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 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 05/15/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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) 1-2, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL “Making Topwater Popper Plug Fishing Lure. 3D Printed Fishing Lure Making.” By 3D Printed Angler, Youtube 2021.
In regards to claim 1, 3DPrintedAngler anticipates a lure, comprising a body configured to have an internal space inside an outer shell (3DPrintedAngler; see model of half of the body of the lure below, with an internal space formed by the large openings and the smaller openings between grid-line walls, with an outer shell on the exterior), and the body has, in the internal space, an array structure in which grid lines are arranged in a generally uniform manner in a width direction from a first side to a second side, and that the grid is formed by a plurality of polyhedrons (3DPrintedAngler; see model of the cross section of the lure below, where the internal space has grid 1 formed by crossing internal walls, and grid 2 made by the 3D print’s infill, the grid 2 extending in a width direction and being formed of polyhedrons, see the shape of the infill having flat straight walls creating polyhedrons).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
579
940
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, 3DPrintedAngler anticipates the lure according to claim 1, wherein the array structure has the grid lines arranged three-dimensionally (3DPrintedAngler; see FIGs of the 3D slicer settings which demonstrate the grid lines arranged 3 dimensionally).
In regards to claim 6, 3DPrintedAngler anticipates the lure according to claim 1, wherein the outer shell and the array structure are integrally formed from resin or metal (3DPrintedAngler; the outer shell and array are integrally formed of PLA (polylactic acid) which is a type of resin).
In regards to claim 7, 3DPrintedAngler anticipates the lure according to claim 1, wherein the body includes a first body having a first outer shell, and a second body having second outer shell joined to the first body, to form an internal space (3DPrintedAngler; the body includes two halves which are joined together to form an internal space; see video where two halves of the lure are printed and joined in the assembly process to form the internal space).
In regards to claim 8, 3DPrintedAngler anticipates the lure according to claim 6, wherein the body is formed by a 3D printer (3DPrintedAngler; see video and FIG below where the lure is demonstrated as being formed by a 3D Printer) (Additional note; this is a product by process claim; where it is understood that 3D Printing is a process by which the product is made).
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966
In regards to claim 9, 3DPrintedAngler anticipates the lure according to claim 1, further comprising a first eye configured to have a fishing line connected thereto, and a portion of the first eye embedded in the body (3DPrintedAngler; see the eyes embedded into the body below, the eyes configured to have a fishing line connected thereto).
PNG
media_image3.png
768
1388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 10, 3DPrintedAngler anticipates the lure according to claim 1, further comprising a second eye configured to have a hook portion connected thereto, and a portion of the second eye embedded in the body (3DPrintedAngler; see any second one of the eyes in the FIG above being embedded in the body, the eyes being configured to have a fish hook connected thereto; additionally see FIG below with the hook explicitly connected thereto).
PNG
media_image4.png
773
1379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Making Topwater Popper Plug Fishing Lure. 3D Printed Fishing Lure Making.” By 3D Printed Angler, Youtube 2021 in view of “Creating Variable Infill within a Single part using Cura” by RIT AMPrintCenter, Youtube Jan 2023.
In regards to claim 3, 3DPrintedAngler teaches the lure according to claim 1, wherein the array structure includes a first internal section having a first pitch (3DPrintedAngler; first array structure being grid 1 with a first pitch or distance between parallel walls), and a second array structure having a second pitch different from the first pitch (3DPrintedAngler; second array structure being grid 2 with a second pitch or distance between parallel walls being smaller than the pitch of grid 1).
3DPrintedAngler fails to teach wherein the first internal section is a first array structure.
RIT AMPrintCenter teaches wherein a first internal section is a first array structure having a first pitch and a second array structure having a second pitch different from the first pitch (RIT AMPrintCenter; see FIGs of the video where a single part with an internal space is separated to have polyhedral interior grid structure with different pitches, a first section having a polyhedral grid from one side to another, and a second portion with a polyhedral grid of a different pitch from one side to another).
3DPrintedAngler and RIT AMPrintCenter are analogous art from similar fields of endeavor i.e. 3D printing parts with various internal spaces with different pitches between walls.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify grid 1 to be a polyhedral grid array structure with a different pitch from the second pitch as taught by RIT AMPrintCenter. The motivation for doing so would be to adjust the infill at different sections of the device such that it maintains its buoyancy in the larger spaces of grid 1 but provides structural support characteristic of the polyhedral grid infill.
In regards to claim 4, 3DPrintedAngler as modified by RIT AMPrintCenter teach the lure according to claim 3, wherein the first array structure (3DPrintedAngler; grid 1) and the second array structure (3DPrintedAngler; grid 2) are provided in the internal space in accordance with a buoyant force arrangement in the lure (3DPrintedAngler; see the FIG below where the first and second array structures are provided in the internal space within the outer shell, and would provide different buoyant forces based on their arrangements due to the infill of grid 2 being denser than in the area with grid 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
633
937
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, 3DPrintedAngler as modified by RIT AMPrintCenter teach the lure according to claim 3, wherein the internal space includes a first space having inner walls (3DPrintedAngler; the first space being the space with grid 1, see the annotated FIGs above where grid 1 has inner walls) (RIT AMPrintCenter; and the two infill types), and a second space having inner walls (3DPrintedAngler; the second space being the space with grid 2, with inner walls created by the 3D Print’s infill), a distance between the inner walls of the second space being greater than a distance between the inner walls of the first space (3DPrintedAngler; the distance between parallel inner walls of grid 2 being > than the distance between the parallel inner walls of grid 1, see the annotated FIG below), the second pitch is smaller than the first pitch (3DPrintedAngler; pitch of grid 2 being smaller than the pitch of grid 1 due to the infill of grid 2 being closer together than the spacing between the walls which make up grid 1), the first array structure is provided in the first space, and the second array structure is provided in the second space (3DPrintedAngler; the first space being the space with grid 1, the second space being the space with grid 2) (RIT AMPrintCenter; having the two infill types within the two spaces).
PNG
media_image6.png
633
937
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim language because it fails to teach polyhedrons and an array structure arranged in a generally uniform manner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the video by 3DPrintedAngler, an array structure within the lure is uniform as it extends from one side to another, i.e. a left side of one half of a lure to a right side of another half of a lure, which provides for a uniform symmetry. Furthermore, the array structure can be a grid as interpreted by grid 2, which is formed by a plurality of polyhedrons, as can be seen in the internal space. In Grid 2, polyhedrons that are formed are “three-dimensional solid shape with flat polygonal faces, straight edges, and sharp corners (vertices)”. It is therefore asserted that this array is taught by the infill of the lure disclosed in 3DPrintedAngler.
The rejections to Claims 3-5 are updated due to the amendments made to 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights