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 .
Examiner’s Notes for Applicant
Given the applicant appears to be a Pro Se applicant, the examiner has included notes regarding standard claim drafting and interpretation below:
It is noted that the pending claims 1-3 are all currently considered independent claims. This means that claim 1 does not require the details of claims 2 or 3, claim 2 does not require the details of claims 1 or 3, and claim 3 does not require the details of claims 1 or 2. In other words, in claim 2 the applicant’s invention is only defined by the pocket to cover the leading edge…, and should this feature be found in the art (a product exists that already has this feature), the claim will be rejected; similarly for claims 1 and 2.
Standard claim drafting often incorporates independent and dependent claims. Dependent claims include reference to another claim, require all the features discussed in the claim on which they depend, and recite a further limitation (e.g. additional feature). In this case, given the dependency, in order to reject the dependent claim, the examiner would need to find that the limitations of both the dependent claim, and the claim(s) from which it depends are known in the art. So, in the applicant’s case, should they want each claim to require the details of the previous claim and stipulate a further required feature, the preamble of claims 2 and 3 would need to be amended as below:
The embodiment of claim 1, further comprising a pocket to cover the leading edge of a soft plastic artificial bait,
The embodiment of claim 2, further comprising an internal pocket to capture the knot tied to a fishing hook that allows for vertical swivel movement when snapped on to the eye or shank of a fishing hook.
The examiner recommends looking at the claim construction in the US patents cited, and directs the applicant to the Pro Se assistance portal for more resources which may be helpful (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 3, Ref. D. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
The drawings are objected to as having lead lines that are not uniformly thick and well defined (seem to have dots or stars or something along their length). See 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (l) and (q).
The drawings are objected to, as, in Figs 1-3, there are lines which are not sufficiently dense and dark and well defined to permit adequate reproduction (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (l)). These lines appear to show internal features or features on the other side, as if the entirety of the invention, including the hook, is translucent (see annotated Fig 1 below for examples). The examiner recommends removing these lines, as they do not appear to show additional features of the invention that cannot be viewed in other views (e.g. the hole 5 can be seen in cross section in Fig 2), and they simply muddy the drawings and cause confusion.
PNG
media_image1.png
573
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg 2: the heading “SPECIFICATION” should be substituted with –DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS--.
¶0007-00011: it is not wholly clear which reference characters the applicant is attributing to which structure. For clarity and comprehension, the reference character should be bolded and immediately follow the structure which it indicates. Further, given Ref. A of Fig 3 indicates the same structure as Ref. A of Fig 4, and similarly for other reference letters/numbers, there is no need to indicate which figure the applicant is referring to when referencing the reference character. For example, as best understood, ¶0007 should read --plastic injection molded, 3D printed or machined embodiment Ref. A that attaches to a hook eye Ref. D or shank via one or more locking detent features 1.—Similarly corrections should be made for all paragraphs listed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests changing the preamble “an embodiment” to –a snap on weedless lure head—or –a lure head—or –a device--, or similar, to better provide context to the invention, and indicate the statutory class of their invention better (product). Note: if the applicant amends the claim to positively require the hook or line as part of their invention, not just the snap-on head, the preamble should be –a lure assembly—or something similar, to encompass the scope of the invention.
Claim 2, line 1: “that that contains” should read –that contains—
Claim 2, line 1: “a pocket to cover” should read –a pocket configured to cover--, in order to emphasize the functional nature of the limitation.
Claim 2: claim should end with a period, not a comma.
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 1-3 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.
Claims 1 and 3 recites the limitation "the eye or shank". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, in each claim, “the eye or shank” will be understood as –an eye or shank--.
Claim 1 recites “one or more special features.” The term “special” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “special” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what features could be considered special or not, and it is unclear if the applicant is attempting to attribute specific structure with this term.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the knot" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, in each claim, “the knot” will be understood as –a knot --.
Claim 3 recites “an embodiment that contains an internal pocket to capture the knot tied to a fishing hook that allows for vertical swivel movement when snapped on to the eye or shank of a fishing hook.” It is unclear what “allows for” the movement as claimed, and generally, therefore, whether the applicant is attempting to positively recite the hook/knot as a part of their invention or simply recite these structure functionally, only requiring that the embodiment (snap-on head) be capable of attaching to a fishing hook as claimed and capturing a knot therein. As best understood, for the purposes of examination purposes, the claim will be understood as –an embodiment that contains an internal pocket configured to capture a knot tied to a fishing hook; wherein the internal pocket is configured to allow for a vertical swivel movement of the embodiment when snapped on to the eye or shank of the fishing hook--. Examiner directs applicant to MPEP 2114(I-II) for a discussion of functional language and intended use limitations in an apparatus claim.
Claim 3 recites “vertical swivel movements.” It is unclear what type of movement a ‘vertical swivel’ refers to. This term is not known in the art, and the specification provides no support for understanding this claim language. The clarity is further diminished by the issue discussed above (it being unclear what, if anything needs to allow for this movement) Does the embodiment need to swivel? Does it need to move side to side or up and down? If the claim is requiring that the jig head swivels relative to the hook, it is unclear how the applicant’s invention manages this, given the hook seems to be locked in place, by the recess and locking features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Link (US 4942689), hereinafter referred to as Link, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Link discloses an embodiment that is constructed of flexible plastic material (Col 2, lines 55-60) and contains one or more special features that allow for a snap fit onto the eye or shank section of a fishing hook (Col 3, line 65 – Col 4, line 15).
Regarding claim 2:
Link discloses an embodiment that contains a pocket (concavity 30, Fig 2) to cover the leading edge of a soft plastic artificial bait (see Fig 1; Col 4, lines 13 – 17).
Regarding claim 3:
Link discloses an embodiment that contains an internal pocket to capture the knot tied to a fishing hook (cavity 26, Fig 1) that allows for vertical swivel movement when snapped on to the eye or shank of a fishing hook (functional language: inherently capable of allowing movement as claimed, as best understood, given the space around the shank and eye of the hook in Fig 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Smith (US 20130276350 ), Hancock (US 20210282379), Acker (US 20030159328), Whipple (US 20040244269), Furuya (US 10123520), Guigo (US 7240454), Hannah (US 4803798), and Getschel (US 5347744).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642