DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application Status
Claims 27-45 are new and pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1-26 are cancelled.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 05/26/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the main shaft 26 and the solid wire leader 60 appear to be referring to the same wire segment and contrast the description in the claims. It is unclear if these are intended to be separate structures or if one is meant to be a portion of the same structure. See also 112(b) rejection below.
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
Claim 43, 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 43 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Claim 44 “is at about twice”; “at” appears to be an additional word.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 27-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12279604 in view of (US 2315295 A) to Stogermayr.
Claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12279604 include limitations which describe all of the limitations of claims 27-45 of the instant invention, including the main shaft, the solid wire leader, the first and second resistance points and their positionings, the lure holding end (and loop) the entry point, a line attachment end, the arced section crossing the main shaft to create the resistance point and bending away from both sides of the main shaft, and the line holding element is a closed wire twist.
Claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 12279604 differ from the instant claims in that they do not explicitly disclose:
The first length of the solid wire leader is greater than the second length of the main shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is taught by (US 2315295 A) to Stogermayr, wherein the solid wire leader comprises a first length and the main shaft comprises a second length; wherein the first length of the solid wire leader is greater than the second length of the main shaft (Stogermayr; the length of annotated S1 > the length of S2).
Where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the solid wire leader to be greater than the main shaft such that the hooks and lures may be spaced apart to prevent tangling.
The first length of the solid wire leader is at least about twice the second length of the main shaft, or is about twice the second length of the main shaft.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first length of the solid wire leader S1 twice the second length of the main shaft S2, 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). Additionally, the specification does not provide any criticality for this specific length of the first length of the solid wire leader with respect to the main shaft, as the length of the solid wire leader with respect to the length of the main shaft is not described in the specification. The motivation for making the solid wire leader twice the second length of the main shaft would be to provide the user with a spacing between the lure holding portion and the line holding portion to prevent entanglement.
The side of the arced section with the entry point is longer than the side of the arced section which is on the opposite side of the main shaft.
This is taught by (US 2315295 A) to Stogermayr, wherein the side of the arced section with the entry point is longer than the side of the arced section which is on the opposite side of the main shaft (Stogermayr; see FIG 1 or FIG 4 where the portion of the wire with the entry point 16 (the portion length including 16 to the right side of the FIG), is longer than the side of the arced section on the opposite side of S2, which is on the rear side of S2 facing away from the viewer).
Where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the arced section with the entry point to be longer than the opposing arced section to ensure a line or lure is stably secured onto the wire.
PNG
media_image2.png
566
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 27-45 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 claims and disclosure throughout refer to a “solid wire leader” and a “main shaft”, however it is unclear based on the drawings, specification, and claims, what these structures are and how they are different from one another. For example, in FIG 3a, the main shaft 26 appears to be the straight portion of the device between elements 28 and 30. However, in FIG 4, the solid wire leader 60 appears to be referring to at least part of the same straight portion. However in the claims, these are described as two separate structures which extend from each other, with the main shaft being connected to the lure holding end while the solid wire leader is attached to the line attachment, and with an entry point being between the two.
It is unclear if applicant intended to indicate that the solid wire leader is a part or portion of the main shaft, or if the main shaft is a separate and distinct part of the same straight portion of the device.
Claim 35 recites “a line holding element at the main shaft”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what applicant means by “at the main shaft”, and whether or not this is missing a word such as ‘at an end of the main shaft’ or ‘at a position on the main shaft’, as examples.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 28-33, 35-39, 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 28-33, 35-39, and 41-45 all depend on cancelled claims, making it unclear as to their relevant dependencies. The claims have been examined as best understood for the 35 USC 102/103 rejections below.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27, 29-37, 39-43, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 2315295 A) to Stogermayr.
In regards to claim 27, Stogermayr anticipates a monolithic device for connecting a lure, comprising: a main device axis comprising a solid wire leader (Stogermayr as best understood; annotated S1 of 10, see FIG 1) and a main shaft (Stogermayr as best understood; annotated S2 of 10, see FIG 1), the main shaft extending from the solid wire leader along the main device axis (Stogermayr; S2 extending from S1 with 16 between them); a line attachment end configured at one end of the solid wire leader (Stogermayr; the line attachment end at the upper end of FIG 1 extending from S1); a lure holding end configured at one end of the main shaft (Stogermayr; a lure holding end at the lowermost end of FIG 1 at an end of the main shaft S2); a lure holding loop at the lure holding end (Stogermayr; lure holding loop comprised of lower of 16, 15, 11, 17, 14, 13, 12); an entry point configured between the solid wire leader and the main shaft (Stogermayr; the entry point being at 16, which is a point between segments S1 and S2); and wherein the solid wire leader comprises a first length and the main shaft comprises a second length; wherein the first length of the solid wire leader is greater than the second length of the main shaft (Stogermayr; the length of S1 > the length of S2).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 29, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 1, further comprising a first resistance point (Stogermayr; annotated S3 being the first resistance point being about the first curve starting at 16 which engages with the straight part of 10).
In regards to claim 30, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 3, wherein the first resistance point is created at the entry point configured between the solid wire leader and the main shaft (Stogermayr; annotated S3; first resistance point being about the first curve starting at 16, the entry point, and the straight part of 10; being between the entry point and the solid wire leader S1 and the main shaft S2).
In regards to claim 31, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 3, further comprising a second resistance point (Stogermayr; see annotated S4).
In regards to claim 32. Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 5, wherein the second resistance point is created at the lure holding loop (Stogermayr; see annotated S4, where S4 is at the lure holding loop created by 11, 17, 14, 13, 12).
In regards to claim 33, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 1, wherein the first length of the solid wire leader is at least about twice the second length of the main shaft (Stogermayr; the length of the solid wire leader S1 is at least about twice the second length of the main shaft S2, see FIG 1 where S1 is greater than twice the length of S2).
In regards to claim 34, Stogermayr anticipates a monolithic device for connecting a lure, comprising: a main device axis comprising a solid wire leader (Stogermayr as best understood; annotated S1 of 10, see FIG 1) and a main shaft (Stogermayr as best understood; annotated S2 of 10, see FIG 1), the main shaft extending from the solid wire leader along the main device axis (Stogermayr; S2 extending from S1 with 16 between them); a lure holding loop (Stogermayr; lure holding loop comprised of lower 16, 15, 11, 17, 14, 13, 12); an entry point (Stogermayr; the entry point being at 16); an arced section extending from the entry point; and wherein the arced section crosses the main shaft to create a first resistance point (Stogermayr; see where the wire at 16 arcs across the main shaft S2 to create a first resistance point a device would need to pass in order to be secured within the loop).
In regards to claim 35, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 8, further comprising a line holding element at the main shaft (Stogermayr as best understood; 11 being a line holding element at the area of the main shaft S2).
In regards to claim 36, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 8, wherein the arced section bends away from the main shaft on both sides of the main shaft (Stogermayr; the arced section of the wire that extends from 16 and bends about S2 has two portions on either side of S2 which bends away from S2 in order to wrap around S2. See annotated FIG below).
PNG
media_image3.png
241
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 37, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 8, wherein the solid wire leader comprises a first length and the main shaft comprises a second length; wherein the first length of the solid wire leader is greater than the second length of the main shaft (Stogermayr; the length of S1 > the length of S2).
In regards to claim 39, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 8, further comprising a second resistance point (Stogermayr; see annotated S4).
In regards to claim 40, Stogermayr anticipates a monolithic device for connecting a lure, comprising; a main device axis comprising a solid wire leader (Stogermayr as best understood; annotated S1 of 10, see FIG 1) and a main shaft (Stogermayr as best understood; annotated S2 of 10, see FIG 1), the main shaft extending from the solid wire leader along the main device axis (Stogermayr; S2 extending from S1 with the main device axis along 10); a line holding element configured at one end of the solid wire leader (Stogermayr; the line attachment end at the upper end of FIG 1 extending from S1); a lure holding loop configured at one end of the main shaft (Stogermayr; lure holding loop comprised of 16, 15, 11, 17, 14, 13, 12 at the end of main shaft S2); an entry point (Stogermayr; the entry point being at 16); an arced section extending from the entry point (Stogermayr; see where the wire at 16 arcs across the main shaft S2); and wherein the side of the arced section with the entry point is longer than the side of the arced section which is on the opposite side of the main shaft (Stogermayr; see FIG 1 or FIG 4 where the portion of the wire with the entry point 16 (the portion length including 16 to the right side of the FIG), is longer than the side of the arced section on the opposite side of S2, which is on the rear side of S2 facing away from the viewer).
PNG
media_image2.png
566
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 41, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 14, wherein the arced section crossing the main shaft creates a first resistance point (Stogermayr; see where the wire at 16 arcs across the main shaft S2 to create a first resistance point a device would need to pass in order to be secured within the loop).
In regards to claim 42, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 14, wherein the arced section bends away from both sides of the main shaft (Stogermayr; the arced section of the wire that extends from 16 and bends about S2 has two portions on either side of S2 which bends away from S2 in order to wrap around S2. See annotated FIG).
In regards to claim 43, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 14, wherein the solid wire leader comprises a first length and the main shaft comprises a second length; wherein the first length of the solid wire leader is greater than the second length of the main shaft (Stogermayr; the length of S1 > the length of S2).
In regards to claim 45, Stogermayr anticipates the monolithic device of claim 14, further comprising a second resistance point (Stogermayr; see annotated S4).
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.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2315295 A) to Stogermayr in view of (US 2720014 A) to Caldwell.
PNG
media_image4.png
468
148
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 28, Stogermayr teaches the monolithic device of claim 1, further comprising a line holding element at the line attachment end (Stogermayr; 11, 17), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the line holding element comprises a closed wire twist.
Caldwell teaches wherein the line holding element (Caldwell; uppermost eyelet in FIG 1) at the line attachment end (Caldwell; the line attachment end comprised of 12, 9, 6), wherein the line holding element comprises a closed wire twist (Caldwell; the closed wire twist creating the eyelet, see FIG 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Stogermayr such that the line holding element at 17 which connects to a fishing line is modified into a line holding element eyelet with a closed wire twist such as taught by Caldwell. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an area that secures a fishing line and prevents entanglement with the hook connections, while still providing room for a hook connecting line to be threaded onto 12.
Claim(s) 38, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2315295 A) to Stogermayr.
In regards to claim 38, Stogermayr teaches the monolithic device of claim 11, wherein the tackle member may be any desired length (Stogermayr; Col 1 lines 56-Col 2 lines 11).
Stogermayr fails to explicitly teach wherein the first length of the solid wire leader is about twice the second length of the main shaft.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first length of the solid wire leader S1 twice the second length of the main shaft S2, 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). Additionally, the specification does not provide any criticality for this specific length of the first length of the solid wire leader with respect to the main shaft, as the length of the solid wire leader with respect to the length of the main shaft is not described in the specification. The motivation for making the solid wire leader twice the second length of the main shaft would be to provide the user with a spacing between the lure holding portion and the line holding portion to prevent entanglement.
In regards to claim 44, Stogermayr teaches the monolithic device of claim 17, wherein the tackle member may be any desired length (Stogermayr; Col 1 lines 56-Col 2 lines 11).
Stogermayr fails to explicitly teach wherein the first length of the solid wire leader is at about twice the second length of the main shaft.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the first length of the solid wire leader S1 twice the second length of the main shaft S2, 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). Additionally, the specification does not provide any criticality for this specific length of the first length of the solid wire leader with respect to the main shaft, as the length of the solid wire leader with respect to the length of the main shaft is not described in the specification. The motivation for making the solid wire leader twice the second length of the main shaft would be to provide the user with a spacing between the lure holding portion and the line holding portion to prevent entanglement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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, KIMBERLY BERONA can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647