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 .
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
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 1-17 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 1 recites “a first imaginary plane” and “a first imaginary line.” It is unclear how a plane and a line can be “imaginary.” Because one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, claim 1 and dependent claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The examiner suggests amending the claim to simply say “a first plane” and “a second plane.
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, 3, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2012/070259 to Soshi (“Soshi”)1.
Regarding claim 1, Soshi discloses a reel seat for mounting a reel having a first leg and a second leg to a rod body of a fishing rod, the reel seat comprising: a seat body (10) including a seating portion (20) on which the first leg and the second leg are seated, and a fixed hood portion (14) which is located in the seating portion and into which the first leg is inserted, wherein the seat body is coupled to the rod body along a central axis of the rod body; and a movable hood (12) movably coupled to the seat body so as to fix the second leg to the seating portion, wherein the fixed hood portion includes: an opening edge portion extending from the seating portion so as to form an opening into which the first leg is inserted (FIG. 2); and an inward surface extending from the opening edge portion and covering the first leg, wherein the opening edge portion is positioned in a first imaginary plane inclined at an acute angle with respect to a seating surface in which the seating portion is formed, and wherein the first imaginary plane and a first imaginary line bisecting the inward surface along the central axis are configured to meet each other at an obtuse angle (FIGS. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 3, Soshi discloses wherein the opening edge portion includes: a pair of first opening edge portions extending from the seating portion and spaced apart from each other with reference to the central axis; and a second opening edge portion interconnecting the pair of first opening edge portions, wherein each of the pair of first opening edge portions has a first inward edge line, which is formed along a line where the first opening edge portion meets the inward surface and has a straight line shape, and wherein the second opening edge portion has a second inward edge line, which is formed along a line where the second opening edge portion meets the inward surface and has a semicircular shape (FIGS. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 7, Soshi discloses wherein the fixed hood portion includes an inclined wall between each of the pair of first opening edge portions and the seating portion, and wherein the inclined wall has an oblique side including one of the pair of first inward edge lines, and a bottom side formed at a boundary between the fixed hood portion and the seating portion (FIGS. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 17, Soshi discloses a fishing rod comprising: a rod body; and the reel seat of Claim 1 coupled to the rod body (see FIGS. 2, 3, and the above analysis of claim 1).
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.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soshi, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Soshi teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the seating surface is parallel to the central axis and the first imaginary plane is inclined at an angle of 15 to 25 degrees with respect to the seating surface.
However, it is well settled that “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reel seat of Soshi so that the seating surface is parallel to the central axis and the first imaginary plane is inclined at an angle of 15 to 25 degrees with respect to the seating surface, in order to make the reel seat easier for the user to handle.
Regarding claim 4, Soshi teaches each and every element of claim 3, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein, when viewed from a top view of the reel seat, an edge depth defined as a length of a third imaginary line, which interconnects a midpoint of a second imaginary line interconnecting intersection points between the pair of first inward edge lines and the second inward edge line and a midpoint of the second inward edge line, is 0.45 to 0.55 times an edge width defined as a length of the second imaginary line.
However, it is well settled that “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reel seat of Soshi so that when viewed from a top view of the reel seat, an edge depth defined as a length of a third imaginary line, which interconnects a midpoint of a second imaginary line interconnecting intersection points between the pair of first inward edge lines and the second inward edge line and a midpoint of the second inward edge, in order to make the reel seat easier for the user to handle.
Regarding claim 5, Soshi teaches each and every element of claim 4, as discussed above, and it teaches wherein, when viewed from the top view of the reel seat, the semicircular shape of the second inward edge line is tangent to the pair of first inward edge lines at the intersection points (FIGS. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 6, Soshi teaches each and every element of claim 3, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein, when the reel seat is viewed from a side view, a sum of a length of one of the pair of first opening edge portions and a length of the second opening edge portion is larger than a length of the first imaginary line.
However, it is well settled that “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reel seat of Soshi so that when the reel seat is viewed from a side view, a sum of a length of one of the pair of first opening edge portions and a length of the second opening edge portion is larger than a length of the first imaginary line, in order to make the reel seat easier to handle.
Regarding claim 8, Soshi teaches each and every element of claim 7, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the inclined wall has a constant thickness, and the thickness at a boundary between the inclined wall and the seating portion is in a range of 2 mm to 3 mm.
However, it is well settled that “a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree… is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reel seat of Soshi so that the inclined wall has a constant thickness, and the thickness at a boundary between the inclined wall and the seating portion is in a range of 2 mm to 3 mm, in order to make the reel seat easier to handle.
Regarding claim 16, Soshi teaches each and every element of claim 1, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the seat body is integrally formed and is made of carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin.
However, it is well settled that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular material was significant. MPEP at 2144.07, citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reel seat of Soshi so that the seat body is integrally formed and is made of carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic resin, in order to improve its strength and durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious each and every element of claim 9. For example, Soshi does not disclose or render obvious wherein the seat body includes: a cylindrical portion having a first bore capable of being coupled to the rod body; and an attachment body having: the seating portion formed at an upper side or a lower side of the cylindrical portion; a first projecting portion located at an opposite side of the seating portion with reference to the central axis and formed in a circumferential direction of the central axis; and a second projecting portion extending along the central axis from the first projecting portion along an outer periphery of the cylindrical portion and forming the fixed hood portion together with the seating portion, wherein the movable hood is movably coupled to a male thread portion located opposite to the fixed hood portion, and wherein the movable hood includes: an accommodating portion into which the first projecting portion is inserted along the central axis; and a movable hood portion located at an opposite side of the accommodating portion in a vertical direction, overlapping the first projecting portion along the central axis, and fixing the second leg to the seating portion. Modifying the teachings of Soshi to arrive at the subject matter of claim 9 would require impermissible hindsight reasoning. Thus, claim 9 and dependent claims 10-15 are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 A copy of the reference, along with its English translation, is attached.