DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 12-22 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see ¶62 and ¶66) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “X”, “Y”, “Z”. 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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Line 1 of the Abstract, the phrase “Provided is” is used. Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶60, the acronym “SUS” should be expanded on first usage.
In ¶70, it is unclear whether the kilopascal amounts are missing superscripted exponents. For example, it’s unclear whether the amount “8.0x105 kPA” should read “8.0x105 kPA”.
In ¶80, the phrase “The diverged portions 2a and 2b are slightly curved (an opening angle is, for example, about 160 to 175° (for example, 170°)) near intermediate positions (for example, about 2/3 of the entire lengths from the tip end portions 3a and 3b) 3d of the diverged portions 2a and 2b” makes it unclear what the reference number “3d” is exactly referring to.
The reference number “3c” is referred to as an “intersection position 3c” (see ¶78) and a “tip end portion 3c” (see ¶80). Examiner recommends amending the limitation to keep the naming consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the term “Zylon” (see ¶62), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13, 18, and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 12 Line 7, the phrase “tip end portions of diverged portions of the substantially Y-shaped portion are” should read “wherein tip end portions of diverged portions of the substantially Y-shaped portion are” for better clarity.
In Claim 13 Line 4, the phrase “in the substantially ring-shaped portion, an outer part” should read “wherein, in the substantially ring-shaped portion, an outer part”.
In Claim 18 Lines 1-2, the phrase “wherein fiber-containing resin composition” should read “wherein the fiber-containing resin composition”.
In Claim 21 Lines 5-6, the phrase “shaping a resin composition having fibers with a 3D printer to obtain a shaped object; and a heating and pressurizing the shaped object” should read “shaping a resin composition having fibers with a 3D printer to obtain a shaped object; and heating and pressurizing the shaped object”.
In Claim 22, the claim is objected to because it includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Examiner recommends amending the limitations “half-mold A” and “half-mold B” to read “a first half-mold” and “a second half-mold”.
In Claim 22 Line 4, the phrase “in the half-mold A and the half-mold B, a recess” should read “wherein, in the half-mold A and the half-mold B, a recess”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-22 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.
Regarding Claim 12, Lines 9-11 of the claim are indefinite because it is unclear whether “the diverged portion” in Lines 9-11 refer to one of the diverged portions mentioned in Line 7 of the claim or to both of the diverged portions mentioned in Line 7 of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation in Lines 9-11 will be interpreted as being reading “the rib is formed in the diverged portions, and an inner part of the diverged portions is thin, an outer part of the diverged portions is thick, and the thick part is the rib”.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 recites the limitation “the fibers” in Line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites the limitation “the fibers” in Line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites the limitation “the fibers” in Line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites the limitation “the fibers” in Line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 20, it is unclear whether the limitation “the diverged portion” in Line 2 of the claim refers to one of the diverged portions mentioned in Line 7 of the parent claim 12 or to both of the diverged portions mentioned in Line 7 of the parent claim 12. For the purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 20 will be interpreted as being reading “wherein a thickness of the rib on the diverged portions is substantially the same as a thickness of the second rib on the substantially ring-shaped portion”.
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 recites the limitation “the surfaces” in Line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In addition, Claim 22 is unclear because it contains apparatus limitations in a method claim.
Claims 13, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 5478351 B2).
Regarding Claim 12, Watanabe teaches a fishing line guide (10), comprising:
A main body portion (shown in Figs. 2-3) of the fishing line guide is made of a fiber-containing resin composition (32; Pg. 4 states that the material 32 comprises fiber-reinforced resin layers 36, 38.),
The main body portion includes a rib (20a),
The main body portion includes a substantially ring-shaped portion (12) and a substantially Y-shaped portion (14),
Wherein tip end portions of diverged portions (20) of the substantially Y-shaped portion (14) are connected to the substantially ring-shaped portion (Fig. 2 shows that the portions 20 of the Y-shaped frame 14 are connected to the ring-shaped portion 12.),
The rib (20a) is formed in the diverged portions (Fig. 6 shows that ribs 20a are formed in the diverged portions 20.), and
The diverged portions have an outer part (20a) and an inner part (20c), wherein the outer part is the rib (20a).
The system of Watanabe teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the inner part of the diverged portions is thin and that the outer part of the diverged portions is thick. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the inner part of the diverged portions be thin and that the outer part of the diverged portions be thick in order to increase structural strength, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
Watanabe further teaches that a second rib (18a) that is formed on the substantially ring-shaped portion (12; see Fig. 6) at a position sandwiched by the diverged portions (Fig. 6 shows that second rib 18a is formed in the ring-shaped portion 12 and is sandwiched between diverged portions 20.), and that the substantially ring-shaped portion at a position sandwiched by the diverged portions includes an outer part (16a) and an inner part (18a; Fig. 6 shows that sandwiched by the diverged portions 12, there is a portion of the ring-shaped portion 12 that includes an outer part 16a and an inner part 18a.), wherein the inner part is the second rib (see Fig. 6).
The system of Watanabe teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the inner part of the diverged portions is thick and that the outer part of the diverged portions is thin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the inner part of the diverged portions be thin and that the outer part of the diverged portions be thick in order to increase structural strength, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 14, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
Watanabe further teaches that carbon fibers are used as the fibers (see Pg. 4; The fibers may be carbon fibers.).
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
Watanabe further teaches that the fiber-containing resin composition comprises a thermosetting resin (stated in Pg. 4).
Regarding Claim 19, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
The system of Watanabe teaches the invention except for the fact that the fishing line guide has a water absorption rate of 2.0% or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify have the fishing line guide of the system of Watanabe have a water absorption rate of 2.0% or less to provide a structural stability and long-term durability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 20, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 13.
The system of Watanabe teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that a thickness of the rib on the diverged portions is substantially the same as a thickness of the second rib on the substantially ring-shaped portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have a thickness of the rib on the diverged portions be substantially the same as a thickness of the second rib on the substantially ring-shaped portion in order to increase structural strength, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 5478351 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Akiba et al. (US 20110239519 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
The system of Watanabe teaches the claimed invention except for the fact the fibers a length of 1 cm or more. Akiba teaches a fishing line guide (1) comprising fibers with a length of 1cm or more (see ¶96; The fibers may be at least 10 mm [which is 1 cm].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the fibers of the system of Watanabe have a length of 1 cm or more as taught by Akiba with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lightweight guide with better performance (Akiba, ¶4), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 16, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
However, the system of Watanabe fails to explicitly state that the fibers are present across the substantially ring-shaped portion and the substantially Y-shaped portion.
Akiba teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a fishing line guide.), the system of Akiba teaches fishing line guide (1) comprises fibers (10) present across the substantially ring-shaped portion and the substantially Y-shaped portion (see Fig. 2; Fibers 10 are present in both the ring-shape portion and the Y-shaped portion.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the fibers be present across the substantially ring-shaped portion and the substantially Y-shaped portion as taught by Akiba with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lightweight guide with better performance (Akiba, ¶4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 5478351 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al. (US 20210259227 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Watanabe, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
The system of Watanabe teaches the invention except for the fact that the fiber-containing resin composition satisfies (amount of the resin)/(amount of the resin + amount of the fibers) = 30/100 to 60/100. Kawamura teaches a fiber-containing resin composition (see ¶160) that satisfies (amount of the resin)/(amount of the resin + amount of the fibers) = 30/100 to 60/100 (See ¶160; The invention teaches a first sheet with a resin content between 40 wt % to 85 wt % relative to the total mass of fibers and resin.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of resin in the composition of the system of Watanabe to satisfy (amount of the resin)/(amount of the resin + amount of the fibers) = 30/100 to 60/100 based on the 40 wt % to 85 wt % taught by Kawamura in order to improve weather resistance (Kawamura, ¶4), since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 5478351 B2) in view of Hirooka et al. (WO 2021112097 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Watanabe teaches a fishing line guide (10), comprising:
A main body portion (shown in Figs. 2-3) of the fishing line guide is made of a fiber-containing resin composition (32; Pg. 4 states that the material 32 comprises fiber-reinforced resin layers 36, 38.),
The main body portion includes a rib (20a),
The main body portion includes a substantially ring-shaped portion (12) and a substantially Y-shaped portion (14),
Wherein tip end portions of diverged portions (20) of the substantially Y-shaped portion (14) are connected to the substantially ring-shaped portion (Fig. 2 shows that the portions 20 of the Y-shaped frame 14 are connected to the ring-shaped portion 12.),
The rib (20a) is formed in the diverged portions (Fig. 6 shows that ribs 20a are formed in the diverged portions 20.), and
The diverged portions have an outer part (20a) and an inner part (20c), wherein the outer part is the rib (20a).
