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 1-19 are pending and have been examined in this application.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 11/26/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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 5-19 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.
Claim 5 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 6 recites the phrase "claim 2" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 5. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 5”.
Claim 7 recites the phrase "claim 3" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 6. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 6”.
Claim 8 recites the phrase "claim 3" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 6. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 6”.
Claim 9 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 10 recites the phrase "claim 6" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 9. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 9”.
Claim 11 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 12 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 13 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 14 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 15 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 16 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 17 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
Claim 18 recites the phrase "claim 14" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 17. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 17”.
Claim 19 recites the phrase "claim 1" in line 1. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it seems that the limitations are directed to those previously recited in claim 4. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being best understood as “claim 4”.
The Examiner suggests changing all instances of dependencies noted above, in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Wicht (U.S. Pat. 5588247).
In regard to claim 1, Thomas discloses a fishing lure, comprising: a main body portion having a waterproof inner capsule (Figs. 26-28 and Paragraphs [0051-0053] and [0079], where there is a main body portion 30C which has a waterproof capsule 300A), at least one electronic component contained within the waterproof inner capsule (Figs. 26-28 and Paragraphs [0052-0053], where there is an electric circuit in the waterproof capsule 300A); and at least one hook coupled to the main body portion (Fig. 28, where there is a hook coupled to the main body portion 30C). Thomas is silent on wherein a first portion of the main body portion comprises a brass material configured to improve an acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to a sonar signal. Wicht discloses wherein a first portion of the main body portion comprises a brass material configured to improve an acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to a sonar signal (Figs. 1-2, Claim 1, and Column 3 lines 25-29, where at least a first portion of the main body portion 10 comprises a brass material (“lead-free brass”) configured to improve an acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to a sonar signal (brass is known to have high acoustic reflectivity, see Applicant’s Specification, Paragraph [0085], “Brass is a dense, metallic material having high acoustic reflectivity. This high acoustic reflectivity means that brass can efficiently reflect sound waves.”)). Thomas and Wicht are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas such that a first portion of the main body portion comprises a brass material configured to improve an acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to a sonar signal in view of Wicht. The motivation would have been to utilize a widely available, relatively hard, and environmentally safe material to improve durability, while providing desired lure characteristics.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Wicht (U.S. Pat. 5588247) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Farr (U.S. Pub. 20130074395).
In regard to claim 2, Thomas as modified by Wicht discloses the fishing lure of Claim 1. Thomas as modified by Wicht is silent on a weight associated with the main body portion of the fishing lure, wherein the weight comprises the brass material for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal. Farr discloses a weight associated with the main body portion of the fishing lure, wherein the weight comprises the brass material for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal (Figs. 1-4 and Paragraph [0017], where there is a weight 20 at least associated with the main body portion of the fishing lure and where the weight 20 comprises the brass material (“brass noise sensitive weight”) for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal (as noted before, brass is known to have high acoustic reflectivity, see Applicant’s Specification, Paragraph [0085], “Brass is a dense, metallic material having high acoustic reflectivity. This high acoustic reflectivity means that brass can efficiently reflect sound waves.”)). Thomas and Farr are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas such that a weight associated with the main body portion of the fishing lure, wherein the weight comprises the brass material for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal in view of Farr. The motivation would have been to utilize a weight to adjust the sinking depth and other characteristics of the lure, as desired for specific use cases. Additionally, utilizing a widely available material, such as brass, to make a component of the lure is old and well-known.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Wicht (U.S. Pat. 5588247) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Beer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20060174535).
In regard to claim 3, Thomas as modified by Wicht discloses the fishing lure of Claim 1, a rattle connected to the main body portion of the fishing lure (Wicht, Figs. 2-3, where there is a rattle 26 connected to the main body portion of the fishing lure). Thomas as modified by Wicht is silent on wherein the rattle comprises the brass material for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal. Beer et al. discloses a rattle connected to the main body portion of the fishing lure, wherein the rattle comprises the brass material for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal (Fig. 4 and Paragraph [0042], where there is a rattle 230 connected to the main body portion of the fishing lure and where the rattle 230 comprises the brass material (“brass shot”) for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal (as noted before, brass is known to have high acoustic reflectivity, see Applicant’s Specification, Paragraph [0085], “Brass is a dense, metallic material having high acoustic reflectivity. This high acoustic reflectivity means that brass can efficiently reflect sound waves.”)). Thomas and Beer et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas such that the rattle comprises the brass material for improving the acoustical reflection of the fishing lure with respect to the sonar signal in view of Beer et al. The motivation would have been to utilize a widely available, relatively hard, and environmentally safe material to improve durability of the rattle elements, while providing desired lure characteristics. Additionally, utilizing a widely available material, such as brass, to make a component of the lure is old and well-known.
Claims 4-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20120204467).
In regard to claim 4, Thomas discloses a multiple mode fishing lure, comprising: a main body portion having a waterproof inner capsule (Figs. 26-28 and Paragraphs [0051-0053] and [0079], where there is a main body portion 30C which has a waterproof capsule 300A); said waterproof inner capsule containing an electronic circuit (Figs. 26-28 and Paragraphs [0052-0053], where there is an electric circuit in the waterproof capsule 300A) comprising: a controller (Figs. 26-28 and Paragraphs [0052-0053], where there is a controller 314); said controller being operationally coupled to: a speaker to broadcast bait fish sounds generated from said digital sound file data (Figs. 26-28 and Paragraphs [0052-0053], where there is a speaker 315 to broadcast bait sounds which are at least from a digital sound file); a plurality of electrodes, wherein each of the electrodes of said plurality of electrodes is actuated via an actuation means (Figs. 26-28 and Paragraphs [0067-0068], where there is a plurality of electrodes 371 which are activated via at least an actuation means (being placed in water)), and wherein actuation of at least one electrode of said plurality of electrodes gives an operational result (Paragraphs [0067-0068], where the actuation means (being placed in water) provides at least an operational result of activating the device); and a power source for providing power to said electronic circuit (Fig. 27, where there is a power source 311); and at least one hook coupled to said main body portion (Fig. 28, where there is a hook coupled to the main body portion 30C). Thomas does not disclose a controller having a memory configured to replaceably store digital sound file data, wherein said digital sound file data is transmitted from a user-controlled external device; a wireless transceiver configured to receive said digital sound file data from said user-controlled external device. Palmer et al. discloses a controller having a memory configured to replaceably store digital sound file data (Figs. 2-5 and Paragraph [0029], where there is a controller 202 with memory that at least stores digital sound file data and is reversibly programmable (rewritable)); wherein said digital sound file data is transmitted from a user-controlled external device, a wireless transceiver configured to receive said digital sound file data from said user-controlled external device (Paragraph [0021], where there is a user-controlled external device 121 which transmits the digital sound file data (upload sounds) to at least a wireless transceiver on the device). Thomas and Palmer et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas such that a controller having a memory configured to replaceably store digital sound file data, wherein said digital sound file data is transmitted from a user-controlled external device; a wireless transceiver configured to receive said digital sound file data from said user-controlled external device in view of Palmer et al. The motivation would have been to allow the user to upload various bait sounds to the device from a remote location. This would enable the device to be easily used in different fishing scenarios, without additional manual configuration or effort from the user.
In regard to claim 5, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4, wherein said operational result is changing a power state of said multiple mode fishing lure (Thomas, Paragraph [0067], where the operational result is at least changing a power state of the fishing lure to activate the device and produce bait sounds).
In regard to claim 6, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 5, wherein said operational result is obtained by actuation of all of said plurality of electrodes (Thomas, Paragraphs [0067-0068], where the operational result is at least obtained by actuation (being placed in water) of all of said plurality of electrodes 371).
In regard to claim 8, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 6, wherein said actuation means comprises an aqueous solution between said plurality of electrodes, thereby enabling electricity to flow therebetween (Thomas, Paragraphs [0067-0068], where said actuation means includes being placed in an aqueous solution which connects the plurality of electrodes 371 and thereby enables electricity to flow between the plurality of electrodes 371).
In regard to claim 9, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4, wherein said operational result is changing said bait fish sound broadcast by said speaker (Thomas, Paragraphs [0067-0068], where said operational result of activating the device is at least changing the bait fish sound broadcast to be turned on and sound to be emitted by the speaker).
In regard to claim 10, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 9. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose wherein said operational result is obtained by actuation of a subset of said plurality of electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. to have additional electrodes positioned at various locations around the device to allow for said operational result to be obtained by actuation of a subset of said plurality of electrodes, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The motivation would have been to allow the lure to be activated in water, regardless of the orientation of the device in the water (for example, if a portion is floating or above water during use).
Claims 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20120204467) as applied to claims 6 and 4, respectively, and further in view of Gao (U.S. Pub. 20130067791).
In regard to claim 7, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 6. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose said actuation means comprises a physical touch of said plurality of electrodes. Gao discloses said actuation means comprises a physical touch of said plurality of electrodes (Paragraph [0028], where the plurality of electrodes 11/12 are actuated by physical touch (touched by hand)). Thomas and Gao are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that said actuation means comprises a physical touch of said plurality of electrodes in view of Gao. The motivation would have been to allow the user to manually activate the device with their hands.
In regard to claim 11, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose wherein at least one of said plurality of electrodes is a hook hanger. Gao discloses at least one of said plurality of electrodes is a hook hanger (Fig. 1, where the plurality of electrodes 11/12 are also hook hanging eyelets). Thomas and Gao are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that wherein at least one of said plurality of electrodes is a hook hanger in view of Gao. The motivation would have been to allow the user to attach fish hooks to the electrodes shaped as eyelets, thereby decreasing the number of parts required to make the device and reducing cost and complexity.
In regard to claim 12, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose wherein each of said plurality of electrodes is a hook hanger. Gao discloses wherein each of said plurality of electrodes is a hook hanger (Fig. 1, where each of the plurality of electrodes 11/12 are also hook hanging eyelets). Thomas and Gao are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that wherein each of said plurality of electrodes is a hook hanger in view of Gao. The motivation would have been to allow the user to attach fish hooks to the electrodes shaped as eyelets, thereby decreasing the number of parts required to make the device and reducing cost and complexity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20120204467) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Rodgers (U.S. Pat. 5461815).
In regard to claim 13, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose wherein said controller turns off said multiple mode fishing lure after a predetermined period of time has expired, unless there is electrical conductivity on at least one of said plurality of electrodes before said predetermined period of time occurs. Rodgers discloses said controller turns off said multiple mode fishing lure after a predetermined period of time has expired, unless there is electrical conductivity on at least one of said plurality of electrodes before said predetermined period of time occurs (Column 1 lines 40-50 and Column 2 line 56 - Column 3 lines 14, where there is a circuit which turns off the device after a predetermined period of time has passed without electrical conductivity on the plurality of electrodes (pair of probes)). Thomas and Rodgers are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that said controller turns off said multiple mode fishing lure after a predetermined period of time has expired, unless there is electrical conductivity on at least one of said plurality of electrodes before said predetermined period of time occurs in view of Rodgers. The motivation would have been to save energy and power, thereby reducing cost and enabling the lure to work for longer periods of time without charging.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20120204467) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Braun (U.S. Pub. 20090007480).
In regard to claim 14, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose wherein said controller turns off said multiple mode fishing lure after a predetermined period of time has expired, unless there is communication with said user-controlled external device before said predetermined period of time occurs. Braun discloses said controller turns off said multiple mode fishing lure after a predetermined period of time has expired (Paragraph [0039], [0045], and [0053], where the controller turns off the lure 10 after a predetermined period of time has expired), unless there is communication with said user-controlled external device before said predetermined period of time occurs (Paragraph [0039], [0045], and [0053], where a user-controlled device (remote control) can activate the lure 10 during the aforementioned predetermined period of time). Thomas and Braun are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that said controller turns off said multiple mode fishing lure after a predetermined period of time has expired, unless there is communication with said user-controlled external device before said predetermined period of time occurs in view of Braun. The motivation would have been to save energy and power, thereby reducing cost and enabling the lure to work for longer periods of time without charging.
Claims 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20120204467) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Langer (U.S. Pat. 5511335).
In regard to claim 15, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose an aqueous ambient condition monitoring means for acquiring aqueous ambient condition data and communicably coupled to said controller, wherein said user-controlled external device is configured to read said acquired aqueous ambient condition data from said multiple mode fishing lure. Langer discloses an aqueous ambient condition monitoring means for acquiring aqueous ambient condition data and communicably coupled to said controller (Fig. 2 and Column 4 lines 50-63, where there are sensors 15 which monitor ambient condition data such as temperature), wherein said user-controlled external device is configured to read said acquired aqueous ambient condition data from said multiple mode fishing lure (Column 6 lines 43-54, where the transmitter 16 sends the ambient condition data from the sensors 15 to a user-controlled external device (sensory output such as a display)). Thomas and Langer are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that an aqueous ambient condition monitoring means for acquiring aqueous ambient condition data and communicably coupled to said controller, wherein said user-controlled external device is configured to read said acquired aqueous ambient condition data from said multiple mode fishing lure in view of Langer. The motivation would have been to allow the user to make informed, real-time decisions based on the environmental conditions (such as temperature) of the fishing area.
In regard to claim 17, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose said controller further includes fishing lure information, said multiple mode fishing lure further comprising a Bluetooth transceiver capable of communicating said fishing lure information with said user-controlled external device. Langer discloses said controller further includes fishing lure information, said multiple mode fishing lure further comprising a transceiver capable of communicating said fishing lure information with said user-controlled external device (Column 6 lines 43-54, where the transmitter 16 sends the ambient condition data from the sensors 15 to a user-controlled external device (sensory output such as a display)). Thomas and Langer are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that said controller further includes fishing lure information, said multiple mode fishing lure further comprising a Bluetooth transceiver capable of communicating said fishing lure information with said user-controlled external device in view of Langer, since the transceiver of Langer could be a Bluetooth transceiver. Bluetooth technology and transmission is old and well known in the art. The motivation would have been to allow the user to make informed, real-time decisions based on the environmental conditions (such as temperature) of the fishing area.
In regard to claim 18, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. and Langer discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 17, further comprising an aqueous ambient condition monitoring means for acquiring aqueous ambient condition data and communicably coupled to said controller, wherein said user-controlled external device is further configured to read said acquired aqueous ambient condition data (Langer, Fig. 2, Column 4 lines 50-63, and Column 6 lines 43-54, where the transmitter 16 sends the ambient condition data (such as temperature) from the sensors 15 (monitoring component) to a user-controlled external device (sensory output such as a display)).
In regard to claim 19, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose wherein said speaker is a piezoelectric brass speaker. Langer discloses wherein said speaker is a piezoelectric speaker (Fig. 3A and Column 9 lines 11-14, where there is a piezoelectric transducer speaker 46). Thomas and Langer are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include fishing devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that said speaker is a piezoelectric brass speaker in view of Langer, since the speaker of Langer could be made of brass. Manufacturing components out of brass is old and well known and would increase durability of the component. The motivation would have been to have a speaker with more high frequency output range, which enables sounds to travel further underwater.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Pub. 20120005940) in view of Palmer et al. (U.S. Pub. 20120204467) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Scribner (U.S. Pub. 20050097811).
In regard to claim 16, Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. discloses the multiple mode fishing lure of claim 4. Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. does not disclose a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag programmed with fishing lure information, and wherein said user-controlled external device is configured to read said RFID tag to obtain said fishing lure information. Scribner discloses a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag programmed with fishing lure information, and wherein said user-controlled external device is configured to read said RFID tag to obtain said fishing lure information (Paragraph [0037], where a RFID tag is used to transmit information regarding the device to a user-controlled external device (receiver unit). Thomas and Scribner are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include bait devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Thomas as modified by Palmer et al. such that a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag programmed with fishing lure information, and wherein said user-controlled external device is configured to read said RFID tag to obtain said fishing lure information in view of Scribner. The motivation would have been to easily identify specific lures out of a group of lures, to allow the user to choose the appropriate lure for a specific fishing scenario.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of fishing devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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 on (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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights