DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
While there is an attorney listed, there is no power of attorney on file.
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 04/09/2026 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1-3, 6, 8-13, 15-19 were amended, and Claims 4-5 and 14 were canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-13, 15-23 are presented for examination.
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 6-7, 9-10, 18-19 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.
For claims 6-7, the limitation “a bulk density” in line 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different bulk density than what was stated in claim 1, line 13? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same bulk density and it is recommended that --the-- be inserted before “bulk density” in claims 6-7.
For claims 9-10, the limitation “a sink rate in calm water” in lines 1-2 is unclear because is it referring to a different sink rate and calm water than what was stated in claim 1, line 15? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same sink rate and calm water and it is recommended that --the-- be inserted before “sink rate” and “calm water” in claims 9-10.
For claims 18-19, the limitation “a sink rate” in lines 1-2 is unclear because is it referring to a different sink rate than what was stated in claim 11, line 13? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same sink rate and it is recommended that --the-- be inserted before “sink rate” in claims 18-19.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter (US 20080066369 A1) in view of Cunningham (US 20100229453 A1) and Brink (US 20150282464 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walter teaches a slow sinking fishing weight (100 [0014-0015] as 100 can be a drifting sinker which are known to be slow sinking) comprising: a body (100) having a rounded exterior (fig. 1) comprising: a central axis (fig. 1 depicts a central axis) that extends from a front end (102) to a back end (104) of the body; a central plate (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) that extends between the front end and the back end of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1), wherein the central plate extends from the central axis towards left and right sides of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1); a mounting hole (105) configured to receive a fishing line therethrough ([0015]), the mounting hole extending between the front end and the back end of the body along the central axis (fig. 1 and [0015] as 105 is suitable to allow for the length of a fishing line to pass through and so will extend between the front end and the back end, also see fig. 2 and [0021] where the bore passes along from the front end to the back end as the bore 205 is similar to bore 105); top channels (108(1), 108(2) and the top channels on the backside of 100 [0015], also see channels 208(1), 208(2), 208(5) and 208(6) as these channels are the same as 108 in fig. 1) that extend from a top of the body towards the central plate (figs. 1-2); top projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have top projections) located between the top channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) which extend upwardly from the central plate (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the top projection is shown to extend upwardly from the central plate); bottom channels (108(3) and bottom channels on the backside of 100 [0015], also see channels 208(3) and 208(4) as these channels are the same as 108 in fig. 1) that extend from a bottom of the body towards the central plate (figs. 1-2); bottom projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have bottom projections) located between the bottom channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) which extend downwardly from the central plate (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the bottom channels extend downwardly from the central plate); a top transverse wall (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) which extends between the left side of the body and the right side of the body in a direction perpendicular to the top channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the top transverse wall extends upward from the top channels and so the top transverse wall extends in a direction perpendicular to the top channels); wherein the fishing weight body comprises a bulk density ([0015] as the drifting sinker will be made from a material having a bulk density to allow it to sink); and wherein the fishing weight has a sink rate in calm water ([0014-0015] as 100 is a sinker, and so will have a sink rate in calm water).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
1316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Walter is silent wherein the top transverse wall extends upwardly from the central plate such that the top transverse wall intersects a middle section of the top channels; the bulk density is between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc; and said sink rate which is less than about 30 cm per second.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the top transverse wall of Walter to extend upwardly from the central plate such that the top transverse wall intersects a middle section of the top channels in order to provide additional support to the slow sinking fishing weight, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Cunningham teaches the fishing weight body (10) wherein the bulk density is between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc ([0026] as 10 can have a density greater than 1 g/cc, and so is between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc).
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 bulk density of Walter to be between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc as taught by Cunningham in order to make the fishing weight body heavier than water so that the fishing weight body can sink ([0026] of Cunningham), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Brink teaches wherein said sink rate is less than about 30 cm per second ([0038] as the sink rate of 30.5 cm in 2 seconds will be 15.25cm per second).
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 sink rate of Walter to be less than about 30 cm per second as taught by Brink in order to have the fishing weight body slowly descend from the surface of the water so as to mimic baitfish and attract the desired game fish ([0034-0035] of Brink), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 1, and Walter further teaches wherein the top channels extend longitudinally along the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) and wherein the top projections comprise longitudinal walls (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the top projections form longitudinal walls) that extend longitudinally along the body between the front end and the back end between the top channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 1, and Walter further teaches wherein the fishing weight lacks a hook (figs. 1-2 and the disclosure does not state that a hook is required), and wherein, in use, a fishing lure containing a hook is attached to the fishing weight via a section of fishing line such that the fishing lure is positioned a distance behind the fishing weight ([0014-0015] as a baited hook may be used and would use a fishing line to facilitate the fishing lure containing the hook to the fishing weight, and so would teach the fishing lure to be positioned a distance behind the fishing weight based on the movement of the fishing lure).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
1316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 1, and Cunningham further teaches wherein the body comprises a bulk density which is between about 1.02 g/cc and about 1.06 g/cc ([0026] as 10 can have a density greater than 1 g/cc).
Regarding claim 7, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 1, and Cunningham further teaches wherein the body is made from a material that has a bulk density which is about 1.04 g/cc ([0026] as 10 can have a density greater than 1 g/cc).
Regarding claim 9, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 1, and Brink further teaches wherein the slow sinking fishing weight sink rate in calm water is between about 5 cm per second and about 20 cm per second ([0038] as the sink rate of 30.5 cm in 2 seconds will be 15.25cm per second).
Regarding claim 10, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 1, and Brink further teaches wherein the slow sinking fishing weight sink rate in calm water is about 10 cm per second ([0038] as the sink rate of 30.5 cm in 3 seconds will be 10.16 cm per second which is about 10 cm per second).
Regarding claim 11, Walter teaches a slow sinking fishing weight (100 [0014-0015] as 100 can be a drifting sinker which are known to be slow sinking) comprising: a body (100) comprising: a central axis (fig. 1 depicts a central axis) that extends from a front end (102) to a back end (104) of the body; a plurality of channels (108(1), 108(2), 108(3) and the plurality of channels on the backside of 100 [0015], also see channels 208(1)-208(6) as these channels are the same as 108 in fig. 1) that each extend inwardly from an exterior of the body (figs. 1-2 [0015]); a plurality of projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have plurality of projections) located between the plurality of channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1); a mount (105) which receives a fishing line ([0015]) to thereby attach the slow sinking fishing weight to the fishing line ([0015]); wherein the fishing weight body is made from a material selected such that a bulk density of the body greater than a density of a water selected from a group consisting of fresh water and ocean water ([0015] as the drifting sinker will be made from a material having a bulk density of the body greater than a density of a water selected from a group consisting of fresh water and ocean water to allow the slow sinking fishing weight to sink); and wherein the plurality of channels and the plurality of projections comprise deep surface features (fig. 1 and [0015]) that create sufficient resistance to movement through the water (fig. 1 and [0015] as the plurality of channels and the plurality of projections will create sufficient resistance when moving through the water) that the fishing weight has a sink rate in the water ([0014-0015] as 100 is a sinker, and so will have a sink rate).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Walter is silent wherein the bulk density of the body is between about 2 percent and about 8 percent greater than a density of the water; and said sink rate which is less than about 30 cm per second.
Cunningham teaches the fishing weight body (10) wherein the bulk density of the body is between about 2 percent and about 8 percent greater than a density of the water ([0026] as 10 can have a density greater than 1 g/cc, and so will have the bulk density of the body be between about 2 percent and about 8 percent greater than a density of the water).
