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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 2/6/26 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11712028 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12262700. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recite the same arrangement of a post, fishing net, rope, actuator, wireless communication, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirot US 3905143 in view of Terry US20150156998.
Regarding claim 6, Poirot teaches a fishing system for fishing in a body of water, comprising:
a post disposed in the body of water (50 figure 1);
a net disposed in the body of water (20);
a rope attached to the post (64/60 figures 1 and 5), a portion of the rope being connected to the net (figures 1 and 5);
an actuator; wherein the actuator is configured to cause the net to rise (132/136 figures 12-13 and described in column 11 line 60-column 12 line 67);
but does not specify a wireless receiver for receiving a wireless signal to control the actuator.
Terry; however, teaches the use of wireless technologies (figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide wireless capabilities; in order to enhance efficient use of the system by a user at a remote location; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; and since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the references teach the fishing system of claim 6, wherein Poirot further teaches the actuator includes a motor (column 13 lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 8, the references teach the fishing system of claim 6, wherein Poirot further teaches the actuator includes a winch (column 13 line 23).
Regarding claim 9, the references teach the fishing system of claim 6, wherein Poirot further teaches the actuator includes a winch, which is configured to rotate a spool in one direction to pull in the rope (see previous rejections); but does not specify and in an opposite direction to let out the rope, thereby controlling a position of the net.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such reverse functions, in order to provide efficient resetting of the system by a user at a remote location as previously described; since if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the references teach the fishing system of claim 6, wherein Terry further teaches further comprising a sensor disposed above or under a surface of the water (1000 figure 10), wherein the sensor includes a camera, an acoustic sensor, an electric inductance sensor, a heat sensor, or a wireless signal tracing receiver (paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such sensor functions; in order to enhance efficient use of the system by a user at a remote location; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the references teach the fishing system of claim 10, wherein the sensor collects data including at least some of time, lightness, temperature, sonic signals, and images, and transmits the data to a mobile device, computer, remote controller, or control center (see previous rejections); but does not specify exactly time, lightness, temperature, sonic signals, and images. However, such type of data is well known and suggested in Terry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such various combinations of data; in order to meet user design preferences for fishing particular types of fish; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the references teach the fishing system of claim 6, wherein Poirot further teaches further comprising a baiting device disposed within the net (66/88 figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, the references teach the fishing system of claim 10, wherein Terry further teaches further comprising a control unit configured to analyze data collected by the sensor and trigger the actuator based on predetermined thresholds (as previously described and summarized in figure 9).
Regarding claim 14, the references teach the fishing system of claim 13, but do not specify wherein the control unit is capable of switching the fishing system from a baiting mode to a harvest mode based on the analyzed data.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such functions, (see previous rejections) in order to provide efficient resetting of the system by a user at a remote location as previously described; since if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; and since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; and it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; and it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644