DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/060,007 filed 2/21/2025 which is a CON of application 18/740,760 (US PATENT 12239114), which is a CIP of 18/621,354 (US PATNET 12349667).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 previously rejected. Claim 13 previously withdrawn. Claims 17-22 new.
In response to the terminal disclaimer filed 1/12/2026, the previous rejection of claims 14-16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,114 B1 (hereinafter ‘114) is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (Specifically see Figs 17-24 illustrating elected Species II).
wherein at least three of the plurality of pieces of reflective material are on a first side of the body
wherein the hook is fixedly attached to a rear side of the body by a shank and the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is attached to the surface of the rear side of the body
wherein the eyelet is attached to a top side of the body and the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is attached to the surface of the top side of the body
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 18-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18: “The lure of claim[[s]] 17…”
Claim 20 appears to be a duplicate of claim 19. Recommend deleting one of the two claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-7, 11-12, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blicha (US 5,564,220)(hereinafter Blicha).
RE Claim 1: Blicha discloses a lure (10) comprising:
a body (11) having a surface (outer surface of 11);
an eyelet (15) attached to the body (11)(Fig 1); and
a hook (13) fixedly attached to the body (11) by a shank (Figs 1-3);
wherein a plurality of pieces of reflective material (16 on right/left sides) are attached to the surface (outer surface of 11) of the body (11);
wherein a first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is at a first angle (angle formed with respect to vertical, another with respect to horizontal)(Fig 6);
wherein a second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is at a first angle (angle formed with respect to vertical, another with respect to horizontal)(Fig 6); and
wherein the first angle of the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is different than the first angle of the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material (Fig 6).
RE Claim 2: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein the first angle of the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is a compound angle and the first angle of the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is a compound angle (insomuch as Applicant’s first angle of the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is a compound angle, so is the first angle in Blicha and insomuch as Applicant’s first angle of the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is a compound angle so is the first angle in Blicha)(also see page 6-7 of the remarks dated 7/15/2024 of parent application 18/621,354 for discussion on compound angles).
RE Claim 3: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is the first angle away from a longitudinal axis of the lure (see annotated Fig 6 below, longitudinal axis of the lure would extend into the page) and
the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is the first angle away from the longitudinal axis of the lure (see annotated Fig 6 below, longitudinal axis of the lure would extend into the page).
RE Claim 4: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is a second angle away from a vertical axis of the lure (see Fig 6 reproduced and annotated below);
wherein the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is a second angle away from the vertical axis of the lure (see Fig 6 reproduced and annotated below); and
wherein the second angle of the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is different than the second angle of the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material (see Fig 6 reproduced and annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
253
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 6. Reproduced and Annotated
RE Claim 5: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 4,
wherein a cartesian plane of the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is different than a cartesian plane of the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material (Fig 6).
RE Claim 6: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein at least two of the plurality of pieces of reflective material are on a first side of the body (22 and 16 on right side).
RE Claim 7: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 6,
wherein at least two of the plurality of pieces of reflective material are on a second side of the body (22 and 16 on left side).
RE Claim 11: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein the body (11) has a plurality of panels (right and left sides) and each one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material (16) is attached to different one of the plurality of panels (16 on right side, 16 on left side)(also see col 2, ln 30-33).
RE Claim 12: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein the reflective material is a sticker (16)(col 2, ln 30 -33).
RE Claim 19 and 20: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein at least three of the plurality of pieces of reflective material are on a first side of the body (insomuch as Applicant’s at least three of the plurality of pieces of reflective material are on a first side of the body, so are 16 and 22 in Blicha
RE Claim 21: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein the hook is fixedly attached to a rear side of the body by a shank (hook 13) and the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is attached to the surface of the rear side of the body (insomuch as Applicant’s at least three of the plurality of pieces of reflective material are on a first side of the body, so are 16 and 22 in Blicha)(compare with Applicant’s Figs 17-24).
RE Claim 22: Blicha discloses the lure of claim 1,
wherein the eyelet (15) is attached to a top side of the body (Figs 1, 3, 4, 6) and the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is attached to the surface of the top side of the body (insomuch as Applicant’s first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is attached to the top side of the body, so is 16 and 22 in Blicha)(compare with Applicant’s Figs 17-24).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument that Blicha fails to teach the subject matter in claim 1 including “wherein the first angle of the first one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material is different than the first angle of the second one of the plurality of pieces of reflective material” is not persuasive.
Applicant notes, “As seen in Blicha, the jig body is pyramidally shaped, meaning that the angle of the left side of the main body portion and the right side of the main body portion are the same…” and “because the angle of the sides are the same, the angle of the strips 16 and eyes 22 would be the same.”
The examiner agrees with Applicant that the magnitude (value) of the aforementioned angles are the same, however, one is positive and one is negative.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Claims 17-18 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in combination, the details of a first one of the at least two of the plurality of pieces of reflective material on the first side of the body has a first angle that is the same (emphasis added) as a first angle of a first one of the at least two of the plurality of pieces of reflective material on the second side of the body, along with the remaining limitations of the claim.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 dated 11/3/2025.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various fishing lures and jig heads with reflective materials to attract prospective game fish.
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 MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights