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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l), 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1), and 37 CFR 1.84(q). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. The quality of the illustration lines and lead lines in Figures 1-6 and 8-12 of the standard drawings and Figures 2-5 and 8-10 of the supplemental drawings are not clear and it is difficult to see critical details such as which component a lead line is pointing to.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1). In the supplemental drawings, some of the reference characters are cut off and/or distorted (See Figures 4 and 10).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16-17 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.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “the rotation speed” (Claim 16, Ln. 5) in “controlling a braking device of the fishing reel to apply resistance to the spool according to the line release speed and the rotation speed to cause the rotation speed of the spool to match the line release speed of the fishing line” (Claim 16, Ln. 4-6) lacks clarity and it is unclear whether it lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Is “the rotation speed” referring to the rotation speed of the spool? For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed “the rotation speed” (Claim 16, Ln. 5) refers to “a rotation speed of the spool” (Claim 16, Ln. 3) If this assumption is correct, Examiner suggests “the rotation speed” (Claim 16, Ln. 5) should read --the rotation speed of the spool--
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “the rotation speed” (Claim 17, Ln. 3) lacks clarity and it is unclear whether it lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Is “the rotation speed” referring to the rotation speed of the spool? For examination purposes, Examiner has assumed “the rotation speed” (Claim 17, Ln. 3) refers to “a rotation speed of the spool” (Claim 16, Ln. 3) If this assumption is correct, Examiner suggests “the rotation speed” (Claim 17, Ln. 3) should read --the rotation speed of the spool--
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.
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 1, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470), as evidenced by Komemushi (US 10,039,272), Park (US 5,833,156), and Kreuser (US 6,412,722).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamayasu, Figures 1-5, teaches a fishing reel comprising:
a body frame 1;
a spool 3 rotatably arranged at the body frame 1 and configured to wind a fishing line (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 64-65);
a braking device 90 configured to apply resistance to the spool 3 (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 11-12); and
one or more processors 60 connected to the braking device 90, and configured to control the braking device 90 to apply the resistance to the spool 3 to cause a rotation speed of the spool 3 to match a line release speed of the fishing line (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 45-56).
Although Hamayasu is silent regarding the rotation speed of the spool matching the line release speed of the finishing line while braking occurs, Hamayasu discloses “If the rotational speed of spool 3 is larger than the line-drawing-out speed during the casting and a backlash is about to occur, the processor 60 determines this from detection signals from the first and second detectors 40 and 50, and outputs signals to excite the actuator 70, thereby actuating the braking device 90.… Therefore, the rotational resistance exerts the braking action on the spool 3, so that the spool 3 rotates at low speed or stops, thereby preventing the occurrence of backlash,” (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 45-60). Because the prevention of backlash is based on slowing down the detected speed of the spool relative to the detected fishing line release speed such that the difference in speed in minimized and the fishing line does not experience an overrun condition due to the spool reeling out line faster than the portion of the line attached to the lure is moving, it is implied that the braking device causes the rotation speed of the spool to match the line release speed of the fishing line. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the braking device of Hamayasu causes the rotation speed of the spool to match the line release speed for the purpose of preventing backlash.
Hamayasu teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for an acceleration detector configured to detect a line release acceleration of the fishing line and the one or more processors connected to the acceleration detector and configured to control the braking device according to the line release acceleration.
However, Hamayasu discloses “The first detector 40, as shown in FIG. 3, uses, for example, a luminous element 41, such as a light-emitting diode, and a photosensitive element 42, such as a phototransistor, which are mounted diametrically opposite to each other on the inner periphery of guide bore 32a at the guide 32. On the other hand, the fishing line is provided with colored portions at intervals each of a given length. The line, when drawn out of the spool 3 through the guide bore 32a for casting, intercepts at its colored portions the light from the light-emitting diode 41 to the phototransister 42, so that the first detector 40 outputs pulse signals, thereby detecting the line-drawing-out speed,” (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34) and “If the rotational speed of spool 3 is larger than the line-drawing-out speed during the casting and a backlash is about to occur, the processor 60 determines this from detection signals from the first and second detectors 40 and 50, and outputs signals to excite the actuator 70, thereby actuating the braking device 90.… Therefore, the rotational resistance exerts the braking action on the spool 3, so that the spool 3 rotates at low speed or stops, thereby preventing the occurrence of backlash,” (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 45-60). In Hamayasu, the first detector 40 (in combination with processor 60) is used to detect the rate that the fishing line is being released and the processor 60 uses this information to control the braking device 90. Because the first detector 40 merely provides pulses relative to position markers on the fishing line, it can be configured, in combination with the processor, to measure line length released (i.e., displacement), line release speed (i.e., velocity) or line release acceleration. The relationship between displacement, velocity, and acceleration as time-derivatives of each other (i.e., velocity is defined by displacement over time and acceleration is defined by velocity over time, whereas velocity is acceleration integrated over time and displacement is velocity integrated over time) is well known by those of ordinary skill in the art. Because the mathematical relationship between these variables allows for the data gathered by the detector to be used by the processor to calculate line length released, line release speed, or line release acceleration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first detector of Hamayasu as an acceleration detector configured to detect a line release acceleration of the fishing line, and provide the one or more processors as being connected to the acceleration detector and configured to control the braking device according to the line release acceleration.
Additionally, the concepts explained with respect to Hamayasu (e.g., (1) braking the spool such that the rotation speed of the spool matches the line release speed, and (2) the relationship between velocity and acceleration) are further evidenced by Komemushi (See Komemushi, Fig. 6, Col. 6, Ln. 38 - Col. 7, Ln. 40), Park (See Park, Col. 3, Ln. 19-39), and Kreuser (See Kreuser, Col. 12, Ln. 53 - Col. 13, Ln. 13).
For the purpose of brevity, recitation of “an acceleration detector” (and corresponding “line release acceleration”) in claims which are dependent on claim 1 will be mapped to the first detector 40 in Hamayasu based on the justification of its equivalence to an acceleration detector as presented above.
Regarding Claim 5, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Hamayasu further teaches wherein the acceleration detector 40 includes a photoelectric detector 42 (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34).
Regarding Claim 13, Hamayasu, Figures 1-5, teaches a fishing reel control method comprising:
detecting a line release acceleration of a fishing line wound at a spool 3 of a fishing reel; and
controlling a braking device 90 of the fishing reel to apply resistance to the spool 3 according to the line release acceleration to cause a rotation speed of the spool 3 to match a line release speed of the fishing line.
The scope of this method claim is limited to the functional limitations described in claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 above for reference citations and obviousness justification.
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470), as evidenced by Komemushi (US 10,039,272), Park (US 5,833,156), and Kreuser (US 6,412,722), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 13 above, and further in view of Komemushi (US 10,039,272).
Regarding Claim 2, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Hamayasu teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for wherein the one or more processors are further configured to control the braking device in response to the line release acceleration being outside a preset acceleration range.
However, Komemushi, Figures 1-6, teaches wherein the one or more processors 36 are further configured to:
in response to the line release acceleration being outside a preset acceleration range (predetermined value or less; See Komemushi, Col. 7, Ln. 28-29), control the braking device 22 to apply the resistance to the spool 12 (See Komemushi, Col. 6, Ln. 38 - Col. 7, Ln. 40).
Although Komemushi teaches this concept by utilizing the line release acceleration as measured from points on the spool rather than as measured from points on the line itself, this teaching demonstrates a processor having the ability to compare a calculated acceleration value, based on sensor measurements, to a preset range and actuate the braking device based on this comparison. Hamayasu teaches a control scheme which incorporates a comparison of line release speeds measured from sensors at two locations (on spool to measure line release rate due to spool rotation and on the line guide to measure line release rate due to force on the end of the line, such as a lure) to determine when to actuate the braking device, but using only one location for measurement of the line release speed and comparing it to a preset range, as taught by Komemushi, allows for only one sensor to be required to prevent backlash. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hamayasu and Komemushi to provide a processor that is configured to control the braking device in response to the line release acceleration being outside a preset acceleration range for the purpose of weight, size, and cost reduction.
Regarding Claim 3, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Hamayasu teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine a change amount of the line release acceleration and control the braking device in response to the change amount being outside a preset acceleration change amount range.
However, Komemushi, Figures 1-6, teaches wherein the one or more processors 36 are further configured to:
determine a change amount of the line release acceleration (ratio of acceleration divided by maximum acceleration; See Komemushi, Col. 7, Ln. 20-25); and
in response to the change amount being outside a preset acceleration change amount range (predetermined value or less; See Komemushi, Col. 7, Ln. 34-35), control the braking device 22 to apply the resistance to the spool 12 (See Komemushi, Col. 7, Ln. 32-40).
Although Komemushi teaches this concept by utilizing the line release acceleration as measured from points on the spool rather than as measured from points on the line itself, this teaching demonstrates a processor having the ability to compare a change amount of an acceleration value, based on sensor measurements, to a preset range and actuate the braking device based on this comparison. Hamayasu teaches a control scheme which incorporates a comparison of line release speeds measured from sensors at two locations to determine when to actuate the braking device, but using only one location for measurement of the line release speed change amount and comparing it to a preset range, as taught by Komemushi, allows for only one sensor to be required to prevent backlash. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hamayasu and Komemushi to provide a processor that is configured to determine a change amount of the line release acceleration and control the braking device in response to the change amount being outside a preset acceleration change amount range for the purpose of weight, size, and cost reduction.
Regarding Claim 14, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Komemushi teaches wherein controlling the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool includes:
in response to the line release acceleration being outside a preset acceleration range, controlling the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool.
The scope of this method claim is limited to the functional limitations described in claim 2. See the rejection of claim 2 above for reference citations and obviousness justification.
Regarding Claim 15, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Komemushi teaches determining a change amount of the line release acceleration;
wherein controlling the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool includes:
in response to the change amount being outside a preset acceleration change amount range, controlling the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool.
The scope of this method claim is limited to the functional limitations described in claim 3. See the rejection of claim 3 above for reference citations and obviousness justification.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470), as evidenced by Komemushi (US 10,039,272), Park (US 5,833,156), and Kreuser (US 6,412,722), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 13 above, and further as evidenced by Arar (“Use Signal Averaging to Increase the Accuracy of Your Measurements” by Steve Arar).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Hamayasu further teaches one or more guide members 32 each including a guide hole 32a configured for the fishing line to pass through (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34); wherein:
the acceleration detector 40 is one of one or more acceleration detectors 40 of the fishing reel, each arranged at one of the one or more guide members 32 and configured to detect the line release acceleration of the fishing line at the guide hole 32a of the corresponding guide member 32 (See rejection of claim 1 above for mathematical relationship between velocity (i.e., speed) and acceleration; See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34); and
Although Hamayasu is silent regarding whether the line release speed (and associated line release acceleration) is averaged prior to being used to control the braking device, collecting multiple sensor readings and averaging either the signal itself or the resultant calculated target parameter (e.g., acceleration) is a well-known technique used to suppress noise in the sensor signal. Therefore, 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 one or more processors as being configured to control the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool according to an average value of line release accelerations output by at least one of the one or more acceleration detectors for the purpose of “increas[ing] the accuracy of [the] signal measurements,” as evidenced by Arar (See Arar, Pg. 1, Ln. 1-6).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470), as evidenced by Komemushi (US 10,039,272), Park (US 5,833,156), and Kreuser (US 6,412,722), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 13 above, and further as evidenced by Highly Reflective Coatings (“Highly Reflective Coatings” on Edmundoptics.com).
Regarding Claim 6, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Hamayasu further teaches wherein the acceleration detector 40 includes:
a signal emitter 41 configured to emit a signal with a wavelength band in which a material of the fishing line has reflectivity (the light from luminous element 41 is reflected by colored portions of the fishing line and interrupts the signal between the luminous element 41 and the photosensitive element 42; See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34).
Although Hamayasu is silent regarding the wavelength band being optimized for a highest reflectivity with the detected material of the fishing line, optimization for highest reflectivity is a well-known technique used in optical applications when reflecting lasers and other light sources, as evidenced by Highly Reflective Coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the signal emitter to emit a signal with a wavelength band in which a material of the fishing line has a highest reflectivity for the purpose of mitigating the risk of “decreased throughput and potential laser-induced damage,” (See Highly Reflective Coatings, Pg. 1, Ln. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamayasu is advanced above.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 3 from Hamayasu
Hamayasu (See annotated Figure 1 above) further teaches a guide member 32 including a guide hole 32a configured for the fishing line to pass through (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34); wherein:
a groove 32b is formed at an inner wall of the guide hole 32a; and
the acceleration detector 40 is arranged in the groove 32b (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-28).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470), as evidenced by Komemushi (US 10,039,272), Park (US 5,833,156), Kreuser (US 6,412,722), and Highly Reflective Coatings (“Highly Reflective Coatings” on Edmundoptics.com), as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 13 above, and further as evidenced by Anti-Reflection (AR) Coatings (“Anti-Reflection (AR) Coatings” on Edmundoptics.com).
Regarding Claim 7, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Hamayasu further teaches a guide member 32 including a guide hole 32a configured for the fishing line to pass through (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34); wherein:
the acceleration detector 40 is arranged at the guide member 32 (See rejection of claim 1 above for mathematical relationship between velocity (i.e., speed) and acceleration; See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34); and
Hamayasu teaches all the elements of the fishing reel except for a coating configured to absorb the signal emitted by the signal emitter.
However, using an anti-reflective coating configured to absorb the signal emitted by a corresponding signal emitter on locations surrounding the signal emitter is a well-known technique, as evidenced by Anti-Reflection (AR) Coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an inner wall of the guide hole being coated with a coating configured to absorb the signal emitted by the signal emitter for the purpose of “increasing transmission, enhancing contrast, and eliminating ghost images,” (See Anti-Reflection (AR) Coatings, Pg. 1, Ln. 1-2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470), as evidenced by Komemushi (US 10,039,272), Park (US 5,833,156), and Kreuser (US 6,412,722), as applied to claims 1, 5, and 13 above, and further in view of Park (US 5,833,156).
Regarding Claim 9, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Although Hamayasu is silent regarding a combination of the fishing reel with a fishing rod and the fishing reel being mounted on the rod, the embodiment of the invention illustrated in Figures 1-5 of Hamayasu would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as a dual bearing reel which is to be mounted on a fishing rod. This rod and reel combination is a commonly used and well known combination to those of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide fishing gear comprised of a fishing rod and the reel mounted at the fishing reel for the purpose of casting a fishing line while from the fishing reel.
Additionally, Park teaches a fishing gear comprising:
a fishing rod 20; and
the fishing reel 10 mounted at the fishing rod 20 (See Park, Fig. 1).
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 reel of Hamayasu in a fishing gear with a fishing rod, as taught by Park, for the purpose of casting a fishing line from the fishing reel.
Claims 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470).
Regarding Claim 10, Hamayasu, Figures 1-5, teaches a fishing reel comprising:
a body frame 1;
a spool 3 rotatably arranged at the body frame 1 and configured to wind a fishing line (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 64-65);
a first speed detector 40 configured to detect a line release speed of the fishing line (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 10-11) and including a photoelectric detector 42 (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 21-34);
a second speed detector 50 configured to detect a rotation speed of the spool 3 (See Hamayasu, Col. 4, Ln. 11-12);
a braking device 90 configured to apply resistance to the spool 3 (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 45-56); and
one or more processors 60 connected to the first speed detector 40, the second speed detector 50, and the braking device 90, and configured to control the braking device 90 to apply the resistance to the spool 3 according to the line release speed and the rotation speed of the spool 3 to cause the rotation speed of the spool 3 to match the line release speed of the fishing line (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 45-56).
Although Hamayasu is silent regarding the rotation speed of the spool matching the line release speed of the finishing line while braking occurs, Hamayasu discloses “If the rotational speed of spool 3 is larger than the line-drawing-out speed during the casting and a backlash is about to occur, the processor 60 determines this from detection signals from the first and second detectors 40 and 50, and outputs signals to excite the actuator 70, thereby actuating the braking device 90.… Therefore, the rotational resistance exerts the braking action on the spool 3, so that the spool 3 rotates at low speed or stops, thereby preventing the occurrence of backlash,” (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 45-60). Because the prevention of backlash is based on slowing down the detected speed of the spool relative to the detected fishing line release speed such that the difference in speed in minimized and the fishing line does not experience an overrun condition due to the spool reeling out line faster than the portion of the line attached to the lure is moving, it is implied that the braking device causes the rotation speed of the spool to match the line release speed of the fishing line. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the braking device to cause the rotation speed of the spool to match the line release speed for the purpose of preventing backlash.
Regarding Claim 11, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Although Hamayasu is silent regarding the processor actuating the braking device in response to a difference between the line release speed and the rotation speed of the spool being outside a preset difference range, Hamayasu discloses “If the rotational speed of spool 3 is larger than the line-drawing-out speed during the casting and a backlash is about to occur, the processor 60 determines this from detection signals from the first and second detectors 40 and 50, and outputs signals to excite the actuator 70, thereby actuating the braking device 90.… Therefore, the rotational resistance exerts the braking action on the spool 3, so that the spool 3 rotates at low speed or stops, thereby preventing the occurrence of backlash,” (See Hamayasu, Col. 5, Ln. 45-60). Because the prevention of backlash is based on slowing down the detected speed of the spool relative to the detected fishing line release speed at the line itself, the processor must determine when the spool speed is exceeding the line release speed. This can be achieved by a conditional statement which indicates this behavior in the form of a preset difference range (e.g., actuate braking device when line speed minus spool speed is outside the range x to 0, wherein x is a negative number indicating the spool speed is exceeding the line speed and is the minimum difference required for the processor to flag the difference between the values as significant enough to differentiate from erroneous samples caused by sensor signal noise or precision errors. Conceptually, to maintain line release speed equal to spool rotation speed, the difference must be zero, but in a real world system, a preset range must be defined based on the precision and accuracy of the calculated line release speed and spool rotation speed for a particular system so that the brake is not applied prematurely. Therefore, it is implied that the one or more processors are further configured to control the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool in response to a difference between the line release speed and the rotation speed of the spool being outside a preset difference range and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this configuration for the purpose of increasing casting distance (i.e., reducing excessive braking for relative line/spool speed condition that does not induce backlash).
Regarding Claim 16, Hamayasu, Figures 1-5, teaches a fishing reel control method comprising:
detecting a line release speed of a fishing line wound at a spool of a fishing reel;
detecting a rotation speed of the spool; and
controlling a braking device of the fishing reel to apply resistance to the spool according to the line release speed and the rotation speed to cause the rotation speed of the spool to match the line release speed of the fishing line.
The scope of this method claim is limited to the functional limitations described in claim 10. See the rejection of claim 10 above for reference citations and obviousness justification.
Regarding Claim 17, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Hamayasu teaches wherein controlling the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool includes: in response to a difference between the line release speed and the rotation speed being outside a preset difference range, controlling the braking device to apply the resistance to the spool.
The scope of this method claim is limited to the functional limitations described in claim 11. See the rejection of claim 11 above for reference citations and obviousness justification.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamayasu (US 4,402,470) as applied to claims 10-11 and 16-17 above, and further in view of Park (US 5,833,156).
Regarding Claim 12, Hamayasu is advanced above.
Although Hamayasu is silent regarding a combination of the fishing reel with a fishing rod and the fishing reel being mounted on the rod, the embodiment of the invention illustrated in Figures 1-5 of Hamayasu would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as a dual bearing reel which is to be mounted on a fishing rod. This rod and reel combination is a commonly used and well known combination to those of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide fishing gear comprised of a fishing rod and the reel mounted at the fishing reel for the purpose of casting a fishing line while from the fishing reel.
Additionally, Park teaches a fishing gear comprising:
a fishing rod 20; and
the fishing reel 10 mounted at the fishing rod 20 (See Park, Fig. 1).
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 reel of Hamayasu in a fishing gear with a fishing rod, as taught by Park, for the purpose of casting a fishing line from the fishing reel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30am-7:30pm ET.
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 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights