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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s amendments dated 11/4/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the base” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 1, 3-8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200498195 Y1, hereinafter 195 in view of Fissell (US PG Pub 2015/0335971).
Regarding claim 1, 195 discloses:
An ultraviolet fluorescent charging tube for fishing lures comprising: a hollow cylindrical main body having an interior surface (see fig 3); a plurality of UV LED lights (150); and a free-mounting unit (160) attachable to the base; and wherein said hollow cylindrical main body forms a cavity inside said hollow cylindrical main body; wherein said interior surface lined with said plurality of UV LED lights (see fig 3); and wherein said plurality of UV LED lights are for charging glow-in-the-dark materials of a glow-in-the dark fishing lure (see page 5 of translated document provided with the previous office action).
Page 5 of the translated document of 195 discloses that the UV LEDs may be used so that light in a wavelength range suitable for different fish species can be luminous and that you can also configure it, but does not specify a range of wavelengths for UV light, such as 320 nm to 380 nm, or that the lights are specifically waterproof.
Fissell teaches utilizing waterproof, IP65 rated (paragraph 0035) lights so that the lights are protected from moisture and that UV LED lights can be in a range of 100-450 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the lights taught by Fissell in the device of 195 yielding the predictable result of providing LED lights of specific performance where 195 is silent to specific details of LED lights that can be used.
195 does not directly disclose the attaching portion comprising a 1.5 inch ball mount. 195 does disclose a rail mount and states: “It goes without saying that any configuration that can be used by installing the device can be used.” The examiner takes Official Notice that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the suggestion of 195 that “any configuration that can be used by installing the device” to utilize a 1.5 inch ball mount, which is an industry standard, well-known means for attachment of devices to boats for the purpose of installing the device of 195 to locations on a boat other than a rail.
Regarding claim 3, 195 as modified discloses:
The ultraviolet fluorescent charging tube for fishing lures of claim 1, wherein said UV-A LED lights emit UV light for charging said glow-in-the-dark fishing lure (see 195 page 5).
Regarding claim 4, 195 as modified discloses:
The ultraviolet fluorescent charging tube for fishing lures of claim 3, wherein said UV-A LED lights are waterproof including a waterproof rating of at least IP65 (see Fissell paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 5, 195 as modified discloses:
The ultraviolet fluorescent charging tube for fishing lures of claim 4, wherein said UV-A LED lights arranged in a sheet light configuration (see 195 fig 3 – the lights form a cylindrical sheet).
Regarding claim 6, 195 as modified discloses:
The ultraviolet fluorescent charging tube for fishing lures of claim 4, wherein said UV-A LED lights arranged in a ribbon style configuration (see 195 page 5 – composed of a strip shape).
Regarding claim 7, 195 as modified discloses:
The ultraviolet fluorescent charging tube for fishing lures of claim 6, wherein said hollow cylindrical main body has an open first end and a selectively closable opposing second end (both ends of 195 are open therefore the open bottom end is selectively closable).
Regarding claim 8, 195 as modified discloses:
The ultraviolet fluorescent charging tube for fishing lures of claim 7, wherein said open first end is configured for placing said glow-in-the-dark fishing lure therethrough and into said cavity (see 195 page 5).
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claims 1 and 4.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claims 1 and 4. Fissell discloses a range of 100-450 nm thus disclosing a range of over 400 nm.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200498195 Y1, hereinafter 195 in view of Fissell (US PG Pub 2015/0335971) in further view of NPL Ice Hole Power Jig Charging Cup.
Regarding claim 9, 195 as modified discloses the device of claim 8 and discloses utilizing external power (see page 5), but does not disclose: further comprising a power wire routed through said second end for supplying electrical power to said UV-A LED lights.
Ice Hole teaches a similar device comprising a power wire routed through said second end for supplying electrical power to said UV-A LED lights (see figs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the wiring of Ice Hole with the device of 195 yielding the predictable result of providing a specific means for external power where 195 is silent in order to put the external power into practice.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes that arguments directed to the aluminum flange of claim 19 are moot because no such limitation is found in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
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 RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm 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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644