The system of Watanabe teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the inner part of the diverged portions is thin and that the outer part of the diverged portions is thick. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the inner part of the diverged portions be thin and that the outer part of the diverged portions be thick in order to increase structural strength, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
However, the system of Watanabe fails to explicitly state a method for manufacturing a fishing line guide, wherein the method comprises shaping a resin composition having fibers with a 3D printer to obtain a shaped object and heating and pressurizing the shaped object.
Hirooka teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a method for producing a fiber-reinforced resin article.), the system of Hirooka teaches a method for producing a fiber-reinforced resin article comprising the steps of:
Shaping a resin composition having fibers with a 3D printer to obtain a shaped object (stated in Pg. 3 and the Claims; The method teaches a process in which fibers and resins are shaped with a 3D printer to obtain an object.); and
Heating and pressurizing the shaped object (see the Claims; The method teaches a process that the object is pressurized and heated.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a method for manufacturing a fishing line guide, wherein the method comprises shaping a resin composition having fibers with a 3D printer to obtain a shaped object and heating and pressurizing the shaped object as taught by Hirooka with reasonable expectation of success to provide an efficient fishing line guide with excellent mechanical properties (Hirooka, Pg. 2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (JP 5478351 B2) as modified by Hirooka et al. (WO 2021112097 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Akiba et al. (US 20110239519 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, the method of Watanabe as modified by Hirooka, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 21.
The method of Watanabe as modified by Hirooka further teaches (references to Hirooka) that the pressurizing step further comprises use of a mold (see the Claims and Pg. 5; The pressurizing step involves the use of a molding die.).
However, the method of Watanabe as modified by Hirooka fails to explicitly state that the mold includes a first half-mold and a second half-mold, wherein, in the half-molds, a recess having no corners on a concave surface is formed on each of the surfaces opposed to each other of the first half-mold and the second half-mold. The method of Watanabe as modified by Hirooka also fails to explicitly state that the shaped object is disposed in the recess of the half-mold A, and is then covered with the half-mold B, heated and pressurized.
Akiba teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a fishing line guide.), the system of Akiba teaches a mold (50) including a first half-mold (52) and a second half-mold (51), wherein, in the half-molds, a recess is formed on each of the surfaces opposed to each other of the first half-mold and the second half-mold (shown in Fig. 5; Each of the first and second mold 51, 52 has a recess formed on their surfaces opposed to each other.). Furthermore, Akiba teaches that a shaped object (10) is disposed in the recess of the first half-mold and is then covered with the second half-mold, heated and pressurized (see Figs. 4-5 as well as ¶16, ¶67, and Claim 12; Object 10 is disposed in the recess of the first half-mold 52 and is then covered with the second half-mold 51. Then, the object 10 is heated and pressurized.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the method include the mold include a first half-mold and a second half-mold, wherein, in the half-molds, a recess is formed on each of the surfaces opposed to each other of the first half-mold and the second half-mold and to have the shaped object be disposed in the recess of the half-mold A, and is then covered with the half-mold B, heated and pressurized, as taught by Akiba with reasonable expectation of success to provide a lightweight fishing guide with specific strength, stiffness, and flexibility (Akiba, ¶4).
The method of Watanabe as modified by Hirooka and Akiba teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the recess in the half-molds have no corners on a concave surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the recess in the half-molds have no corners on a concave surface to improve the mold’s quality, since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang (US 20210112795 A1) teaches a fishing line guide.
Noda (US 20150150227 A1) teaches a fishing rod having a flexible and durable tip.
Yamamoto (US 4287678 A) teaches a method of producing a line guide for fishing rod.
Inoue et al. (US 4682439 A) teaches a fishline guide for a fishing rod.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights