Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, applicant does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed reciprocating member in that applicant claims specific structure related to the reciprocating member being the claimed line engaging member. Further, applicant does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the vertical frame member and the horizontal frame member in that these components are well known in the art as being a structural support extending vertically and a structural support extending horizontally. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engaging member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure there is no specific structure related to the line engaging member in that the line engaging member is detailed in paragraph [0011] of applicant’s originally filed specification without specifically detailing structural components related to the line engaging member.
Regarding claim 2, applicant does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fin members in that this claimed element is known in the art as a thin vane material. Further, applicant does invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 5, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 6, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed generally cylindrical line capture device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the generally cylindrical line capture device is detailed as a generally cylindrical member and a plurality of engagement wings as seen in paragraphs [0030]-[0032] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 9, applicant does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fin members in that this claimed element is known in the art as a thin vane material. Further, applicant does invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, applicant does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed reciprocating member in that applicant claims specific structure related to the reciprocating member being the claimed fin members and line engaging member. Further, applicant does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed fin members in that this claimed element is known in the art as a thin vane material. Further, applicant does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the vertical frame member and the horizontal frame member in that these components are well known in the art as being a structural support extending vertically and a structural support extending horizontally. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engaging member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure there is no specific structure related to the line engaging member in that the line engaging member is detailed in paragraph [0011] of applicant’s originally filed specification without specifically detailing structural components related to the line engaging member.
Regarding claims 11, 18 and 19, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed generally cylindrical line capture device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the generally cylindrical line capture device is detailed as a generally cylindrical member and a plurality of engagement wings as seen in paragraphs [0030]-[0032] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 14, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally.
Regarding claim 15, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the line capture device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line capture device is detailed as a generally cylindrical member and a plurality of engagement wings as seen in paragraphs [0030]-[0032] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 16, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed keel member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the keel member is detailed as a generally rectangular member that is bendable and movable as seen in paragraph [0029] of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 17, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed clip member and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the clip member is not detailed structurally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is 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. It is unclear to whether the cable detailed in line 4 is the same or different than the weighted cable detailed in line 2. Further, if the weighted cable in line 2 and the cable in line 4 are different cables than it is unclear to which of these cables, the cable detailed in line 6 is referring to. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engaging member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action, and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure there is no specific structure related to the line engaging member and therefore it is unclear to what specific structure relates to the claimed line engaging member, in that applicant does disclose an engagement connector and also line engagement wings but there is not disclosure provided by applicant that the engagement connector and/or the engagement wings are the line engaging member disclosed. Further, claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the water” in line 3 and “the direction of movement” in lines 12-13.
Claim 2 is 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. It is unclear to whether the line engagement member detailed in claim 2 is the same or different than the line engaging member detailed in parent claim 1. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure relates to the claimed line engagement member in that applicant does disclose an engagement connector and also line engagement wings but there is not disclosure provided by applicant that the engagement connector and/or the engagement wings are the line engaging member disclosed.
Claim 5 is 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. It is unclear to whether the line engagement member detailed in claim 5 is the same or different than the line engaging member detailed in parent claim 1. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure relates to the claimed line engagement member in that applicant does disclose an engagement connector and also line engagement wings but there is not disclosure provided by applicant that the engagement connector and/or the engagement wings are the line engaging member disclosed.
Claim 7 is 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. It is unclear to whether the line capture device detailed in claim 7 is the same or different than the generally cylindrical line capture device detailed in parent claim 6.
Claim 8 is 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. It is unclear to whether the line capture device detailed in claim 8 is the same or different than the generally cylindrical line capture device detailed in parent claim 6.
Claim 9 is 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. It is unclear to whether the line engagement member detailed in claim 9 is the same or different than the line engaging member detailed in parent claim 1. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure relates to the claimed line engagement member in that applicant does disclose an engagement connector and also line engagement wings but there is not disclosure provided by applicant that the engagement connector and/or the engagement wings are the line engaging member disclosed.
Claim 10 is 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. It is unclear to whether the cable detailed in line 4 is the same or different than the weighted cable detailed in line 2. Further, if the weighted cable in line 2 and the cable in line 4 are different cables than it is unclear to which of these cables, the cable detailed in line 6 is referring to. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engaging member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action, and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure there is no specific structure related to the line engaging member and therefore it is unclear to what specific structure relates to the claimed line engaging member, in that applicant does disclose an engagement connector and also line engagement wings but there is not disclosure provided by applicant that the engagement connector and/or the engagement wings are the line engaging member disclosed. Further, claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “the water” in line 3 and “the direction of movement” in lines 14-15. Further, claim 10 lacks antecedent basis for “line engaging member” in line 11 and “line engaging members” in line 12 and therefore it is unclear to how many line engaging members are being claimed.
Claim 12 is 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. It is unclear to whether the line capture device detailed in claim 12 is the same or different than the generally cylindrical line capture device detailed in parent claim 11.
Claim 14 is 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. It is unclear to whether the fin members detailed in line 2 of claim 14 are the same or different than the fins detailed in parent claim 10. Further, it is unclear to whether the line engagement member detailed in claim 14 is the same or different than the line engaging member detailed in parent claim 10. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the line engagement member is not detailed structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure relates to the claimed line engagement member in that applicant does disclose an engagement connector and also line engagement wings but there is not disclosure provided by applicant that the engagement connector and/or the engagement wings are the line engaging member disclosed.
Claim 16 lacks antecedent basis for “the relative direction of travel” in lines 2-3.
Claim 17 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed clip member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action and applicant does not detail the clip member structurally and therefore it is unclear to what structure is related to the claimed clip member in that applicant does disclose a quick release mechanism but does not specifically detail the quick release mechanism is a clip member as claimed.
Claim 18 is 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. It is unclear to whether the cable detailed in line 4 is the same or different than the weighted cable detailed in line 2. Further, if the weighted cable in line 2 and the cable in line 4 are different cables than it is unclear to which of these cables, the cable detailed in line 6 is referring to. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engaging member as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action, and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure there is no specific structure related to the line engaging member and therefore it is unclear to what specific structure relates to the claimed line engaging member, in that applicant does disclose an engagement connector and also line engagement wings but there is not disclosure provided by applicant that the engagement connector and/or the engagement wings are the line engaging member disclosed. Further, claim 18 lacks antecedent basis for “the water” in line 3 and “the direction of movement” in lines 14-15. Further, claim 18 lacks antecedent basis for “line engaging member” in line 11 and “line engaging member” in line 12.
Claim 19 is 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. It is unclear to whether the generally cylindrical line capture device in lines 1-2 of claim 19 is the same or different than the generally cylindrical line capture device in parent claim 18. Further, it is unclear to whether the line capture device detailed in lines 3-4 and also detailed in line 7 are there same or different than the generally cylindrical line capture device detailed in lines 1-2.
Claim 20 is 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. It is unclear to whether the line capture device detailed in line 1 of claim 20 is the same or different than the generally cylindrical line capture device detailed in parent claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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) 1-5, 9-10 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,509,287 to Hood in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,798,021 to Miklos.
Referring to claims 1, 3 and 10, Hood discloses an underwater reciprocating trolling device – at 10,22-88 and 96, for downrigger trolling wherein a fishing line – at 90, and attached lure – at 18, are releasably connected to a weighted cable – at 14 – see figures 1-4, and lowered from a boat – at 12, by a reel – see reel shown but not labeled on the boat – at 12 in figure 1, to a desired depth into the water for trolling – see figure 1, the reciprocating trolling device being non-floating – see figures 1-4 where the device in use does not float and is not designed to rise in the body of water during use, and being adapted to be lowered to the desired depth on a cable – at 14,28 – see figure 1, the reciprocating trolling device comprising, a mounting frame – at 20-26, attached to the cable – at 14,28 – see figures 1-4, and having a vertical frame member – at 22,24, and horizontal frame member – at 26 – see figures 2-4, a draw line – at 96, extending between the mounting frame – at 20, and the fishing line – at 90 – see figures 1-4, a reciprocating member – at 32-40 and 54-86, movably mounted on the vertical frame member – at 22,24 – see figures 2-4, the reciprocating member including line engaging member – at 82 and/or 92,94, for engaging the draw line – at 96 – see figures 2-4, the reciprocating member being movable with respect to the mounting frame such that the line engaging member is caused to reciprocate forward and backward with respect to the mounting frame – at 20-24, generally in the direction of movement of the mounting frame – at 20-24, as the reciprocating device is towed through the water – see at 66-74 in figures 2-3 and column 3 lines 24-62, the reciprocation of the line engaging member imparting forward and backward movement to the draw line – at 96, and fishing line – at 90, as the reciprocating trolling device is towed through the water – see figures 1-4, column 1 line 59 to column 2 line 21 and column 3 line 24 to column 4 line 21. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engaging member, items 36-40 and 50-86 of Hood are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed line engaging member in that they provide similar function of engaging the line – at 96 as seen – at 82,92,94 in figures 1-4 of Hood. Hood does not disclose the fishing line and lure are releasably clipped to the weighted cable. Miklos does disclose the fishing line – at 19,26, and lure – at 19L, are releasably clipped – at 48, to the cable – at 22 – see figures 1-2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Hood and add the clipping to the cable of Miklos, so as to yield the predictable result of more easily removing and installing the fishing line and lure and associated structures to the cable as desired. Specific to claim 10, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses the reciprocating member includes a plurality of fin members – at 36, that are movable with respect to the mounting frame – at 20-26 – see figures 2-4 of Hood. Specific to claims 3 and 10, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses the vertical frame member – at 22,24, and horizontal frame member – at 26, are aligned in a first planar orientation – see figures 1-4 of Hood, and at least a portion of the reciprocating member – at 36, is not aligned with the first planar orientation of the vertical frame member – at 22,24, and horizontal frame member – at 26 – see figures 2-4 of Hood.
Referring to claim 2, Hood as modified by Miklos further the reciprocating member includes a plurality of fin members – at 36, and a line engagement member – at 82,92,94, that are operated by the movement of the water over the reciprocating device causing winding and unwinding of the draw line on a wrapping cylinder – at 32 – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 58 to column 3 line 66 of Hood. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member, items 82,92,94 are at least functional equivalents in that they provide similar function of engaging the line – at 96 as seen in figures 1-4 of Hood.
Referring to claim 4, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses a plurality of fin members – at 36, are located on the reciprocating member and the fin members – at 36, are not aligned with the first planar orientation of the vertical frame member – at 22,24, and horizontal frame member – at 26 – see figures 2-4 of Hood.
Referring to claim 5, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses the reciprocating member includes a plurality of fin members – at 36, and a line engagement member – at 32, that rotate relative to the mounting frame – at 20-26 – see figures 1-4. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member, item 32, is at least a functional equivalent in that it provides similar function of engaging the line – at 96 as seen in figures 1-4 of Hood.
Referring to claims 9 and 14, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses the reciprocating member includes a wrapping cylinder – at 32, fin members – at 36, and a line engagement member – at 82,92,94, and movement of the fin members – at 36, and line engagement member – at 82,92,94, relative to the wrapping cylinder – at 32, causes winding and unwinding of the draw line on the wrapping cylinder – at 32 – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 21 to column 4 line 21 of Hood. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line engagement member, items 82,92,94 are at least functional equivalents in that they provide similar function of engaging the line – at 96 as seen in figures 1-4 of Hood.
Referring to claim 15, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses the draw line – at 96, includes a bead – at 92,94, thereon to cause the draw line – at 96, to release from engagement with a line capture device – at 32 – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 21 to column 4 line 21. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed line capture device, item 32 of Hood is a cylindrical member consistent with applicant’s disclosure.
Referring to claim 16, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses a keel member – at 44-64, on the vertical frame member – at 22,24 – see figures 2-4 of Hood, and wherein the keel member – at 62,64, is adjustable to change the relative direction of travel of the reciprocal trolling device through the water – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 21 to column 4 line 21. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed keel member, items 62,64 of Hood are generally rectangular and movable consistent with applicant’s disclosure.
Referring to claim 17, Hood as modified by Miklos further discloses a clip member – see connecting 88 to 96 in figure 2 of Hood, to releasably engage the draw line – at 96, with the fishing line – at 90 – see figures 1-4 of Hood. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed clip member, the structure between items 88 and 96 of Hood, is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed clip member since it provides similar function of removably securing the draw line to the fishing line.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 6-8 and 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to fishing trolling devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,978,811 to Angus et al. – shows trolling device with fins
U.S. Pat. No. 4,204,356 to Smith – shows trolling device with fins
U.S. Pat. No. 5,185,950 to Hood – shows trolling device with wrapping cylinder
U.S. Pat. No. 7,596,901 to Johnson – shows trolling device with fins
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights