DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
Claims 1-3, 5-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 are amended, claims 2, 6 are original or previously presented, claim 4 is cancelled, claims 8-10 are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 11/20/2024, 02/14/2025, 03/25/2025, 12/02/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2180323 A) to Maxwell in view of (US 4905400 A) to Brackett.
In regards to claim 1, Maxwell teaches a fishing rod comprising: a rod (Maxwell; 1); a reel seat (Maxwell; 3) inserted to the rod and configured to hold a reel at a side of the rod (Maxwell; see FIG 1 where the reel seat 3 holds a reel at an upper radial side of the rod 1); and a front grip inserted closer to a rod tip side than the reel seat (Maxwell; grip 4 closer to a rod tip side of 1 than the reel seat 3, see FIG 1), wherein the front grip comprises a tubular grip main body portion to which the rod is inserted (Maxwell; grip 4 having tubular grip main body portion or bore 5 of 13, 7 into which the rod is inserted), a protrusion portion that is convex over a circumferential direction on the rod tip side of the grip main body portion (Maxwell; protrusion being comprised of 13, 7), and a tip end portion (Maxwell; portion just forward of 13, 7 also at 9) that is continuous from the protrusion portion and located at a tip of the grip main body portion closer to the rod tip side than the protrusion portion (Maxwell; the tip of 13, 7 being the tip end portion with 9, being a tip of the grip main body portion which is the bore of 5 at 13, 7, which is closer to a rod tip side of 1), wherein an upper portion of the tip end portion at an upper radial side of the rod has a convex shape that is convex in a direction away from the central axis of the rod and is a curved surface bulging upwardly from the grip main body portion when viewed from a side of the front grip (Maxwell; see for example FIGs 2 and 5 where 13 protrudes upwards away from the central axis of the rod 1 and bore 5, where the forward end of 13 has a curved convex shape away from the central axis), and a lower portion of the tip end portion at the lower radial side of the rod has a concave shape that is a concave in a direction toward the central axis of the rod (Maxwell; lower portion of the tip end of 13, 7 at a lower radial side having a concave shape at 9 curved in a direction towards a central axis of the rod 1 within bore 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
225
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Maxwell fails to explicitly teach the reel seat configured to hold a reel at a lower radial side of the rod.
Brackett teaches the reel seat configured to hold a reel at a lower radial side of the rod (Brackett; see FIG 1 where spinning reel 22 is held at a lower radial side of the rod).
PNG
media_image3.png
313
575
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Maxwell such that it holds the fishing reel at the lower radial side of the rod with respect to the handgrip forward of the reel seat, such as taught by Brackett. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the grip to be used with different common configurations of fishing reel placements, while maintaining the connection with the reel seat to secure the reel in place on the rod.
In regards to claim 2, Maxwell as modified by Brackett teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, wherein a distance from a central axis of the rod to a lower end of the protrusion portion is larger than a distance from the central axis of the rod to an upper end of the protrusion portion (Maxwell; a distance from the central axis of rod 1 or bore 5 to a lower end of the protrusion portion 7 is larger than a distance from the central axis of the rod to an upper end of the protrusion portion 13, see where 13 has a lesser thickness than 7 in FIGs 5 and 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
244
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Maxwell as modified by Brackett teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, wherein a radius of curvature of each half of a lower radial side of the protrusion portion is larger than a radius of curvature of each half of the upper radial side of the protrusion portion (Maxwell; in FIG 6, the radius of curvature of 13 at two upper halves when divided down the center is a smaller radius of curvature than the radius of curvature at each of 11 on either half side of 7).
In regards to claim 5, Maxwell as modified by Brackett teach the fishing rod according to claim 1 wherein the concave shape extends over a circumferential direction of the rod (Maxwell; see FIG 6 where the concave shape extends over a circumferential direction to extend into 13, 6, 11, 7).
In regards to claim 9, Maxwell as modified by Brackett teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, wherein the fishing rod is configured as an off-shore casting rod (Maxwell; the fishing rod 1 is capable of being used as an off-shore casting rod).
In regards to claim 10, Maxwell as modified by Brackett teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, wherein the reel is a spinning reel and the reel seat is configured to hold the spinning reel (Brackett; fishing reel 22 being a spinning reel).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2180323 A) to Maxwell in view of (US 4905400 A) to Brackett as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of (JP 2017077218 A) to Suganuma.
In regards to claim 6, Maxwell as modified by Brackett teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, but Maxwell fails to teach wherein the front grip comprises a trigger portion that is spaced from the protrusion portion toward a rod base side and protrudes downward from the grip main body portion.
Suganuma teaches wherein the front grip comprises a trigger portion that is spaced from the tip portion toward a rod base side and protrudes downward from the grip main body portion (Suganuma; trigger 11 at the rear end of the hand S spaced from the tip end at the forward portion toward a rod base side to the right of FIG 9, protruding downward).
PNG
media_image5.png
410
574
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Together, Maxwell as modified by Brackett in view of Suganuma teach the trigger portion (of Suganuma 11) that is spaced from the protrusion portion (of Maxwell; protrusion portion being 13, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grip of Maxwell such that it has a trigger portion extending downward from the grip main body portion and supporting the rear of the hand when the grip is in use, such as taught by Suganuma, and where when combined with Maxwell teaches the trigger portion spaced from the protrusion portion which supports the other fingers of the grip. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a rear extension portion that supports the back of the fingers in a grip, allowing for a user to maintain greater control when lifting or pulling on the fishing rod.
In regards to claim 7, Maxwell as modified by Brackett and Suganuma teach the fishing rod according to claim 6, wherein the trigger portion is either (i) spaced away from the protrusion portion by a distance that is in a range of 10 to 40 mm; or (ii) spaced away from the protrusion portion by a distance that is in a range of 50 to 100 mm.
Maxwell as modified by Brackett and Suganuma teaches the trigger portion is spaced away from the protrusion portion, but is silent to the regions being sized specifically 10-40 mm and 50-100 mm respectively. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Both Maxwell and Suganuma teach the positioning of the fingers and the grip positioning determines the positioning of the various structures which conform to the hand of the user, including Suganuma’s finger trigger portion 11 and the protrusion portions of maxwell, 13, 7.
With the teachings of Maxwell and Sugnanuma, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be aware that changing the size of the spacing of the trigger portion determines the positioning of a user’s hand on the grip. Consequently, the regions being sized specifically 10-40 mm and 50-100 mm is considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the region sizing and spacing of the trigger portion to have a size of 10-40 mm or 50-100 mm for the purpose of adjusting to a user’s hand size or grip position and as a matter of routine optimization of the spacing between gripping structures, with predictable results. Additionally, the specification does not detail any criticality for these ranges of spacing sizes, and does not describe how these specific ranges are critical to the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to adjust the space sizing of the trigger portion to have a size of 10-40 mm or 50-100 mm to suit a particular grip pattern or sizing of a user’s hand or finger widths.
In regards to claim 8, Maxwell as modified by Brackett and Suganuma teach the fishing rod according to claim 6, wherein the trigger portion is spaced away from the reel seat toward the rod tip side (Maxwell as modified by Suganuma; where the trigger of Suganuma 11 is part of the grip, where the grip of Maxwell is spaced apart from the reel seat 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. See the new grounds of rejection above in view of Maxwell, Brackett, and Suganuma.
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 KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KIMBERLY BERONA can be reached 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647