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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s claims filed 3/25/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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, 6, and 8 (and dependent claims 2-5 and 7) 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. The limitation “secured to the rod blank adjacent the butt end of the rod tip” does not make sense because the butt end and rod tip are at opposite ends of the rod blank.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Any claims that depend upon claims rejected above are also considered rejected via dependency.
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oyama (US 5,291,684).
Regarding claim 1, Oyama discloses:
A reel seat for a fishing rod having a rod blank with a butt end and a rod tip, comprising: a body having a proximal end and a distal end and a middle portion therebetween, wherein only the proximal end of the body is directly secured to the rod blank adjacent the butt end of the rod tip (see fig 1), wherein the middle portion and the distal end of the body are spaced from an exterior surface of a portion of the rod blank passing through the middle portion and the distal end of the body (see fig 1); and wherein the body further comprises at least a first opening (see fig 1, the instance of 12P furthest from the butt) in a bottom side of the distal end of the body, the first opening configured to allow at least one of a user's fingers to directly contact the rod blank (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 2, Oyama discloses:
The reel seat for a fishing rod of claim 1, wherein the first opening is configured to allow at least the user's index finger to directly contact the rod blank (see fig 5), and the body further comprising: a second opening (see fig 1, the instance of 12P closest to the butt) in the bottom side of the middle portion of the body, the second opening configured to allow at least one of the user's ring and pinky fingers to directly contact the rod blank (see fig 5); and an integral connection section separating the first and second openings from one another (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Oyama discloses:
The reel seat of claim 1, further comprising a front reel foot cavity on a top side adjacent the distal end of the body (see fig 2, ref 24).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama (US 5,291,684) in view of Oyama et al. (US 5,337,507), hereinafter 507.
Regarding claim 4, Oyama discloses the reel seat of claim 1 and a rear reel foot component having a rear reel foot cavity (see fig 2, ref 26), but does not disclose the rear reel foot component configured to slide onto and along the proximal end of the body. 507 teaches a similar device having a rear reel foot component configured to slide onto and along the proximal end of the body (see figs 7 and 8 and col 5, lines 14-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to move the sliding reel foot component from the front to the rear since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Omaya as modified discloses:
The reel seat of claim 4, wherein the proximal end of the body further comprises external threads and further comprising a locking nut having internal threads and configured to engage the external threads of the body and be advanced or retracted along the proximal end of the body to position the rear reel foot component (see figs 7 and 8 and col 5, lines 14-32).
Regarding claim 6, see the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 7, see the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm EST.
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 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights