Northern pike for me is a fish species I won't eat. Ever. When I was still a spin fisherman back in my youth, me and my brother went to this little pond, caught a couple of pike and back home I prepared a fish soup of one of them.
After dinner I suffered from what I call a mother of all headaches - I seldom, if ever, get a headache - and now, years later, I'm inclined to think it was the slime on the skin of that pike that I didn't remove properly that caused the headache. I should've skinned that darn pike. That slime is said to be somewhat poisonous, too. At least it smells, um, different. You know what I'm talking about. Since then I haven't tasted pike. Of course today the reasons for not eating pike are quite different. I fish for big pike and those are too valuable fish to be killed. But this Ketchum Release tool is of no use when fishing for pike, right?
I spend my summers in Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian Lapland and I mainly fish for grayling, brown trout, arctic char and whitefish. Make no mistake, this European whitefish is nothing like the one despised by the American fly fishermen. Eating mayflies from the surface, rejecting your perfect fly imitation presented perfectly using a long leader with a 5X, 6X tippet, showing their huge tail fin, moving like ghosts, or giant miniature submarines, annoyingly slowly... And when you catch one you'll most likely lose it, playing it too hard... their mouth parts aren't exactly the strongest ones around. And boy, do they taste delicious! Fat whitefish fillet, fried in butter, flushed down with white wine, or cold, fresh water from the fjalls, directly from the river.
 |
| Fried whitefish, anyone? |
The Ketchum Release tool, however, is pretty useful when releasing those kind of fish, be they below the legal limit or bigger fish, maybe too big for me and my fishing buddies to eat. So I have to release some of them.
I used to carry a pair of surgeons pliers, or hemostat forceps, in my fly fishing vest. Our local fishing tackle shops carried many kinds of them and some of them were relatively cheap. And I had seen many of my fishing buddies using them, so I was convinced that they must be good. But that was when I was still using barbed hooks. With barbed hooks one must push & pull & wiggle & twist the hook when trying to remove it with pliers and that alone can cause damage to the fish, especially to a smaller fish. Not only may the pliers cause damage to the fish but also your hand when you try to hold that wiggling, jumping, squirming fish in place may cause damage to the fish. And the other downside of course is that during that process your delicate fly may be destroyed. All of these problems are very well known to any person skilled in the art of fly fishing. That darn barb was added to the hook so that you would have a hard time getting it out of fish's mouth. Damn those worm fishermen who invented it! When I switched to using barbless hooks I soon realized that those surgeons forceps just don't cut it - I needed a better and easier to use tool for the task. I had basically used the surgeons forceps for the only reason: I needed to be able to twist and push and pull and wiggle the hook when removing it from the fish. Because of the damn barb.
 |
| Surgeons pliers with a locking system |
Enough of that though. Boy, have they patented it! Let's see what exactly got patented...
| US5644865 - Fish hook remover | ||
|---|---|---|
| Inventors | Michael A. Harrison, Mark S. Farris | |
| 1st Assignee | C-1 Design Group L.L.C. | |
| Current assignee | C-1 Design Group L.L.C. | |
| Other recorded assignees | n/a | |
| Priority date | 1995-04-28 | |
| Filing date | 1995-04-28 | |
| Publication date | 1997-07-08 | |
| Grant date | 1997-07-08 | |
| Legal Status | Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362, 2009-08-03 | |
| Patent family publications | WO1996033608A1 | |
Original US application publication couldn't be found, so I'm assuming that the claims filed with the PCT application are equivalent. Notice of allowance date for the US application was 1997-01-02 while the filing date of the PCT application was 1996-04-22, therefore chances are that the PCT claims are the original pending claims filed with the US application. But we're not here to dig into that, are we...
| Original pending claim 1 | Granted claim 1 |
|---|---|
| A fish hook remover comprising | A fish hook remover comprising |
| an elongated body extending along a first axis comprising a first end and a second end, | an elongated body extending along a first axis comprising a first end and a second end, |
| a removal tip coupled to said first end comprising a tubular head, | a removal tip coupled to said first end comprising a tubular head, |
| said tubular head extending along a second axis offset from said first axis, | said tubular head extending along a second axis offset from said first axis, |
| said tubular head having an axial length exceeding a transverse width of said tubular head, | |
| said tubular head having a surface defining a slot, and | said tubular head having a surface defining a slot, and |
| said tubular head having an interior defining a chamber for engaging a fish hook dressed as an artificial fly. | said tubular head having an interior defining a chamber for engaging a fish hook dressed as an artificial fly. |
The granted claim has one additional step. "said tubular head having an axial length exceeding a transverse width of said tubular head,". Too bad I do not have the file history of this case, it would be nice to see what kind of objections led to this claim amendment.
| Original pending claim 11 | Granted claim 11 |
|---|---|
| A fish hook remover comprising | A fish hook remover comprising |
| an elongated body extending along a first axis comprising a first end and a second end, | an elongated body extending along a first axis comprising a first end and a second end, |
| a removal tip integral to said first end comprising a tubular head and a guide region, | a removal tip integral to said first end comprising a tubular head and a guide region, |
| a handle attached to a second end, | a handle attached to a second end, |
| said tubular head extending along a second axis offset from said first axis by more than zero degrees and less than ninety degrees, | said tubular head extending along a second axis offset from said first axis by more than zero degrees and less than ninety degrees, |
| said tubular head having a surface defining a slot wherein said slot extends the length of said tubular head along said second axis, | said tubular head having a surface defining a slot wherein said slot extends the length of said tubular head along said second axis, |
| said tubular head having an interior defining a chamber wherein said chamber extends the length of said tubular head along said second axis, | said tubular head having an interior defining a chamber wherein said chamber extends the length of said tubular head along said second axis, |
| said guide region being integral to said first end positioned between said elongated body and said tubular head, | said guide region being integral to said first end positioned between said elongated body and said tubular head, |
| and said guide region comprising a flat surface, said flat surface gradually increasing in surface area from said elongated body towards said slot such that said flat surface extends the length of said tubular head adjacent to said slot. | and said guide region comprising a flat surface, said flat surface increasing in width from said elongated body towards said slot such that said flat surface extends the length of said tubular head adjacent to said slot. |
The easiest way to get a patent claim granted is to add so many steps or parts to it that no other device, or combination of devices, has any chance of having them all. What happened to KISS in patent claims?
There's one important rule in patent drafting: support for claims should be found both from the disclosure part and from figures. The claim's got those two axes. I have a background in mechanical engineering so I was looking at the images where those axes were shown. Sure, the axes can be seen from e.g. fig. 2, if you use your imagination. But an engineer would've included those axes as elements in at least one figure. As the pending claims already included the claim limitation regarding the angle, it would've been convenient to have both the axes and the angle shown in the figures as filed.
A handle. Ok, what's the use of having a handle in the claim? My German plastic hook removal tool had a handle. In both ends, mind you. One end you used for removing the hook and the other end you grabbed with you hand. For small hooks you used the bigger end as a handle, for bigger hooks you used the smaller end as a handle. Handle that. And the word handle occurs just once in the claim. Sure, it might be used in the dependent claims but there are no dependent claims for claim 11. How important is that in the claim then? Important, if you want to add useless matter to the claim to make the claim look complicated.
If one takes a look at the PCT application claims, there's a claim 4 in the pending claims that was quite clearly utilized to make the Examiner happy:
4. The fish hook remover of Claim 3, further comprising a handle attached to said second end.
If the Examiner is happy you get a patent, that's how it works. But that doesn't make the patent claim good, does it. Like I said, in an elongated tool like this there's always a handle. Adding the handle to the claim neither distinguishes the claim over prior art nor makes the claim inventive. It doesn't add anything to the invention.
In my use of the Ketchum Release tool I never actually had noticed the "guide region" (50). I learned about it when I studied this patent publication. I thought the flat surface was just there to to make the tool look cool. Hey, is that proof of inventiveness or what?
