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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-13, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McZilkey; Donald (US 20190208757 A1), in view of CHOI SANG YOUNG (KR 20130119677 A); (see attached translation), in view of JOHN TOSI (US 2252358 A), in view of Morris; Earl F. et al. (US 3913256 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 20 McZilkey discloses A visible fish strike indicator (title); (abstract), comprising: a buoyant main housing (200) having a horizontal center axis and a center of gravity beneath the horizontal center axis (Fig. 1), whereby the main housing is configured to normally float in an upright horizontal position on a water body (structurally capable of floating horizontally);
an indicator illumination assembly (300) supported by the main housing, the indicator illumination assembly including: a power source (Fig. 1; 511); [0037] for providing electrical power to the indicator illumination assembly;
an accelerometer (520) interfacing with the power source and receiving the electrical power from the power source, the accelerometer for sensing specific directions and patterns of movement of the visual fish strike indicator [0039], and generating fish strike indicator position data, a microprocessor (540) interfacing with the accelerometer and the power source, the microprocessor for receiving the fish strike indicator position data and generating operation command data based on the specific directions and patterns of movement of the visual fish strike indicator [0040]; an RGB LED system [0037].
McZilkey does not disclose a ballast portion disposed in a lower main housing sidewall portion of the main housing beneath the horizontal center axis, the ballast portion imparting a greater weight to the lower main housing sidewall portion than an upper main housing sidewall portion such that a center of gravity of the main housing is positioned beneath the horizontal center axis.
Choi teaches a ballast portion (Fig. 4; 140); [0017] disposed in a lower main housing sidewall (disposed in sidewall portion of 120) portion of the main housing beneath the horizontal center axis, the ballast portion imparting a greater weight to the lower main housing sidewall portion than an upper main housing sidewall portion such that a center of gravity of the main housing is positioned beneath the horizontal center axis (Fig. 4); [0020].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lower main housing sidewall of McZilkey to include a ballast portion disposed in a lower main housing sidewall portion of the main housing beneath the horizontal center axis, the ballast portion imparting a greater weight to the lower main housing sidewall portion than an upper main housing sidewall portion such that a center of gravity of the main housing is positioned beneath the horizontal center axis, as taught by Choi, in order to flexibly cope with external influences [0001].
McZilkey in view of Choi does not disclose a light-transmissible light housing having a light housing interior detachably supported by the main housing.
Tosi teaches a light-transmissible light housing (Fig. 1; 4); (page 2, lines 5-9) having a light housing interior detachably supported by the main housing (page 1, lines 42-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main housing of McZilkey in view of Choi to include a light-transmissible light housing having a light housing interior detachably supported by the main housing, as taught by Tosi, in order to provide the convenience of replacement of damaged parts.
McZilkey further discloses resistors which would interface with the microprocessor [0036]; (additionally current limiting resistors are well known within the art), but does not explicitly disclose a current limiting resistor system interfacing with an LED system. Morris teaches a current limiting resistor system interfacing with an LED system (Fig. 2; 82); (Col. 5, lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the resistors of McZilkey in view of Choi and Tosi to include a current limiting resistor system interfacing with an LED system, as taught by Morris, in order to limit the current connected to the light (Col. 5, lines 31-35), thus preventing excessive current damage and providing a desired level of voltage.
Note that in order to function as intended the combined device of McZilkey, Choi, Tosi, and Morris meets the functional limitation requiring the current limiting resistor system configured to receive the operation command data from the microprocessor and provide an electrical current.
Regarding claim 2 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris further discloses wherein the light housing threadably engages the main housing (Tosi; (page 1, lines 42-52)).
Regarding claim 3 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey does not disclose a line attachment cleat extending from the main housing.
Tosi teaches a line attachment cleat extending from the main housing (Fig. 1; 24, 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main housing of McZilkey in view of Morris to include a line attachment cleat, as taught by Tosi, in order to provide additional line attachments, for wrapping the fishing line in a desired manner.
Regarding claim 4 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris further discloses wherein the line attachment cleat is disposed beneath the horizontal center axis (corresponding to the waterline of Tosi; where the cleat is below the water line, Fig. 2) of the main housing.
Regarding claim 5 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris further discloses wherein the accelerometer is configured to detect an initialization sequence and generate an initialization data (McZilkey; [0046]), wherein the microprocessor is configured to receive the initialization data and send an operation command to the current limiting resistor provide current provided to the RGB LED system (in combination, the device of McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris would function as intended since all of the elements required by the claim are disclosed by the prior art, and since McZilkey discloses all of the elements are programmable as desired by a user [0036], thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim).
Regarding claim 11 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey further discloses wherein fish strike indicator data includes a Sleep State pattern, wherein the microprocessor receives the fish strike indicator data and transitions the visual fish strike indicator in a Sleep State [0046].
Regarding claim 12 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey further discloses wherein the fish strike indicator data includes a wake-up pattern, wherein the microprocessor receives the wake-up pattern and activates the visual fish strike indicator [0040]; [0046];.
Regarding claim 13 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris further discloses wherein the fish strike indicator data includes a color change pattern [0041], wherein the microprocessor receives the fish strike indicator data including the color change pattern and provides the operation command data to the current limiting resistor, wherein the current limiting resistor receives the operation command and provides current to the RGB LED system to change the color of the visible light emitted in the light housing.
Regarding claim 17 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. McZilkey wherein the initialization movement sequence comprises a back-and-forth movement of the visible fish strike indicator [0046]; (corresponding to a user moving the rig from the cap-up (back) to the cap-down orientation (forth), but does not explicitly disclose along at least one horizontal axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an obvious substitution of functional equivalent, to substitute the back and forth orientation of McZilkey, for the claimed back and forth motion along a horizontal axis, in order to more easily turn on the device, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results, and since the disclosure does not state that the claimed action solves any stated problem.
Regarding claim 19 McZilkey, in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. McZilkey, in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris wherein the current limiting resistor system selectively varies [0036]-[0037] electrical current delivered to individual LED dies of the RGB LED system to generate different visible colors (corresponding to the flashing and intermittent flashing action disclosed in McZilkey).
Claim(s) 6-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McZilkey; Donald (US 20190208757 A1), in view of CHOI SANG YOUNG (KR 20130119677 A), in view of JOHN TOSI (US 2252358 A), in view of Morris; Earl F. et al. (US 3913256 A), further in view of Bainter; James R. et al. (US 20210339836 A1).
Regarding claim 6 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris does not disclose a Self-Test sequence. Bainter teaches a self-test sequence [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microprocessor and accelerometer of McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, and Morris to begin a self-test sequence, as taught by Bainter, in order to relay to a user that all elements are functioning appropriately [0056-58].
Regarding claim 7 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris, and Bainter discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris and Bainter further discloses wherein the microprocessor is configured to receive a voltage value from the power source and compare the power source voltage value to a predetermined voltage value [0058].
Regarding claim 8 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris, and Bainter discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris and Bainter further discloses a sleep mode (Bainter; [0055]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the microprocessor places the fish strike indicator in Sleep Mode when the microprocessor determines that power source voltage value is less than the predetermined voltage value.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sleep mode of McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris and Bainter to include placing the fish strike indicator in sleep mode when the microprocessor determines that power source voltage value is less than the predetermined voltage value in order to conserve power.
Regarding claim 9 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris, and Bainter discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris and Bainter further discloses wherein the microprocessor sends a command data to the current limiting resistor to provide the electrical current to the RGB LED system to emit light when the microprocessor determines that the power source voltage level is greater than the predetermined voltage value (Bainter; [0061]; corresponding to, in order to pass the test the voltage must be above 2.6V, and thus a green light is emitted).
Regarding claim 10 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris, and Bainter discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. McZilkey further discloses wherein the accelerometer senses fish strike data [0040], and provides the fish strike data to the microprocessor, wherein the microprocessor receives the fish strike data and provides a fish strike command data to the current limiting resistor, wherein the current limiting resistor receives the fish strike data and provides multiple currents to the RGB LED system for causing the RGB LED system to emit in multiple color and varying speeds [0036-37].
Regarding claim 18 McZilkey in view of Choi, Tosi, Morris, and Bainter discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. McZilkey further discloses wherein the RGB LED system emits different color patterns corresponding to different detected movement patterns of the visible fish strike indicator [0039-0041].
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McZilkey; Donald (US 20190208757 A1), in view of CHOI SANG YOUNG (KR 20130119677 A); (see attached translation), in view of Morris; Earl F. et al. (US 3913256 A).
Regarding claim 14 McZilkey discloses a visible fish strike indicator (title; abstract), comprising: a buoyant housing (200) configured to float in an upright horizontal orientation on a water body (structurally capable of floating horizontally); an accelerometer (520) configured to detect movement patterns of the buoyant housing and generate movement data [0039]; a microprocessor (540) configured to receive the movement data and generate operation command data based on the movement data [0040]; and an RGB LED system configured to receive electrical current from the current limiting resistor system and emit multiple visible light patterns responsive to the operation command data [0037].
McZilkey does not disclose a ballast portion disposed in a lower portion of the buoyant housing such that a center of gravity of the buoyant housing is positioned beneath a horizontal center axis of the buoyant housing.
Choi teaches a ballast portion (Fig. 4; 140); [0017] disposed in a lower portion of the buoyant housing such that a center of gravity of the buoyant housing is positioned beneath a horizontal center axis of the buoyant housing (Fig. 4); [0020].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lower main housing sidewall of McZilkey to include a ballast portion disposed in a lower portion of the buoyant housing such that a center of gravity of the buoyant housing is positioned beneath a horizontal center axis of the buoyant housing, as taught by Choi, in order to flexibly cope with external influences [0001].
McZilkey further discloses resistors which would interface with the microprocessor [0036]; (additionally current limiting resistors are well known within the art), but does not explicitly disclose a current limiting resistor system interfacing with an LED system. Morris teaches a current limiting resistor system interfacing with an LED system (Fig. 2; 82); (Col. 5, lines 31-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the resistors of McZilkey in view of Choi to include a current limiting resistor system interfacing with an LED system, as taught by Morris, in order to limit the current connected to the light (Col. 5, lines 31-35), thus preventing excessive current damage and providing a desired level of voltage.
Note that in order to function as intended the combined device of McZilkey, Choi, and Morris meets the functional limitation requiring the current limiting resistor system configured to receive the operation command data from the microprocessor and provide an electrical current.
Regarding claim 15 McZilkey, in view of Choi and Morris, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. McZilkey, in view of Choi and Morris further appears to disclose wherein the ballast portion comprises a thickened lower main housing sidewall (Choi; Fig. 2; 140; [0019]) portion having a greater thickness than an upper main housing sidewall portion (Fig. 2).
However, should the applicant disagree, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lower main housing sidewall portion of McZilkey, in view of Choi and Morris to be thickened, in order to flexibly cope with external influences [0001] of Choi.
Regarding claim 16 McZilkey, in view of Choi and Morris, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. McZilkey, in view of Choi and Morris wherein the ballast portion causes the visible fish strike indicator to self-orient from a tilted orientation back to the upright horizontal position on the water body (Fig. 4); [0021].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, directed to the amended ballast components, 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.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant argues that neither McZilkey nor Tosi discusses repair or replacement. However, one of ordinary skill would recognize that separation of parts, which allows increased access to the interior where the components are held improves the ease of replacement and repair of parts.
Applicant’s argument that, “Rather, the claims require: (i) a current limiting resistor system; (ii) interfacing with the microprocessor; (iii) receiving operation command data; (iv) controlling electrical current; and (v) interfacing with the RGB LED system. This is a coordinated operational architecture involving defined signal and current-flow relationships. The Office Action never actually maps these claimed interrelationships onto the cited references.” This is not found persuasive. As shown in the rejection above, McZilkey explicitly discloses a resistor which interfaces with the microprocessor. In order to create the desired flashing described in McZilkey, there would need to be a current limiting resistor. However, in order to ensure the claim is met in its entirety, the Examiner stated that if these features were not disclosed by the prior art, then it would have been obvious to include them, and since Morris discloses a current limiting resistor.
The rest of the claim upon which applicant argues is based on a functional limitation, “configured to”, “for receiving”, “for sensing”, etc.. However, the structure of the combined device of the prior art references could function in the same manner.
In response to applicant’s argument, “The Office Action further alleges that the prior art discloses: (i) initialization sequence detection; (ii) initialization data generation; (iii) microprocessor command generation; and (iv) operational command transmission. The Office Action then asserts that: “all of the elements are programmable as desired by a user.” This assertion is legally insufficient. The existence of a programmable processor does not disclose every claimed operational sequence. Otherwise, every programmable controller would inherently disclose every conceivable control algorithm.” Is not found persuasive since all of the claimed elements are disclosed by the prior art. The statement, “all of the elements are programmable as desired by a user”, was to indicate that the combined device would function as intended based on the configured to language recited by the claim, since the prior art discloses the structure for performing the intended use.
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 BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm PST.
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 at 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
