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 IDS filed 3/30/2026.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grahl (US PG Pub 2016/0044903).
Regarding claim 1, Grahl 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 blank (see at least fig 1A and paragraph 0034 – notably the bait casting configuration), wherein the middle portion and the distal end of the body are spaced from an exterior surface of the rod blank passing through the middle portion and the distal end of the body, thereby allowing limited radial movement of the rod blank within the middle portion and distal end of the body (see at least fig 1A and paragraph 0034); and wherein the body further comprises at least a first opening 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 at least paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 3, Grahl 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 paragraph 0034 and fig 3).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grahl (US PG Pub 2016/0044903) in view of Oyama et al. (US 5,337,507).
Regarding claim 4, Grahl discloses the reel seat of claim 1 and a rear reel foot component having a rear reel foot cavity (see fig 3), but does not disclose the rear reel foot component configured to slide onto and along the proximal end of the body. Oyama 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, Grahl 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 Oyama figs 7 and 8 and col 5, lines 14-32).
Regarding claim 6, see the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7 are 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.
Claim 8 is allowed.
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).
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 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