I "always" use the whole shank of the tool to guide the tippet to the correct place (48). Well, not the whole length of the shank, but a big part of it, the smooth surface part of the "elongated body". I just press the leader line against the shank of the tool and let the line slide into the chamber (48). Below is a set of images trying to show how it's done.
 |
| The Setup |
 |
| Phase 1: pull line tight, bring in the Ketchum Release Tool - note the starting point |
 |
| Phase 2: keep line tight, slide the Ketchum Release tool against the line - the "guide region" (50) is still miles away |
 |
| Phase 3: done sliding, arrived at "guide section" 50 |
 |
| Phase 4: almost done, line entered the chamber |
So what's the point of the "guide region" in this claim, then? It's useless, I say. Or, if you want to put it in the claim you should not limit the location of the guide region to the "ankle" part of the tool. It's the whole elongated body and the currently claimed "guide region" part of the tool that can be used for the purpose of guiding the fishing line to that magical "correct place". Heck, if your hand was smooth and hairless, you could use even your arm to guide the line to the tool and from there on the tool would guide the line into the chamber (48). But of course, when you're playing a fish it's typical that you hold your rod tip high and slide the tool along the leader towards the fish's mouth, your other (left) hand holding the rod and the other (right) using the tool, so you can't really use your left hand in the process. Unless you're holding the line...
The "guide region" looks nice on the surface of the tool and certainly may have an impact on those customers looking for fancy tools that look cool. Well, sub-consciously at least. But it's the whole smooth surface of the tool that can be utilized for guiding the line into the chamber (48). The handle part of the tool's got some grooves which may prevent the tippet line from moving smoothly towards the chamber (48) but after the handle downwards the shank of the tool is darn smooth. From non-infringement point of view, this claim would've easily been designed around by designing the shank of the tool smooth as... a baby's bottom, without a visible "flat surface" (50).
Without the visible flat surface (50), you say? Just imagine: take Fig. 3, remove the flat surface (50) from the tool. Carve it away, turn it away, sand it away, chew it away, but leave the edges. Imagine you can see through the part 50 of Fig 3. The line would still be guided into the chamber and... no infringement. Granted, durability issues may arise, but it wouldn't be too difficult for an engineer skilled in the art to avoid it by a new, perhaps even more stylish design. It's easy to design around, isn't it?
It's quite typical that the patent attorney never uses the device he drafts the claims on. He just listens to the inventor of how it works or reads an email about it. This claim would've been much better if somebody had actually used the tool and paid attention to the location of the tippet line in various phases of fish removal - and utilized the information in claim drafting.
| Original pending claim 12 | Granted claim 12 |
|---|---|
| A method of removing a fish hook dressed as an artificial fly from a fish comprising the following steps: | A method of removing a fish hook dressed as an artificial fly from a fish comprising the following steps: |
| tensioning a fishing line by using the weight of a fish caught on the fishing line fish hook, | tensioning a fishing line by using the weight of a fish caught on the fishing line fish hook, |
| holding a fish hook remover comprising an elongated body having a guiding region and a tubular head integral to a first end of said elongated body, and a handle attached to said second end of said elongated body, wherein said tubular head defines a slot and a chamber, | holding a fish hook remover comprising an elongated body having a guiding region and a tubular head integral to a first end of said elongated body, and a handle attached to said second end of said elongated body, wherein said tubular head defines a slot and a chamber, said tubular head having an axial length exceeding a transverse width of said tubular head, |
| sliding said elongated body along the fishing line, with said guiding region and said slot facing toward the fishing line, such that the fishing line slides toward said first end of said elongated body, | sliding said elongated body along the fishing line, with said guiding region and said slot facing toward the fishing line, such that the fishing line slides toward said first end of said elongated body, |
| receiving the fishing line into said chamber defined by said tubular head via the fishing line sliding across said guiding region and through said slot into said chamber, | receiving the fishing line into said chamber defined by said tubular head via the fishing line sliding across said guiding region and through said slot into said chamber, |
| sliding said fish hook remover down toward the fish hook by using the fishing line as a guide for said tubular head, | sliding said fish hook remover down toward the fish hook by using the fishing line as a guide for said tubular head, |
| engaging the fish hook by securely sliding said tubular head over a shank portion of said fish hook such that a portion of the fish hook dressed as an artificial fly slides into said chamber of said tubular head, thereby minimizing damage to said fly, | engaging the fish hook by securely sliding said tubular head over a shank portion of said fish hook such that a portion of the fish hook dressed as an artificial fly slides into said chamber of said tubular head, thereby minimizing damage to said fly, |
| thrusting said fish hook remover downward to extract the fish hook from the fish | thrusting said fish hook remover downward to extract the fish hook from the fish, |
| and twisting said fish hook remover in an appropriate direction to prevent the fish hook from re-hooking the fish as the fish is being released. | and twisting said fish hook remover in an appropriate direction to prevent the fish hook from re-hooking the fish as the fish is being released. |
This is a method claim for using the tool. My question is, who'd you sue if someone was using your patented invention according to this method claim? The fisherman? He's the one using it. No? The manufacturer of the infringing tool? They're not using it, are they? In-directly the manufacturer of the infringing tool is offering the customer fly fisherman a chance to infringe method claim 12 after the customer buys the tool. Sure, some smart IP lawyer would build a case of that if the price was right. It's like if you were patenting a coffee mug, you'd be adding a method claim, a method of drinking liquid substance. Who'd you sue for infringement of such a claim?
Let's assume that there is indeed a good reason to keep a method claim in the application. From a fish? Ok, from a fish. But what if the hook is swallowed by your cat? The preamble already says it's a fish hook so why repeat the fish? If the originally filed claims already had "from the fish" then it's clearly not needed. If some prior art was cited where a hook was used but not for fish, it might be a different thing. As I don't have the file history and the prosecution data is not available via public PAIR I can't verify this. But I bet there's nothing on file history which would require adding "from the fish" to the claim. It's a fishing hook. That should cover it.
Some claim drafters use a lot of words, perhaps in an attempt to make the claim look long enough for the examiner to fall asleep when reading it. Or perhaps trying to impress someone, the inventor perhaps? Sure, you can leave "from the fish" in place but why leave anything that may limit your granted scope of coverage? - No, Your Honor, I use the tool for removing hooks from clients who've been using fishing hooks, and other hooks too, in their body piercings. Throat deep and all, you can imagine yourself, Your Honor. No, not from fish, Your Honor. Yes, in claim drafting you just have to consider all possible variations and uses for the claim and device, or method being claimed.
The use of the wordings "artificial fly", already used in independent claim 1, is ok here, because the latter part includes the "thereby minimizing damage to said fly", which is no doubt one of the main benefits of using this kind of tool, instead of those surgical pliers, for instance. But is that such a necessary part of the claim that it's needed in the independent claim? After all, the hook can be a plain hook used by the worm fishermen. Ok, I hear you, worm fishermen need barbs in their hooks, after all the barb's been there to prevent the worm from escaping from the hook. Doh! (I haven't tried if the Ketchum Release tool actually works with barbed hooks, it might as well work?) Maybe a hook used by spinning fishermen who fish selectively and use single barbless hooks in their pike lures, in order to avoid causing damage to the fish? Single hooks are actually quite commonly used by selective fishermen. If the tool is sold in various sizes, a bigger one could be used by these pike fishermen. But the essential part there wouldn't be the artificial fly. Ah, you say! But isn't the lure between the line and the hook in such arrangements? Well, normally yes. and instead of "sliding said elongated body along the fishing line" you'd be sliding said elongated body along the hook shank. And, there are special lures, such as a lure called Nokkela wobbler, manufactured by Rauman Uistin, where the hook is connected directly to the fishing line, or to the leader. This fish hook removal tool could be utilized for removing the hook "from the fish" caught with Nokkela wobbler. Not just for an artificial fly. So there was room for dependent claims for claim 12 in "artificial fly" and "avoiding damage to the artificial fly" combination.
There's the handle again. Unnecessary word, and not used in dependent claims. As there aren't any.
What about another dependent claim for claim 12? Yup, there's a passage in the granted claim 12 that shouldn't be in the independent claim. Again, had the drafting person used the tool when he was drafting the claims he would've soon realized that in most cases it's quite enough just to do the thrusting part. And the pulling the whole thing "from the fish" part, of course, which isn't directly specified in the claim, but is of course quite an obvious last move - "as the fish is being released". It all depends on the size of the hook, how wide the gape of the hook, and the size and thickness of the wire of the hook. And of course how the point of the hook is positioned relative to the walls of the chamber when the fly is in the chamber. In most cases the twisting part is not needed at all. Simple push and pull. Clearly the last step of twisting belongs in an dependent claim as it's not a mandatory step.
Thrusting said fish hook remover downward? I've used this tool when the fish was just lying there, horizontally. Thrusting said fish hook remover downward would in such situation crush the poor fish's cheek. And who says the hook is always in the fish's mouth in certain position, eye facing forward, the bend of the hook facing "downward", towards the fish tail? The method says, "tensioning a fishing line by using the weight of a fish caught on the fishing line fish hook", which is trying to say that the line needs to be tight - that's when the tool works best. What is the reason why the claim just doesn't say: tensioning the line tight?
Here we also come to the question: how do you land fish? The small fish you "land" into a releasing position in a manner shown in the attached video below. That's how you can instantly release fish, without touching, using just one hand. But what happens when you catch the bigger one? You net it. Then you pray that the fish remains still and you start removing the hook.
At least two ways to release the fish: 1) holding the rod in your (left) hand, 2) placing the rod on the ground, and holding the line in your (left) hand. Either way it's possible to keep the line tight.
If the hook is in the fish's mouth you just pull the line tight when the fish is in your landing net, exhausted, lying on her side. That's how I release most of my bigger fish. Again a reason why somebody should've used the tool instead of just listening to the inventors. All that's required is that the fishing line is pulled tight.
 |
| You don't release a big fish the same way you release a small one |
| Granted and added claim 13 | |
|---|---|
| A fish hook remover comprising | |
| an elongated body extending along a first axis comprising a first end and a second end, | |
| a removal tip coupled to said first end comprising a tubular head and a guide region, said guide region positioned between said elongated body and said tubular head, | |
| a handle attached to said second end, | |
| said tubular head extending along a second axis offset from said first axis, | |
| said second axis offset from said first axis by more than zero degrees and less than ninety degrees, | |
| said tubular head having a surface defining a slot wherein said slot extends the length of said tubular head along said second axis, wherein said chamber extends the length of said tubular head along said second axis, | |
| said tubular head having an interior defining a chamber for engaging a fish hook dressed as an artificial fly, and | |
| said guide region comprising a flat surface, said flat surface increasing in width from said elongated body towards said slot such that said flat surface extends the length of said tubular head adjacent to said slot. |
Like you probably know, it's quite common to copy the base of the claim, for instance of a device claim, and use it as the basis for system, method claim in the same patent application. While it can be considered as means for reducing patent claim drafter's work, that lazy sob, it also carries the bad design with it - the other claim categories inherit bad claim structure of earlier claims. Like this "handle" thing here in claim 13, inherited from earlier independent claim 11. And the guide region with a flat surface. And the artificial fly. Some are inherited in the pending claim phase and some in the prosecution phase.
One note worth mentioning here are the citations. The Examiner has cited, during the prosecution, a total of 15 patent documents as prior art. Oldest citation has publication date of 1943-11-09 while the most recent had a publication date of 1980-06-10. There's a quite wide gap between the latest citation and the filing year 1995 of the Ketchum Release patent application. That alone says there was room for innovation.
Quite often inventions this small won't get patented by the inventor and also quite often there's no searchable documentation the Examiner could use so there's a lot of prior art probably around the world that could've been used for prosecution, invalidation purposes. But as this patent seems to have expired I won't go there either. Were this a patent application I would certainly dig into the matter.
 |
| Possibly undocumented prior art with a guide section |
 |
| Fish hook remover with a handle and a guiding section |
Other tools
DISCLAIMER: all IP data herein has been collected from public IP search services and naturally I cannot assume responsibility for their accuracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment