuit comprising the processor as taught by Mason in Fig. 25, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the processor. The benefit being the predictable outcome of the system comprising a programmable memory suitable to control all electrical components of the system with the added benefit of limited power consumption (Mason, Pg. 28, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 44, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein at least one moveable component comprises a rotary drive shaft and a crossbar or spindle bar fixed to the rotary drive shaft, and wherein the at least one magnet is configured to be carried by one of (i)the rotary drive shaft and (ii)the crossbar or spindle bar (The office notes the at least one magnet is structurally configured to be carried by a rotary drive shaft, a crossbar or a spindle bar).
Regarding claim 51, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 44, wherein the at least one magnet is a single magnet (18).
Regarding claim 52, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 44, wherein the at least one magnet comprises a pair of magnets (West, §[0032], depending on the magnetic strength and the desired pattern of their influence on their trigger stitch, one or more magnets maybe used).
Regarding claim 54, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein the at least one magnet comprises a pair of spaced apart magnets (West, §[0032], depending on the magnetic strength and the desired pattern of their influence on their trigger stitch, one or more magnets maybe used), but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pair of magnets are arranged with opposite magnetic poles facing oppositely and outwardly from each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the spaced apart magnets with opposite magnetic poles facing oppositely and outwardly from each other or whatever arrangement yields a desired pattern of influence, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being meeting the particular needs and requirements of the system in use with a particular intended fishing apparatus. There does not appear to be any criticality to said arrangement based on the number of configurations claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 55, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein the at least one magnet sensor comprises a pair of magnet sensors (Examiner notes the instance where a housing is associated with each line of multiple lines, §[0049]).
Regarding claim 56, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein the at least one magnet sensor comprises a magnetoresistance sensor (solid state magnetic sensor, §[0010]).
Regarding claim 58, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein at least one moveable component of a ice-fishing tip-up is a crossbar or spindle bar, and wherein the at least one magnet is configured to be carried by or attached to a crossbar or a spindle bar (The office notes the at least one magnet is structurally capable of attachment or a carrying configuration via a cross bar or spindle bar).
Regarding claim 59, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 44, wherein the at least one magnet comprises a pair of spaced apart magnets configured to be (i) carried by or attached to a crossbar or a spindle bar and (ii) sensed sequentially by the at least one magnet sensor during movement of a crossbar or spindle bar relative to a base (the office notes the magnets are configured to be attached to fishing apparatus and sensed by the sensor of the system; as is evidenced by at least §[0032]: Depending on the magnetic strength of the magnets used and the desired pattern of their influence on the trigger switch, one or more magnets may be used and located adjacent each other or spaced apart accordingly).
Regarding claim 63, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein:
the at least one magnet sensor is configured to be positioned to sense the at least one magnet, and
wherein the processor is configured to (i) detect whether one of a fish strike and a fish taking bait has occurred by sensing movement of the at least one magnet when the at least one magnet is carried by the at least one movable component of the ice fishing tip-up during movement of the at least one movable component relative to the base indicative of one of a fish strike and a fish taking bait (The office notes the system disclosed by West, via the circuit of West, is configured to detect a fish strike or a fish taking bait by sensing movement of the at least one magnet configured to be carried by at least one moveable component that is configured to move relative a base when a fish strikes, during the movement of the magnet relative the base indicative of one of a fish strike and a fish taking bait; And, Mason teaches the microprocessor 262 is configured to do the same, page 27, line 20-32), and
(ii) generate an alarm indicative of one of a fish strike and a fish taking bait (West, “fish bite indicator”: light source 26, sound source 38; §[0053]; And, Mason, page 27, line 30).
Regarding claim 66, West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein at least one movable component comprises a rotary drive shaft, a crossbar or spindle bar fixed to the rotary drive shaft, and an elongate flagpole configured for releasable engagement of the flagpole with one of the rotary drive shaft and the spindle bar or crossbar in a ready position, and the flagpole configured to disengage therefrom during rotation of the rotary drive shaft during a fish strike and move relative to the base away from the ready position towards a fish strike indicating position, and
the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit further comprises a mounting arrangement configured for releasable mounting (i) to the base of the ice fishing tip-up, or to the at least one movable component of the ice fishing tip-up (mounting arrangement 16).
Regarding claim 67, West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 66,wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a clamp configured for releasably attaching the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit to a flagpole of an ice fishing tip-up (clamps, §[0031] West).
Claims 45, 47-50 and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified West, as applied to claims 44, 58 above, respectively, and further, in view of Olson (US 2014/0090287 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 45, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, but does not appear to specifically disclose a magnet-carrying housing carrying the at least one magnet, configured to be mounted to at least one movable component of an ice fishing tip-up.
However, Olson teaches a magnet carrying-housing for a magnet in a fish strike indicator that is configured to be mounted to a movable component of an ice-fishing tip-up (magnet holder 32, 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 provided the fishing apparatus alarm system disclosed by modified West with the magnet carrying housing as taught by Olson, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the magnet-carrying housing carrying the at least one magnet. The benefit being the capability to adjust the number and/or configuration of magnets within the carrying housing and therefore the magnetic field effective range as is necessary for use with each intended fishing apparatus (Olson, §[00436]).
Regarding claims 47-50, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein at least one moveable component of a ice fishing tip-up comprises at least one of (i) a rotary drive shaft and (ii) a crossbar or spindle bar fixed to the rotary drive shaft, wherein the at least one magnet is configured to be carried by at least one of (i) a rotary drive shaft and (ii) a crossbar or spindle bar (The office notes the at least one magnet is structurally configured to be carried by a rotary drive shaft, a crossbar or a spindle bar), wherein the magnet is configured to be oriented/positioned in a particular manner when carried by/mounted to at least one moveable component, (e.g., claim 47 “with its north-south extent generally transverse to at least one of the [above choices of moveable component]”; claim 48 “with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel with the spindle bar or crossbar”; claim 49 “alongside the spindle bar or crossbar”; claim 50 “with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel to and disposes alongside the spindle bar or crossbar” (the office notes West discloses placing an appropriate pole of the at least one magnet in close proximity to the sensor, §[0045]; Likewise the housing of the at least one magnet would naturally be structurally capable of being oriented in a similar fashion; Additionally, in §§ [0057] and [0060], West discloses: the fisherman mounts the alert device such that the trigger switch is positioned in a path of movement of the movement indicator actuator and in a position relative to the movement indicator actuator… it will be appreciated that an ice fishing bite indicator alert device in accordance with the present disclosure may be provided in various configurations. Any variety of suitable materials of construction, configurations, shapes and sizes for the components and methods of connecting the components may be utilized to meet the particular needs and requirements of an end user. It is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the examples disclosed herein, but rather, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. Thus, the description and drawings should be considered illustrative and not restrictive of the invention, which is limited only by the appended claims and their legal equivalents).
Modified West does not appear to specifically disclose a magnet-carrying housing carrying the at least one magnet, configured to be mounted to at least one movable component of an ice fishing tip-up, wherein the magnet-carrying housing is configured to orient/position the at least one magnet in a particular manner when mounted to at least one moveable component, (e.g., claim 47 “with its north-south extent generally transverse to at least one of the [above choices of moveable component]”; claim 48 “with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel with the spindle bar or crossbar”; claim 49 “alongside the spindle bar or crossbar”; claim 50 “with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel to and disposes alongside the spindle bar or crossbar”.
However, Olson teaches a magnet carrying-housing for a magnet in a fish strike indicator that is configured to be mounted to a movable component of an ice-fishing tip-up (magnet holder 32, 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 provided the fishing apparatus alarm system disclosed by modified West with the magnet carrying housing as taught by Olson, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the magnet-carrying housing carrying the at least one magnet configured to orient/position the at least one magnet in a particular manner when mounted to at least one moveable component, (e.g., with its north-south extent generally transverse to a moveable component, and with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel with a spindle bar or a cross bar, and alongside a spindle bar or a crossbar, and with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel to and disposed alongside a spindle bar or a crossbar).
The benefit being the capability to adjust the number and/or configuration of magnets within the carrying housing and therefore the magnetic field effective range as is necessary for use with each intended fishing apparatus (Olson, §[00436]).
While modified may not specifically teach each of the configurations of an ice-fishing tip-up in claims 47-50, the ice-fishing tip-up is not positively claimed, further the magnet and magnet carrying house is structurally capable of the configurations and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the at least one magnet and therefore magnet-carrying housing in whatever manner desired to best suit the needs of the specific fishing apparatus the system is intended to be used on/with, specifically, with its north-south extent generally transverse to one of the rotary drive shaft and the crossbar or spindle bar, or with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel with the spindle bar or crossbar, or with the at least one magnet alongside the spindle bar or crossbar, or with the at least one magnet with its north-south extent thereof generally parallel to and disposed alongside the spindle bar or crossbar; with a reasonable expectation of success, as best suits the particular needs of the application of the invention, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The benefit being the ability to choose an arrangement that best suits the intended use of the system based on the particular fishing apparatus it is being used on. Examiner notes there does not appear to be any criticality to the arrangement chosen as is evidenced by the number of embodiments claimed by Applicant.
Regarding claim 60, West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 58 but does not appear to specifically disclose a magnet-carrying housing carrying the at least one magnet and configured to be releasably attached to a crossbar or spindle bar.
However, Olson teaches a magnet-carrying for carrying a at least one magnet in a fish strike indicator that is configured to be mounted to a fishing apparatus (magnet holder 32, 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 provided the fishing apparatus alarm system disclosed by modified West with the magnet carrying housing as taught by Olson, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises the magnet-carrying housing for carrying the at least one magnet and configured to be releasably attached to a crossbar or spindle bar of a fishing apparatus. The benefit being the capability to adjust the number of magnets within the holder and their orientation and therefore the magnetic field effective range as is necessary for use with each specific intended fishing apparatus (Olson, §[00436]).
Regarding claims 61 and 62, the claims are rejected in the same manner as claims 45, 47-50 and 60 above.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified West as applied to claim 45, and further, in view of Shogan (4,214,394).
Regarding claim 46, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 45, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the magnet-carrying housing is of snap-fit construction configured for snap-fit engagement with at least one movable component of an ice fishing tip-up, to mount at least one magnet thereto.
However, Shogan teaches a snap-on clip that is configured for snap fit engagement with a movable component of a fishing device (46, Fig. 2), in the field of fishing device alarms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fishing apparatus alarm system disclosed by modified West with the snap on clip for snap-fit engagement between components as taught by Shogan, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the magnet-carrying housing is of snap-fit construction configured for snap-fit engagement with a movable component of an ice fishing tip-up, and configured to be snap-fittingly engaged with said movable component of an ice fishing tip-up mounting the at least one magnet thereto. The benefit being the predicted outcome of a reliable means of releasable attachment of the carrying housing to the most beneficial area of the fishing device, interchangeably if so desired, as is determined beneficial during specific applications with specific fishing gear and systems (Shogan, last paragraph).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified West as applied to claim 56, and further, in view of Jones (GB 2583016), previously cited.
Regarding claim 57, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 56, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the MR sensor comprises a tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) sensor.
However, Jones teaches a fishing bite indicator specifically comprising a tunnel magnetoresistance sensor (18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit disclosed by modified West with the TMR as taught by Jones, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the at least one magnet sensor comprises the TMR sensor. The benefit being a much smaller package size, excellent thermal stability and better sensitivity whilst consuming only a few micro amps of current (Jones, pg. 10, line 12).
Claims 64-65 and 68-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified West as applied to claim 66 above, and further in view of Blackadar et al. (US 2018/0295827 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 64, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, wherein the at least one magnet sensor is configured to be positioned to sense the at least one magnet carried by the at least one movable component of the ice fishing tip-up during rotary movement of the at least one movable component relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up
(the office notes the magnet sensor is configured to be positioned to sense the magnet as is evidenced by at least West, §§ [0057] and [0060]: the fisherman mounts the alert device such that the trigger switch is positioned in a path of movement of the movement indicator actuator and in a position relative to the movement indicator actuator… it will be appreciated that an ice fishing bite indicator alert device in accordance with the present disclosure may be provided in various configurations. Any variety of suitable materials of construction, configurations, shapes and sizes for the components and methods of connecting the components may be utilized to meet the particular needs and requirements of an end user. It is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the examples disclosed herein, but rather, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims. Thus, the description and drawings should be considered illustrative and not restrictive of the invention, which is limited only by the appended claims and their legal equivalents),
but does not appear to specifically disclose a processor configured to detect a number of rotations of the at least one movable component by detecting the at least one magnet passing by the at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the at least one movable component relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up.
However, Blackadar teaches an angling event sensing device/unit associated with a fishing rod and reel specifically including a processor (3000) specifically configured to determine a number of rotations (reel rotations, §[0287]) of the movable component (e.g., reel) of the ice fishing tip up by detecting the at least one magnet passing by the at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the at least one movable component relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up (§[00157]: a Hall effect sensor may be placed on the outside of a reel with a small magnet on the inside to count rotations of the reel and precise RPMs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by West with the processor specifically configured to determine a number of rotations of the at least one movable component by detecting the at least one magnet passing by the at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the at least one movable component relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up, as taught by Blackadar, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises a processor configured to detect a number of rotations of the at least one movable component by detecting the at least one magnet passing by the at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the at least one movable component relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing multiple aspects of angling recommendations and data to the user.
Regarding claim 65, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 44, wherein the at least one magnet sensor is configured to be positioned to sense the at least one magnet when carried by the one of the rotary drive shaft and the crossbar or spindle bar during rotation of the rotary drive shaft and crossbar or spindle bar relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up indicative of one of a fish strike and a fish taking bait (§§[0057] and [0060]), but does not appear to specifically disclose a processor configured to detect a number of rotations of one of the rotary drive shaft and a spindle bar or a crossbar by detecting the at least one magnet passing by the at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the rotary drive shaft and crossbar or spindle bar relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up.
However, Blackadar teaches an angling event sensing device/unit specifically including a processor (3000) configured to determine a number of rotations (§[0287]) of a movable component (e.g., rotary drive shaft, cross bar, spindle bar) of an ice fishing tip up by detecting at least one magnet passing by at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the at least one movable component relative to a base of the ice fishing tip-up (the processor is configured to determine a number of rotations of any rotating element of a fishing apparatus via a Hall effect sensor, for example, as is evidenced by §[00157]: a Hall effect sensor may be placed on the outside of a reel with a small magnet on the inside to count rotations of the reel and precise RPMs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by West with the processor specifically configured to determine a number of rotations of the at least one movable component by detecting the at least one magnet passing by the at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the at least one movable component relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up, as taught by Blackadar, with a reasonable expectation of processor configured to detect a number of rotations of one of the rotary drive shaft and a spindle bar or a crossbar by detecting the at least one magnet passing by the at least one magnet sensor during rotary movement of the rotary drive shaft and crossbar or spindle bar relative to the base of the ice fishing tip-up. The benefit being the predicted outcome of providing multiple aspects of angling recommendations and data to the user.
Regarding claim 68, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 66, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit further comprises at least one motion sensor configured for sensing at least one of
(i) a position,
(ii) a change in position,
(iii) an angle,
(iv) a change in angle,
(v) an orientation,
(vi) a change in orientation,
(vii) a movement,
(viii) a change in movement,
(ix) a velocity,
(x) an acceleration,
(xi) a jerk or a jerk factor,
(xii) a rotation,
(xiii) a change in rotation,
(xiv) a rotational angle,
(xv) a change in rotational angle,
(xvi) a number of rotations,
(xvii) a number of rotations per unit time,
(xviii) a number of rotations per minute,
(xix) an angular velocity,
(xx) an angular acceleration, and
(xxi) an angular jerk or an angular jerk factor
of at least one movable component when a fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit is releasably mounted by the mounting arrangement to the movable component during movement of the movable component relative to a base of an ice fishing tip-up during a fish strike or a fish taking bait.
Blackadar teaches an angling event sensing device/unit associated with moveable components of a fishing apparatus and configured to be removably mounted to the moveable components, specifically including at least one motion sensor configured for sensing at least one of a specific movement (i)-(xxi) of at least one movable component of a fishing apparatus when the angling event sensing device/unit is releasably mounted to the movable component during movement of the movable component during a fish strike or a fish taking bait
(sensing device with sensors that may be internal to the sensing device adapted to monitor, detect, record, generate, compute, store, and send data associated with the use of a sporting good and/or the environment in proximity to the sporting good, or the environment in which use of the sporting good is anticipated. Sensors may include, but are not limited to, motion sensors, optical sensors, sound sensors, piezo-electric sensors, strain or flex sensors, magnetometers, gyros, accelerometers, GPS, still cameras, video cameras, infrared cameras, and the like, see §[0007]; additional sensors 2210; §[0168]: the angling sensor 2210 may detect motion related events, such as that associated with a user casting a rod. The motion of a user moving the rod during a cast, for example as indicated by the speed of rod motion, the duration of rod motion, the distance of rod motion, or some other motion related variable, may cause the angling sensor 2210 to transmit the motion data [to a processor]; see §[0287] and §[0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit disclosed by modified West with the motion sensor as taught by Blackadar, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit comprises the motion sensor configured for sensing at least one of (i)-(xxi) of at least one movable component of a fishing apparatus when the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit having the motion sensor is releasably mounted to said movable component during movement of the movable component relative a base of said fishing apparatus/ice-fishing tip-up during a fish strike or a fish taking bait. The benefit being the predictable outcome of the ability to generate data indicative of a parameter of the rod or reel when the rod or reel is in use (Blackadar, §[0007]).
Regarding claim 69, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 68, wherein the at least one motion comprises one of an accelerometer, a gyro, an angular rate sensor, a magnetometer, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor, or a Heading Reference Unit (HRU) sensor
(the office notes each motion sensor can comprise one of an accelerometer, a gyro, an angular rate sensor, a magnetometer, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor, or a Heading Reference Unit (HRU) sensor, as is evidenced by at least §[0007]: Sensors may be adapted to monitor, detect, record, generate, compute, store, and send data associated with the use of a sporting good and/or the environment in proximity to the sporting good, or the environment in which use of the sporting good is anticipated. Sensors may include, but are not limited to, motion sensors, optical sensors, sound sensors, piezo-electric sensors, strain or flex sensors, magnetometers, gyros).
Regarding claim 70, the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 67, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit further comprises a plurality of motion sensors.
However, Blackadar teaches an angling event sensing device/unit associated with moveable components of a fishing apparatus, specifically including motion sensors
(sensing device with sensors that may be internal to the sensing device adapted to monitor, detect, record, generate, compute, store, and send data associated with the use of a sporting good and/or the environment in proximity to the sporting good, or the environment in which use of the sporting good is anticipated. Sensors may include, but are not limited to, motion sensors, see §[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit disclosed by modified West with the motion sensors as taught by Blackadar, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the fishing apparatus sensing alarm comprises the motion sensors. The benefit being the predicable outcome of gaining the ability to monitor, detect, record, generate, compute, store, and send a plurality of data elements associated with the use of a fishing apparatus.
Regarding claim 71, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 70, wherein each motion sensor comprises one of an accelerometer, a gyro, an angular rate sensor, a magnetometer, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor, or a Heading Reference Unit (HRU) sensor (§[0007]; 2200 and 2500).
Claims 72-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified West as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of
Haensgen et al. (US 2017/0079257), hereinafter Haensgen.
Regarding claim 72, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 43, but does not appear to specifically disclose a controller configured to wirelessly communicate with the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit.
However, Haensgen teaches a remote fishing alarm system in the same field of endeavor (e.g. ice fishing tip-ups, Fig. 19) including a controller (22) configured to wirelessly communicate with a fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit (234).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified West with the controller configured to wirelessly communicate with a fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit, as taught by Haensgen, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that system comprises the controller configured to wirelessly communicate with the fishing apparatus sensing alarm unit. The benefit being the predictable outcome of a wireless communication system with ultralow power mode operation to conserve battery (Abstract of Haensgen).
Regarding claim 73, modified West discloses the fishing apparatus alarm system of claim 72, wherein the controller comprises one of a portable hand-held processor equipped device, a smartphone, a tablet, a notebook computer, and a desktop computer (§[0055], controller can be in the form of a smart phone, tablet, laptop, personal computer, personal-digital-assistant, or another processor-equipped electronic device capable of wireless communication).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 43-44, 51, 56-58, 63 and 66-68 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being directed to the same invention as set forth in claims 1-on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14-68 of co-pending Application No. 17/980,550. See In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). The claims are anticipated by 17/980,550 in the following manner:
Claim 43-44, 51, 58, 63, 66-67 are anticipated by at least claim 24 as it depends from 23, 21, 20, 14 of ‘550.
Claim 56 is anticipated by at least claim 25 as it depends from 23, 21, 20, 14 of ‘550.
Claim 57 is anticipated by at least claim 26 as it depends from 23, 21, 20, 14 of ‘550.
Claim 68 is anticipated by at least claim 40 as it depends from 38, 27 of ‘550.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the claim objections the amendments appear to obviate the previous claim objections, therefore they are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 rejections, the arguments are considered non-persuasive. The rejections are maintained and applied with respect to the claim amendments as is detailed in the rejections section.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights