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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claim 1 is amended, claims 2-5, 7-8 are original or previously presented.
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 11/18/2024, 06/02/202, 12/15/2025, 04/27/2026, 06/24/2026 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, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 4653217 A) to Ohmura in view of (US 5263275 A) to Rumbaugh and (JP 2022085176 A) to Ushinohama.
In regards to claim 1, Ohmura teaches a fishing rod comprising a base rod (Ohmura; fishing rod 5), a grip and a reel seat adjacent to each other on an outer side of the base rod (Ohmura; grip 4 and reel seat 1 adjacent to each other, see FIG 2), and a ring member is between the grip and the reel seat (Ohmura; see annotated O1 in FIGs 1 and 2 below with the ring member between the grip 4 and reel seat 1), wherein an extension portion that protrudes in an axial direction is on an end surface of the grip (Ohmura; 12), the end surface being adjacent to the reel seat (Ohmura; end surface of 12 is adjacent to reel seat 1), a part of the reel seat overlaps the extension portion at an outer position in a radial direction (Ohmura; portion of 1 overlaps 12, see FIG 2), the ring member is interposed and fixed between the reel seat and a part of the grip on the extension portion (Ohmura; see annotated FIGs 1 and 2 below where the ring member is interposed and fixed between the reel seat 1 and grip 4 and on the extension portion 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ohmura fails to teach the reverse, wherein an extension portion that protrudes in an axial direction is on an end surface of the reel seat, a part of the grip overlaps the extension portion at an outer position in a radial direction; and an outer diameter of the ring member is less than an outer diameter of the adjacent reel seat at a position directly adjacent to the ring member and an outer diameter of the grip at a position directly adjacent to the ring member.
Rambaugh teaches wherein an extension portion that protrudes in an axial direction is on an end surface of the reel seat (Rambaugh; reel seat 31 with an extension portion which extends inside of grip 22), the end surface being adjacent to the grip (Rambaugh; end surface of reel seat being adjacent to the grip), a part of the grip overlaps the extension portion at an outer position in a radial direction (Rambaugh; see where grip 22 overlaps with the extension portion at annotated R1).
PNG
media_image2.png
275
617
media_image2.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 Ohmura such that the joint structures of the grip and reel seat are reversed, where there is an extension portion which protrudes from an end surface of the reel seat rather than an end surface of the grip, such that the grip overlaps the extension portion such as taught by Rambaugh. The motivation for doing so would be to ensure the grip is fully secured over the rod and the end of the reel seat and to provide support for the grip.
Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh fail to teach an outer diameter of the ring member is less than an outer diameter of the adjacent reel seat at a position directly adjacent to the ring member and an outer diameter of the grip at a position directly adjacent to the ring member.
Ushinohama teaches an outer diameter of the ring member is less than an outer diameter of the adjacent reel seat at a position directly adjacent to the ring member and an outer diameter of the grip at a position directly adjacent to the ring member (Ushinohama; flange 31 having an outer diameter less than an outer diameter of 2 and 3 directly adjacent to it, see FIG 3; also “The outer diameter of the flange portion 31 is the same as or slightly smaller than the outer diameter of the end portion of the reel seat 2 on the rod base side and the outer diameter of the end portion of the grip 3 on the rod tip side.” See translation).
PNG
media_image3.png
598
457
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 Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh such that the outer diameter of the ring member is less than an outer diameter of the adjacent reel seat at a position directly adjacent to the ring member and an outer diameter of the grip at a position directly adjacent to the ring member as taught by Ushinohama. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the ring of a smaller diameter than the reel seat and grip, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the outer diameter size of the ring being lesser than the grip and reel seat is not critical, at least because the specification suggests that this diameter can be equal to or smaller [0024], and the drawings demonstrate outer diameters of the ring which are the same as the immediate outer diameter of the grip and reel seat. Paragraph [0025] suggests that the diameter being equal to or smaller than the outer diameter of the reel seat and grip is advantageous because the ring does not protrude, however this supports both a ring of equal diameter or lesser, which suggests that the diameter specifically being lesser is not critical as the same advantages could be achieved from a ring which is equal to in diameter. Therefore making the diameter of the ring smaller would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for such a modification so would be to reduce the size of the ring to prevent bulging that would interfere with the grip.
In regards to claim 2, Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh and Ushinohama teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, wherein an annular recessed portion is on an end surface on the reel seat side of the grip (Ohmura; where the annular recessed portion is formed between 1 and 4 due to 12, the recessed portion has the ring portion O1 placed inside it) (Rambaugh teaching the reversal of parts above), the extension portion is fixed to an inner surface of a wall portion forming the annular recessed portion (Ohmura; extension portion 12 is fixed to an inner surface of a wall portion of 4; reversed in view of Rambaugh such that the extension portion is on an inner wall of the reel seat such as seen in Rambaugh FIG 5), and the ring member is interposed between the reel seat and an end surface of the wall portion (Ohmura; see FIGs 1-2 where the ring member (O1 is interposed between the reel seat and an end surface of the wall portion) (Rambaugh teaching the reversal of parts above).
In regards to claim 3, Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh and Ushinohama teach the fishing rod according to claim 2, wherein a step portion is on the reel seat side of the wall portion, and the ring member is fixed on the step portion (Ohmura; 12 forming a step portion; either stepping up to the upper surface of 4 or stepping down over the edge of 12; Ohmura’s ring O1 fixed to this step portion) (Rambaugh teaching the reversal of parts; Rambaugh also teaching a step up from R1 to the upper surface of the reel seat, or down from the edge of R1) .
In regards to claim 5, Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh and Ushinohama teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, an axial length from the distal end of the extension portion to a position where the ring member abuts on a part of the grip is equal to or less than the axial length of the extension portion (Ohmura; see FIGs 1 and 2 where the length from the distal end of the extension portion 12 to the position where the ring O1 abuts 4 is less than the overall length of 12 (the reversal of structures with Rambaugh having overlapped grip 22 over the extension portion R1)).
Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh and Ushinohama fail to explicitly teach wherein the extension portion has an axial length of 4.5 mm or more from a distal end, and an axial length from the distal end of the extension portion to a position where the ring member abuts on a part of the grip is equal to or less than the axial length of the extension portion and is equal to or greater than 3.5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the obvious matter of design choice to adjust the range of length of the extension portion to 4.5 mm or more from a distal end, and such that an axial length from the distal end of the extension portion to a position where the ring member abuts on a part of the grip is equal to or greater than 3.5 mm. The lengths of the extension portion are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the length to be 4.5 mm or more and an axial length from the distal end of the extension portion to a position where the ring member abuts on a part of the grip is equal to or greater than 3.5 mm could provide benefits to the reel seat and grip connection by providing a long enough extension portion to connect with the grip portion, while providing space for the ring, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art 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. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, applicant does not provide criticality for these ranges. [0026] describes the lengths L1 and L2 but does not state the criticality of these specific lengths. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to use an extension portion with a length of 4.5 mm or more and a ring of about 1 mm in the construction of Nakao such that an axial length from the distal end of the extension portion to a position where the ring member abuts on a part of the grip is equal to or greater than 3.5 mm. The motivation for doing so would be to provide space on the extension portion for securement of portions of the device and ample coverage from overlapping structures when pieced together.
In regards to claim 7, Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh and Ushinohama teach the fishing rod according to claim 1, wherein a spacer is interposed between the base rod and the reel seat (Ohmura; the spacer being the portion O2 annotated below which creates the slanted portion and gap at 16), and the spacer forms a gap surrounded by an end surface of the spacer, an end surface of the reel seat, and an inner surface of the extension portion (Ohmura; the gap is surrounded by an end surface of the spacer at annotated O3, an end surface of the reel seat 1 at the top of 16, and an inner surface of the extension portion 12).
Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh and Ushinohama also teach the reversal of the joint, where the spacer forms a gap surrounded by an end surface of the spacer, an end surface of the grip, and an inner surface of the extension portion (Ohmura as modified by Rambaugh to reverse the parts of the joint such that the extension portion is on the reel seat would configure the grip such that the gap is bounded by the end surface of the spacer, the end surface of the grip, and the inner surface of the extension portion).
PNG
media_image4.png
439
702
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 8 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 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. Specifically, Ushinohama is used to teach the amended claim language.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights