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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 and 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/18/2025.
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 1-8 and 10 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.
In regard to claim 1, line 6, the second occurrence of the term “bait” renders the claim vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the “bait” is the same structure or different structure from the previous recitations of the terms “a bait” at line 1 and “the bait” at line 6. This term should be rewritten as --the bait--.
In regard to claim 2, the phrase “wherein the rig body includes a first portion between the first end and the eyelet” recites the same subject matter as the phrase “wherein the rig body includes a first portion between the first end and the eyelet” at lines 4-5 of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by EP 2926650 to Furuya.
In regard to claim 1, Furuya discloses a fishing rig for use with a bait, the fishing rig comprising: a rig body (20,50d) including a first end (upper end of 20 in Fig. 8a) and a second end (lower end of 50d in Figs. 8a-b); an eyelet (21) located on the rig body spaced from the first end, wherein the eyelet extends from the rig body in a first direction (to the left in Fig. 8a), wherein the rig body includes a first portion (upper half of 20 in Fig. 8a) between the first end (upper end of 20 in Fig. 8a) and the eyelet (21) adapted to penetrate and deform an inner volume of the bait to securely engage the rig within the bait (upper end of 20 in Fig. 8a is capable of penetrating and deforming an inner volume of a bait that is placed thereover); and a hook (31-34) extending from the second end of the rig body, wherein the hook includes a proximal end and a distal end, and wherein the distal end extends from the rig body in the first direction (the eyelet 21 and the bend 32 extend in the same direction to the left in Fig. 8a).
In regard to claim 2, Furuya discloses wherein the rig body includes a first portion (upper half of 20 in Fig. 8a) between the first end (upper end of 20 in Fig. 8a) and the eyelet (21), wherein the first portion is tapered (outer surface of 20 tapers from the right to the left in Fig. 8a).
In regard to claim 3, Furuya discloses wherein a shaped portion (54a) of the rig body located between the eyelet (21) and the second end (lower end of 50d in Figs. 8a-b) increases a strength of engagement between the rig body and the bait (shrimp) into which it is inserted.
In regard to claim 4, Furuya discloses wherein the shaped portion (54a) of the rig body includes one or more of: a stepped, frustoconical shape; a cylindrical spiral screw shape; and a ridged or ribbed shape (54a represents a ridged or ribbed shape in Figs. 8a-b).
In regard to claim 5, Furuya discloses wherein the shaped portion (54a) of the rig body is configured to increase at least one of friction and normal force (projections 54a make it more unlikely that a soft shrimp comes off the hook portion 30 piercing the shrimp) between the rig body (20,50d) and the bait (shrimp).
In regard to claim 10, Furuya discloses wherein the bait (shrimp; bait not being positively recited as part of the invention) is one of a fluke style bait, a flat tail worm bait, a craw bait (shrimp is similar in shape to a crawfish), a soft stick bait, a soft jerkbait, a paddle tail swimbait, and a pin tail swimbait.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by FR 3063205 to Le Calvez.
In regard to claim 1, Le Calvez discloses a fishing rig for use with a bait, the fishing rig comprising: a rig body (see Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) including a first end (left end of jig head in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) and a second end (right end with triangular shaped projection which is downwardly directed in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2); an eyelet (eyelet extending from top side of jig head) located on the rig body spaced from the first end, wherein the eyelet extends from the rig body in a first direction (upwardly in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2), wherein the rig body includes a first portion (nose portion of jig head) between the first end (left end of jig head in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) and the eyelet (eyelet extending from top side of jig head) adapted to penetrate and deform an inner volume of the bait to securely engage the rig within the bait (nose portion of jig head is capable of penetrating and deforming an inner volume of a bait that is placed thereover); and a hook (hook in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) extending from the second end of the rig body, wherein the hook includes a proximal end and a distal end, and wherein the distal end extends from the rig body in the first direction (bend of hook extends upwardly in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2).
In regard to claim 2, Le Calvez discloses wherein the rig body includes a first portion (nose portion of jig head) between the first end (left end of jig head in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) and the eyelet (eyelet extending from top side of jig head), wherein the first portion is tapered (outer surface of jig head tapers from the left to the right in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2).
In regard to claim 3, Le Calvez discloses wherein a shaped portion (see series of frustoconical projections along shank of hook and triangular shaped projection which is downwardly directed in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) of the rig body located between the eyelet (eyelet extending from top side of jig head) and the second end (right end with triangular shaped projection which is downwardly directed in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) increases a strength of engagement between the rig body and the bait (see paddle tail lure in Figs. 8.1-8.4) into which it is inserted.
In regard to claim 4, Le Calvez discloses wherein the shaped portion (see series of frustoconical projections along shank of hook and triangular shaped projection which is downwardly directed in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) of the rig body includes one or more of: a stepped, frustoconical shape (series of frustoconical shaped projections along shank of hook in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2); a cylindrical spiral screw shape; and a ridged or ribbed shape (series of frustoconical shaped projections along shank of hook in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2 present ridged or ribbed shape).
In regard to claim 5, Le Calvez discloses wherein the shaped portion (see series of frustoconical projections along shank of hook and triangular shaped projection which is downwardly directed in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) of the rig body is configured to increase at least one of friction and normal force (series of frustoconical projections along shank of hook and triangular shaped projection which is downwardly directed in Fig. 5.1 or 6.2 increase friction to prevent bait from slipping along shank of hook when installed thereon as shown in Figs. 1.1-1.2) between the rig body (see Fig. 5.1 or 6.2) and the bait (paddle tail lure in Figs. 8.1-8.4).
In regard to claim 10, Le Calvez discloses wherein the bait (see paddle tail lure in Figs. 8.1-8.4) is one of a fluke style bait (see paddle tail lure in Figs. 8.1-8.4 has a general shape of a fluke style bait), a flat tail worm bait, a craw bait, a soft stick bait, a soft jerkbait, a paddle tail swimbait (see paddle tail lure in Figs. 8.1-8.4), and a pin tail swimbait.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2026650 to Furuya in view of JP 3162057 or JP 2008-173040 to Masu.
In regard to claim 6, Furuya does not disclose a weed guard extending from the rig body, wherein the weed guard has a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being located on the rig body adjacent to the eyelet. JP ‘057 and Masu disclose a weed guard (45 OR 18) extending from the rig body (44 OR 14), wherein the weed guard has a proximal end (lower end of 45 in Fig. 5 OR lower end of 18 in Figs. 1-2) and a distal end (upper end of 45 in Fig. 5 OR upper end of 18 in Figs. 1-2), the proximal end being located on the rig body adjacent to the eyelet (eyelet extending from 44 in Fig. 5 OR 20,24). 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 fishing rig of Furuya such that it further comprises a weed guard extending from the rig body, wherein the weed guard has a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being located on the rig body adjacent to the eyelet in view of JP ‘057 or Masu in order to provide means for protecting the hook from becoming snagged upon oncoming underwater obstructions as the fishing lure is retrieved.
In regard to claim 7, Furuya and JP ‘057 or Masu disclose wherein the weed guard (45 of JP ‘057 or 18 of Masu) extends from the rig body (44 of JP ‘057 OR 14 of Masu) in the first direction and forms an angle with a longitudinal axis of the rig body (see Fig. 5 of JP ‘057 OR see Fig. 2 of Masu).
In regard to claim 8, Furuya and JP ‘057 or Masu disclose wherein a distance between the distal end of the weed guard (upper end of 45 in Fig. 5 OR upper end of 18 in Fig. 2 of Masu) and the longitudinal axis of the rig body (44 of JP ‘057 OR 14 of Masu) is greater (upper end of 45 in Fig. 5 of JP ‘057 extends to a greater height than pointed end of 43 OR upper end of 18 in Fig. 2 of Masu extends to a greater height than 32,34) than a distance between the distal end of the hook (pointed end of 43 in Fig. 5 of JP ‘057 OR at 32,34 of Masu) and the longitudinal axis of the rig body (longitudinal axis of 44 of JP ‘057 in Fig. 5 OR longitudinal axis of 14 of Masu in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3063205 to Le Calvez in view of JP 2008-173040 to Masu.
In regard to claim 6, Le Calvez does not disclose a weed guard extending from the rig body, wherein the weed guard has a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being located on the rig body adjacent to the eyelet. JP ‘057 and Masu disclose a weed guard (45 OR 18) extending from the rig body (44 OR 14), wherein the weed guard has a proximal end (lower end of 45 in Fig. 5 OR lower end of 18 in Figs. 1-2) and a distal end (upper end of 45 in Fig. 5 OR upper end of 18 in Figs. 1-2), the proximal end being located on the rig body adjacent to the eyelet (eyelet extending from 44 in Fig. 5 OR 20,24). 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 fishing rig of Furuya such that it further comprises a weed guard extending from the rig body, wherein the weed guard has a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being located on the rig body adjacent to the eyelet in view of JP ‘057 or Masu in order to provide means for protecting the hook from becoming snagged upon oncoming underwater obstructions as the fishing lure is retrieved.
In regard to claim 7, Le Calvez and and JP ‘057 or Masu disclose wherein the weed guard (45 of JP ‘057 or 18 of Masu) extends from the rig body (44 of JP ‘057 OR 14 of Masu) in the first direction and forms an angle with a longitudinal axis of the rig body (see Fig. 5 of JP ‘057 OR see Fig. 2 of Masu).
In regard to claim 8, Le Calvez JP ‘057 or Masu disclose wherein a distance between the distal end of the weed guard (upper end of 45 in Fig. 5 OR upper end of 18 in Fig. 2 of Masu) and the longitudinal axis of the rig body (44 of JP ‘057 OR 14 of Masu) is greater (upper end of 45 in Fig. 5 of JP ‘057 extends to a greater height than pointed end of 43 OR upper end of 18 in Fig. 2 of Masu extends to a greater height than 32,34) than a distance between the distal end of the hook (pointed end of 43 in Fig. 5 of JP ‘057 OR at 32,34 of Masu) and the longitudinal axis of the rig body (longitudinal axis of 44 of JP ‘057 in Fig. 5 OR longitudinal axis of 14 of Masu in Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to applicant’s argument that “Neither Furuya, no Le Calvez teach a rig body including a first portion between the first end and the eyelet adapted to penetrate and deform an inner volume of the bait to securely engage the rig within the bait, as required by Applicant’s amended claims.”, the Examiner contends that the respective first portions of both Furuya and Le Calvez, as discussed above in the respective rejections, are capable of performing the recited function of claim 1 of “adapted to penetrate and deform an inner volume of the bait to securely engage the right within bait” since any larger bait that is placed over the respective first portions of Furuya and Le Calvez after the respective first portions are inserted therein result in the respective first portions as being capable of penetrating and thereby deforming the inner volumes of the respective baits. Applicant has failed to claim the structure of the first portion of the desired invention in a manner which clearly overcomes the Examiner’s broad yet reasonable interpretation of the Furuya and Le Calvez references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARREN W ARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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.
/DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
DWA