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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-7 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.
With respect to Claims 1 and 3, the recitation “the coupling portion” as it relates to “the proximal end” and “the distal end”, respectively, lacks positive antecedent basis in the claims. Note that in lines 7-8 of claim 1, “a plurality of coupling portions” is set forth; however, this relates to “the first configuration portion and the second configuration portion”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 08089140A (hereinafter “JP 140”).
With respect to Claim 1, JP 140 discloses a handle knob 4 of a fishing reel comprising: a support shaft portion 3 that is attachable to a handle arm 2; and a grip portion 4b that is integrally connected to the support shaft portion and is able to be gripped by a user, wherein the grip portion is divided into a first configuration portion (see annotated figure below) and a second configuration portion (see annotated figure below), the first configuration portion and the second configuration portion are coupled via a plurality of coupling portions 5,5a,5b,11, the grip portion is divided into a distal end portion (see annotated figure below) to be gripped by the user and a proximal end portion (see annotated figure below) pressed by the user using a thumb, in an axial direction of the grip portion with an imaginary axis line (axis of 3) of the support shaft portion as a reference line, and the coupling portion provided in the proximal end portion comprises a claw portion (portion of spring 11 inserted into hole of 5b) formed on any one of the first configuration portion and the second configuration portion, and a hole portion (hole in 5b) that is formed on the other of the first configuration portion and the second configuration portion and fixes the claw portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of “JP 140”
With respect to Claim 7, JP 140 discloses a fishing reel comprising the handle knob of a fishing reel according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 140 in view of JP 2017131159A (hereinafter “JP 159”).
With respect to Claim 4, JP 140 does not teach the handle knob of a fishing reel according to claim 1, wherein the grip portion has a shape in which a diameter is gradually increased from the proximal end portion to the distal end portion.
However, JP 159 teaches a handle for a fishing reel, in Figure 3, that has a shape in which a diameter gradually increases from the proximal end to the distal end. This appears to be ergonomically formed to the user’s hand for better comfort.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the handle JP 140 with the handle shape as taught by JP 159 for better ergonomics and comfort.
With respect to Claim 5, JP 140 teaches the handle knob of a fishing reel according to claim 4, wherein the grip portion 4 has a spindle shape.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 140.
With respect to Claim 6, JP 140 does not teach the handle knob of a fishing reel according to claim 1, wherein a protrusion length of the proximal end portion from an outer peripheral surface of a connection portion connected to the support shaft portion is 5 to 20 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice, as determined through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have a protrusion length of the proximal end portion from an outer peripheral surface of a connection portion connected to the support shaft portion is 5 to 20 mm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
Claim 2 is allowed over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including the handle knob of a fishing reel according to claim 1, wherein the hole portion is formed in an elastically deformable convex portion that is able to be elastically deformed, and the elastically deformable convex portion constitutes a snap fit by meshing with the claw portion.
Claim 3 is allowed over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including the handle knob of a fishing reel according to claim 1, wherein the coupling portion provided in the distal end portion comprises a screw portion that couples the first configuration portion and the second configuration portion using a screw.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows fishing reel with various handle knobs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL M MARCELO whose telephone number is (571)272-6949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 am-3:30pm 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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/EMMANUEL M MARCELO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/emm/