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 bulk density of the body of Walter to be between about 2 percent and about 8 percent greater than a density of the water as taught by Cunningham in order to make the fishing weight body heavier than water so that the fishing weight body can sink ([0026] of Cunningham), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Brink teaches said sink rate which is less than about 30 cm per second ([0038] as the sink rate of 30.5 cm in 2 seconds will be 15.25cm per second).
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 sink rate of Walter to be less than about 30 cm per second as taught by Brink in order to have the fishing weight body slowly descend from the surface of the water so as to mimic baitfish and attract the desired game fish ([0034-0035] of Brink), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, and Walter further teaches wherein the plurality of channels extend longitudinally along the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) and wherein the plurality of projections comprises ribs (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the plurality of projections form ribs) which extend longitudinally from the front of the body to the back of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1), and wherein the fishing weight body comprises a first projection (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the first projection is the first arrow of the top projections closest to the central plate) which extends from a left side to a right side of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1).
However, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink does not teach wherein the first projection extends at a position adjacent a middle section of the body and which intersects the plurality of channels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the slow sinking fishing weight Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink to include wherein the first projection extends at a position adjacent a middle section of the body and which intersects the plurality of channels in order to provide additional support to the slow sinking fishing weight, since a mere change in size or shape of a component 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, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, wherein the body comprises a first projection (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the first projection is the first arrow of the top projections closest to the central plate) which intersects at least one of the plurality of channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) such that a water flow path through said at least one of the plurality of channels is non-linear (the first projection will cause the water flow path to be non-linear when moving through said at least one of the plurality of channels as the water moves through the plurality of channels based on the movement of the slow sinking fishing weight when pulled by the fishing line, causing the water to swirl and move in various directions) and is interrupted along a line from the front of the body to the back of the body by the first projection (the first projection intersects will interrupt water flow through said at least one of the plurality of channels is non-linear and is interrupted along a line from the front of the body to the back of the body by the first projection as the first projection will further direct water to the said at least one of the plurality of channels).
However, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink does not teach the first projection intersects at least one of the plurality of channels at a position in a middle section of the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the slow sinking fishing weight of Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink to be wherein the first projection intersects at least one of the plurality of channels at a position in a middle section of the body in order to provide additional support to the slow sinking fishing weight, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, Walter further teaches wherein the plurality of channels comprise a first group of channels (108(1), 108(2), 208(1), 208(2)) that extend along the fishing weight body from the front to the back (figs. 1 and 2) and a second group of channels (top channels on the backside of 100 [0015] and 208(5) and 208(6)) that extend along the fishing weight body (fig. 1) from the front to the back at an angle relative to the first group of channels such that the second group of channels intersects the first group of channels (figs. 1 and 2) and wherein the plurality of projections comprise posts (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the plurality of projections form posts) located between the plurality of channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1), and wherein a water flow path from the front of the body to the back of the body through the plurality of channels is non-linear and changes direction between the first group of channels and the second group of channels (the water flowing from the front of the body to the back of the body through the plurality of channels will be non-linear as the water moves through the plurality of channels based on the movement of the slow sinking fishing weight when pulled by the fishing line, causing the water to swirl and move in various directions).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, and Cunningham further teaches wherein the body bulk density is between about 2 percent and about 6 percent greater than the water ([0026] as 10 can have a density greater than 1 g/cc, and so will have the bulk density between about 2 percent and about 6 percent greater than the water).
Regarding claim 17, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, and Cunningham further teaches wherein the body bulk density is about 4 percent greater than the water ([0026] as 10 can have a density greater than 1 g/cc, and so will have the bulk density 4 percent greater than the water).
Regarding claim 18, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, and Brink further teaches wherein the slow sinking fishing weight sink rate is between about 5 cm per second and about 20 cm per second ([0038] as the sink rate of 30.5 cm in 2 seconds will be 15.25cm per second).
Regarding claim 19, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, and Brink further teaches wherein the slow sinking fishing weight sink rate is about 10 cm per second ([0038] as the sink rate of 30.5 cm in 3 seconds will be 10.16 cm per second which is about 10 cm per second).
Regarding claim 20, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 11, further comprising a central plate (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) that extends between the front end and the back end of the (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) and that extends from the central axis towards left and right sides of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1), and wherein the plurality of projections comprises top projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have top projections) that extend from a top side of the central plate (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) and bottom projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have bottom projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have bottom projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have bottom projections) that extend from a bottom side of the central plate (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Walter teaches a slow sinking fishing weight (100 [0014-0015] as 100 can be a drifting sinker which are known to be slow sinking) comprising: a body (100) comprising: a central axis (fig. 1 depicts a central axis) that extends from a front end (102) to a back end (104) of the body; a plurality of channels (108(1), 108(2), 108(3) and the plurality of channels on the backside of 100 [0015], also see channels 208(1)-208(6) as these channels are the same as 108 in fig. 1) that each extend inwardly from an exterior of the body (figs. 1-2 [0015]) and extend from the front end of the body to the back end of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1); a plurality of projections (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 and backside of 100 [0015] will have plurality of projections) located between the plurality of channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) which extend outwardly towards the exterior of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1); a first projection (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the first projection is the first arrow of the top projections closest to the central plate) which intersects at least one of the plurality of channels (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) such that a water flow path through said at least one of the plurality of channels is non- linear (the first projection will cause the water flow path to be non-linear when moving through said at least one of the plurality of channels as the water moves through the plurality of channels based on the movement of the slow sinking fishing weight when pulled by the fishing line, causing the water to swirl and move in various directions) and is interrupted along a line from the front of the body to the back of the body by the first projection (the first projection intersects will interrupt water flow through said at least one of the plurality of channels is non-linear and is interrupted along a line from the front of the body to the back of the body by the first projection as the first projection will further direct water to the said at least one of the plurality of channels); a mount (105) which receives a fishing line ([0015]) to thereby attach the slow sinking fishing weight to the fishing line ([0015]); wherein the fishing weight body comprises a bulk density ([0015] as the drifting sinker will be made from a material having a bulk density to allow it to sink); and wherein the plurality of channels and the plurality of projections comprise deep surface features (fig. 1 and [0015]) that create sufficient resistance to movement through the water (fig. 1 and [0015] as the plurality of channels and the plurality of projections will create sufficient resistance when moving through the water) such that the fishing weight has a sink rate in the water ([0014-0015] as 100 is a sinker, and so will have a sink rate).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Walter is silent about the first projection which intersects the at least one of the plurality of channels at a position adjacent a middle section of the body; the bulk density which between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc; and said sink rate which is less than about 30 cm per second.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the slow sinking fishing weight of Walter to include wherein the first projection which intersects the at least one of the plurality of channels at a position adjacent a middle section of the body in order to provide additional support to the slow sinking fishing weight, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Cunningham teaches the fishing weight body (10) wherein the bulk density which between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc ([0026] as 10 can have a density greater than 1 g/cc, and so is between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc).
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 bulk density of Walter to be wherein the bulk density which between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc as taught by Cunningham in order to make the fishing weight body heavier than water so that the fishing weight body can sink ([0026] of Cunningham), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Brink teaches wherein said sink rate which is less than about 30 cm per second ([0038] as the sink rate of 30.5 cm in 2 seconds will be 15.25cm per second).
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 sink rate of Walter to be less than about 30 cm per second as taught by Brink in order to have the fishing weight body slowly descend from the surface of the water so as to mimic baitfish and attract the desired game fish ([0034-0035] of Brink), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 22, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 21, wherein the plurality of channels extend longitudinally along the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) and wherein the plurality of projections comprise ribs (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the plurality of projections form ribs) which extend longitudinally from the front of the body to the back of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1), and wherein the first projection (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1 as the first projection is the first arrow of the top projections closest to the central plate) comprises a rib which extends from a left side to a right side of the body (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1).
However, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink does not teach wherein the first projection extends at a position adjacent a middle section of the body and which intersects the plurality of channels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the slow sinking fishing weight Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink to include wherein the first projection extends at a position adjacent a middle section of the body and which intersects the plurality of channels in order to provide additional support to the slow sinking fishing weight, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 21, wherein the plurality of channels comprise a first group of channels (108(1), 108(2), 208(1), 208(2)) that extend along the fishing weight body from the front to the back (figs. 1 and 2) and a second group of channels (top channels on the backside of 100 [0015] and 208(5) and 208(6)) that extend along the fishing weight body (fig. 1) from the front to the back at an angle relative to the first group of channels such that the second group of channels intersects the first group of channels (figs. 1 and 2), and wherein a water flow path from the front of the body to the back of the body through the plurality of channels is non-linear and changes direction between the first group of channels and the second group of channels (the water flowing from the front of the body to the back of the body through the plurality of channels will be non-linear as the water moves through the plurality of channels based on the movement of the slow sinking fishing weight when pulled by the fishing line, causing the water to swirl and move in various directions).
PNG
media_image2.png
698
1307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Canales (US 7546704 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink teaches the slow sinking fishing weight of claim 1, Walter further teaches wherein the body has an ovoid outer shape (fig. 1) and wherein the back end of the body has a concave shape (fig. 1), and wherein a first slow sinking weight (100) may be attached to the fishing line ([0015]).
However, Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink is silent about the first sinking weight adjacent to a second slow sinking fishing weight such that the front end of the first sinking fishing weight is nested inside a concave back end of the second slow sinking fishing weight.
Canales teaches the first sinking weight (7) adjacent to a second slow sinking fishing weight (8 and abstract as the sinker lifter 8 will have a gravity slightly greater than water, and so will slowly sink) such that the front end of the first sinking fishing weight is nested inside a concave back end of the second slow sinking fishing weight (fig. 5 and Col. 3, lines 41-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first sinking weight adjacent to a second slow sinking fishing weight such that the front end of the first sinking fishing weight is nested inside a concave back end of the second slow sinking fishing weight as taught by Canales into the slow sinking fishing weight of Walter as modified by Cunningham and Brink in order to increase the length of the fishing weight (fig. 5 of Canales) so as to enhance the appearance of a more desirable bait to further attract larger fish as it is well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12-13 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues “The '453 application to Cunningham also does not teach a fishing weight with a bulk density that is between about 1.08 g/cc and 1.02 g/cc as claimed. Cunningham teaches that jig heads are typically made of lead (paragraph 5). Lead has a density greater of 11.3 g/cc and the resulting jigs have a bulk density which is much greater than 1.08 g/cc. Cunningham teaches that these jigs sink and bounce off of the bottom of the river or pond. Applicant finds no teaching in Cunningham to achieve the particular density or functionality as claimed by Applicant.
Modification of the Walter device according to Cunningham does not achieve the claimed invention. Cunningham teaches using a rattle element as a jig weight to further attract fish through the noise made by the rattle when the jig moves. Cunningham does not teach the density of the device and does not teach a density that is between about 1.08 g/cc and 1.02 g/cc as claimed. Accordingly, modification of Walter according to Cunningham would not achieve the claimed density. As Cunningham does not teach the claimed density, modification of the Walter device according to Cunningham does not achieve the claimed device.
The '464 Brink patent application also does not teach a fishing weight with a density between 1.08 g/cc and 1.02 g/cc as claimed. Brink teaches a lure that will sink slowly through the water where the motion of the lure is controlled by a large frontal bill. Brink teaches a person that such a frontal bill is suitable to control the motion of a lure as the lure is moved through the water. Modification of Walter according to Brill does not results in the claimed density, as this is not taught in Brill. Modification of Walter according to Brill may result in a device with a frontal bill to control its motion in the water, but this is not what is claimed by Applicant. As Brink does not teach the claimed density, a person modifying the Walter float with Brink would not achieve the claimed invention.
As none of the prior art teach the claimed density, the prior art does not render the claimed invention obvious. Applicant asserts that the claimed density is not routine optimization of the prior art as it is a change to the functionality and use of the devices. Walter teaches a fishing float and does not teach a slow sinking weight that is usable to both raise and lower a lure in the water while trolling the lure laterally per Applicant's device. Cunningham and Brink teach lures and not a float or a sinker and thus do not teach optimization of a sinker as claimed.”.
The examiner respectively disagrees as [0026] of Cunningham states “The density and weight of the rattle 10 can vary between different jig heads 8, and different weights and densities can be used to produce different effects for a variety of fishing situations.” therefore, any density can be used to produce different effects based on the fishing situation, and so the fishing weight body (10) would teach wherein the bulk density is between about 1.08 g/cc and about 1.02 g/cc.
Applicant further argues “It is only Applicant's disclosure that teaches the need to pull a lure behind a slow sinking fishing sinker and to manipulate the height of these in the water as the lure is pulled laterally through the water. Applicant's own disclosure cannot become the motivation to combine prior art; particular prior art such as Cunningham or Brinks which disclose lures that are desired to sink in a particular manner on their own and which would function differently if used with a float or sinker and which therefore lead a person away from the use of a float or sinker.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as it is well known in the art that a user would pull a lure behind a slow sinking fishing sinker and to manipulate the height of these in the water as the lure is pulled laterally through the water in order to mimic a live bait and lure the desired fish.
Also, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Walter states that the weight 100 can be a drifting sinker which are known to be slow sinking ([0014-0015]).
Applicant further argues “The prior art does not teach such a projection and does not teach a non-linear water flow path through channels as claimed. Walter would not be modified to create such a non-linear water flow path as Walter is designed to impede twisting of the Walter float as it moves through the water and such a non-linear flow path is likely to create twisting of the float.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see rejection above as Walter would create such a non-linear water flow as the water moves through the plurality of channels based on the movement of the slow sinking fishing weight when pulled by the fishing line, causing the water to swirl and move in various directions.
Applicant further argues “Claim 14 is amended to recite that the plurality of channels comprise a first group of channels that extend along the fishing weight body from the front to the back and a second group of channels that extend along the fishing weight body from the front to the back at an angle relative to the first group of channels such that the second group of channels intersects the first group of channels and wherein the plurality of projections comprise posts located between the plurality of channels, and wherein a water flow path from the front of the body to the back of the body through the plurality of channels is nonlinear and changes direction between the first group of channels and the second group of channels. The prior art does not teach such an arrangement of channels.”.
Claim 14 has been canceled, but it appears arguments are related to claim 15. The examiner disagrees. Please see rejection above as figs. 1-2 of Walter teaches these limitations. Also, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant further argues “Claim 21 recites a first projection which intersects at least one of the plurality of channels at a position adjacent a middle section of the body such that a water flow path through said at least one of the plurality of channels is non-linear and is interrupted along a line from the front of the body to the back of the body by the first projection. The prior art does not teach such a projection or arrangement of channels or a water flow path.
Claim 22 recites that the first projection comprises a rib which extends from a left side to a right side of the body at a position adjacent a middle section of the body and which intersects the plurality of channels. The prior art does not teach such a rib.
Claim 23 recites that the plurality of channels comprise a first group of channels that extend along the fishing weight body from the front to the back and a second group of channels that extend along the fishing weight body from the front to the back at an angle relative to the first group of channels such that the second group of channels intersects the first group of channels, and wherein a water flow path from the front of the body to the back of the body through the plurality of channels is non-linear and changes direction between the first group of channels and the second group of channels. The prior art does not disclose such an arrangement of channels or the claimed water flow path.”.
The examiner disagrees. Please see rejection above. Also, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 1 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
