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 .
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 16-21 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.
With respect to claim 16, the claim amended to recite “when the string carrier is in the disengage position, an actuation of the release lever moves the retaining mechanism from the first position to the second position”. Further clarification is require regarding such amendments as it seems that while the string carrier is in the disengage position, the retaining mechanism is already in the second, disengaged position.
Same issues with respect to independent claim 20, that recites similar limitations.
Dependent claims 17-19 and 21are rejected based upon their dependency to claim 16.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasor et al US 2010/0170488 (“Rasor”) in view of Prior US 8,485,170 (“Prior”) and Norkus US 7,578,289 (“Norkus”).
As per claim 1, Rasor discloses a crossbow (crossbow 24)(Figs. 1-18A; paragraphs [0046]-[0086]) comprising:
a center rail (frame member 34)(Figs. 1-3; [0049] and [0050]);
a riser coupled with the center rail (riser 40)(Figs. 1-2B; [0050]);
a limb coupled to the riser (limbs 50 and/or 52)(Figs. 1-2B; [0050]);
a drawstring configured to move between a released configuration and a drawn configuration (bowstring 66)(Fig. 1 and [0052]; Fig. 2A (release/rest position) and Fig. 2B (drawn configuration); also, [0056]);
a string carrier slidably coupled with the center rail, the string carrier including a pin and string catch, configured to selectively engage the drawstring, the string carrier configure to move between a forward position and a retracted position (release 86 with pins (188 and/or 190) and string catch (bowstring catch 162) in at least Figs. 13-18A ([0073]); note Fig. 3 in conjunction to Figs. 1, 2A and 2B as the release to travel upon the center rail (34) to travel between such configurations; also, at least [0055], [0056], [0062], [0075] and [0076])
a retaining mechanism coupled with the center rail and configured to selectively engage with the pin of the string carrier to selectively retain the string carrier in the retracted position (construed as housing 82 including cutouts 100 (e.g., Figs. 4, 5 and 8) to receive pins 188/190of carrier 86 in the retract position)(Figs. 9A, 9B; [0060], [0073], [0075]) and wherein the retaining mechanism is positioned rearward of the string catch (cutouts 100 are rearward to catch (162) while the carrier 86 engages drawstring 66 (via catch 162)(Fig. 1);
a power cable including an end portion and a second portion (any one of cables 68 and/or 70)(Figs. 1-2B; [0052]); and
cam assembly rotatably coupled to the limb about an axis of rotation (any one of power cams/ pulleys 62 and/or 64)(Figs. 1-2B; [0051] and [0052]), the cam assembly including:
a string guide defining a plane of rotation of the cam assembly about the axis of rotation and structured to support the drawstring (bowstring 66 receives within grooves, track of corresponding cams/pulley)(Figs. 1-2B; [0051]-[0052]) ;
a drawstring attachment post structured to secure the drawstring to the string guide (construed as the attachment means of bowstring 66 between the cams/pulleys)( Figs. 1-2B; [0051]-[0052]);
a power cable attachment means (each power cable 68 and/or 70 attached to a respective power cam/pulley 62 and 64)( Figs. 1-2B; [0051]-[0052]); and
a power cable attachment post structured to secure the end portion of the power cable to the string guide (attachment of cables 68 and/or 70)(Figs. 1-2B), the power cable attachment post extending vertically from the string guide to position the end portion of the power cable a first distance from the plane of rotation (Fig. 1); and
wherein, during operation of the crossbow as the drawstring moves from the released configuration (Fig. 2A) to the drawn configuration (Fig. 2B);
wherein, during operation of the crossbow as the drawstring moves from the released configuration (Fig. 2A) to the drawn configuration(Fig. 2B) the string guide rotates about the axis of rotation (Figs. 1-2B as the operation of the crossbow, cases rotation of the power cams/pulleys about the axis or rotation thereof)(also [0051], [0052], and [0056]).
Rasor is not specific regarding wherein the retaining mechanism moves between a first position in which the retaining mechanism is engaged with the pin and a second position in which the retaining mechanism is disengaged from the pin.
Rasor is not specific regarding a power cable journal extending vertically away from the plane of rotation along the axis of rotation, the power cable journal structured to support the power cable; and a power cable attachment post structured to secure the end portion of the power cable to the string guide, the power cable attachment post extending vertically from the string guide to position the end portion of the power cable a first distance from the plane of rotation.
With respect to the retaining mechanism, Prior shows and discloses a retaining mechanism movable between a first, retaining position of carriage 120 and a second, disengage position, via catches 146 (Figs. 10 and 11; 6:57-7:5 and 8:52-9:6).
Within Rasor the retaining means are “stationary” (i.e., cutouts 100) to receive the movable pins 188/190 of carrier 86, whereas Prior teaches “an opposite concept”, the carriage 120 includes “stationary means” (i.e., cutouts 125) to be retain by movable pins/catches 165. Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s retaining mechanism including movable means as taught by Prior for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as merely a matter of obvious engineering choice based upon rearrangement of parts. As it has been held, shifting the position of the elements would not have modified the operation of the device; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to the cable journal means, in a similar field of archery devices, Norkus discloses a power cable journal extending vertically away from the plane of rotation along the axis of rotation, the power cable journal structured to support the power cable; and a power cable attachment post structured to secure the end portion of the power cable to the string guide, the power cable attachment post extending vertically from the string guide to position the end portion of the power cable a first distance from the plane of rotation (such as helical groves of power cable journal 30 to receive power cables 24 and/or 26, (at end 34)). Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s cam assembly with a power cable journal extending vertically away from the plane of rotation along the axis of rotation, the power cable journal structured to support the power cable; and a power cable attachment post structured to secure the end portion of the power cable to the string guide, the power cable attachment post extending vertically from the string guide to position the end portion of the power cable a first distance from the plane of rotation as taught by Norkus for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Norkus’ suggestion that such cams-to-power cable journals provide enhance drawings properties (in Fig. 7 in conjunction to at least 2:66-3:12).
With respect to the functionality as “wherein, during operation of the crossbow as the drawstring moves from the released configuration to the drawn configuration, the power cable journal displaces the second portion of the power cable vertically away from the plane of rotation such that the second portion of the power cable is positioned a second distance from the plane of rotation with the drawstring in the drawn configuration, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance, wherein the vertical displacement of the second portion of the power cable creates a gap between the second portion of the power cable and the plane of rotation; wherein, during operation of the crossbow as the drawstring moves from the released configuration to the drawn configuration, (1) the string guide rotates about the axis of rotation and (ii) the drawstring attachment post, the power cable attachment post, and the end portion of the power cable pass within the gap between the second portion of the power cable and the plane of rotation without contacting the second portion of the power cable”, note the examiner’s markings in conjunction to Norkus’s Fig. 7 as the power cable journal (30) extend vertically away from the plain of rotation
PNG
media_image1.png
645
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, within the combination Rasor- Norkus, as the modified power cams/pulleys would have such “helical/vertical” power cam journal (as taught by Norkus) during operation, as the crossbow is drawn, the power cable/s, would have wind about the “helical/vertical” power cable journal/s to displace vertically away from the plain of rotation to form such gap/s as claimed.
Lastly, if there is any doubt regarding the examiner interpretation regarding, wherein the retaining mechanism is positioned rearward of the string catch, and in the hope of expedite prosecution, such limitations are taught by Prior (pins 146 (i.e., retaining mechanism) is position rearward to a string catch (cable 108 catches by carrier 120 (e.g., Figs. 3, and 4; 8:34-51; 9:7-26). Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s wherein the retaining mechanism is positioned rearward of the string catch as taught by Prior for similar reasons discussed above (i.e., as a matter of obvious engineering choice based upon rearrangement of parts without changing the nature of the retaining mechanism as configure to retain the string carrier).
As per claim 2, with respect to wherein the power cable journal defines a length along the axis of rotation sized to accommodate about 720 degrees of rotation of the cam assembly about the axis of rotation, note Norkus’ 3:2-7 in conjunction to Fig. 7. Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s power cable journal defines a length along the axis of rotation sized to accommodate about 720 degrees of rotation of the cam assembly about the axis of rotation as taught by Norkus for similar reasons discussed above (i.e., provides enhance drawings properties).
As per claim 3, with respect to wherein the gap formed between the second portion of the power cable and the plane of rotation increases as the drawstring moves from the released configuration to the drawn configuration, within the modified Rasor by the teachings of Norkus, as the power cable journal is helical/vertical (as taught by Norkus’ Fig. 7 in conjunction to at least 2:66-3:12 ) as the archery crossbow drawn, the power cable, while translating upon the “helical/vertical” power cam journal, would have a gap between the plane of rotation such gap increase as the archery bow moved between release configuration to the drawn configuration. Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s wherein the gap formed between the second portion of the power cable and the plane of rotation increases as the drawstring moves from the released configuration to the drawn configuration as taught by Norkus for the reasons discussed above.
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein the power cable journal includes a smooth power cable take-up, note Norkus’ Fig. 7 regarding cam 18 assembly including groove 30 (also 2:65+). Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s wherein the power cable journal includes a smooth power cable take-up as taught by Norkus for the reasons discussed above.
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the power cable journal defines a length along the axis of rotation at least twice a diameter of the power cable, note Norkus’ Fig. 7 as the length groove 30 (power cable journal) relative to the shaft, and the diameter of cable 24. Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s wherein the power cable journal defines a length along the axis of rotation at least twice a diameter of the power cable as taught by Norkus for the reasons discussed above.
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein the power cable journal defines a length configured to receive the power cable, the length extending helically about the axis of rotation to accommodate varying degrees of rotation of the cam assembly, within the modified Rasor by the teachings of Norkus such length would have been extending in an helical manner about the axis of rotation, e.g., Norkus’ helical power cable journal (30; Fig. 7). Therefore, 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 to form Rasor’s wherein the power cable journal defines a length configured to receive the power cable, the length extending helically about the axis of rotation to accommodate varying degrees of rotation of the cam assembly as taught by Norkus for the reasons discussed above.
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein further comprising:
the string carrier is engaged with the center rail to allow the string carrier substantially only one degree of freedom relative to the center rail, note Rasor’s Figs. 1 and 3 in conjunction to at least [0055] and [0057], as the carrier (bowstring release 86) travel/guided upon frame member 34 (center rail) by channel 87.
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the center rail defines undercuts, wherein the string carrier defines extensions engaged with the undercuts, and wherein the one degree of freedom is along a rail length of the center rail, construed as channel 87 of frame/center rail 34 to receive carrier 86 within (Fig. 1; [0054], [005] and [0057]) of Rasor.
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein, during operation of the crossbow as the drawstring moves from the released configuration to the drawn configuration, the string carrier moves along the center rail until the drawstring reaches the drawn configuration, note Rasor’s Fig. 2A (in the release/rest configuration) and Fig. 2B (the drawn configuration to the position of the carrier 86 (also, note at least [0055]-[0057] and [0075] as drawing of the crossbow to rail carrier 86 into the release configuration)
As per claim 10, with respect to further comprising: a cocking pulley coupled to the string carrier; a cocking rope anchor coupled to the center rail; and a cocking rope engageable with the cocking rope anchor and the cocking pull to move the string carrier along the center rail until the string carrier reaches the retracted position, construed as the cocking mechanism of Rasor (in at least Figs. 4-7); to include at least spool 120 and gears (i.e., a pulley), hole 134 to anchor retractor rope 88 (i.e., a coking anchor to anchor cocking rope) and the cocking mechanism, retract the carrier 86 upon the center rail to a retract position (e.g., Figs. 2B, 9A and 9B; see also at least [0062]-[0065]).
As per claim 12, with respect to wherein the string guide defines a maximum diameter that is less than a power stroke of the crossbow divided by five, although the prior art is not specific regarding such dimensions, it is noted that it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, 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 to form Rasor - Norkus string guide in such dimensions as claimed for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to discover the optimum cam’s string guide, by routine experimentation, to provide the optimize cam structure to insure the optimize drawn of the crossbow to transfer the optimize energy thereto while drawing and releasing the crossbow to shoot a projectile therefrom.
As per claim 13, with respect to further comprising: a cocking system that includes a drive shaft; and a cocking handle including a torque control mechanism defining a pre-set maximum torque that can be applied to the drive shaft by the cocking handle, note Rasor’s Figs. 4-7 in conjunction to [0062]-[0065] regarding cocking mechanism, to include at least axle 138 (i.e., drive shaft) and crank arm 84 (i.e. a cocking handle) to draw the crossbow.
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein the torque control mechanism includes a compressive element applying a compressive load to a coupling shaped to engage the driveshaft, note Rasor’s Figs. 4-7 in conjunction to [0062]-[0065] regarding cocking mechanism, to include at least axle 138 (i.e., drive shaft) and crank arm 84 (i.e. a cocking handle) to draw the crossbow.
As per claim 15, with respect to wherein the torque control mechanism will allow a relative slippage of the cocking handle relative to the driveshaft when a torque greater than the pre-set maximum torque is applied, note Rasor’s Figs. 4-7 in conjunction to [0062]-[0065] regarding cocking mechanism, to include at least axle 138 (i.e., drive shaft) and crank arm 84 (i.e. a cocking handle) to draw the crossbow.
In addition, with respect to the functionality of the cocking system (e.g., claims 13-15), it is important to recognize that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. ”Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Absent any specific structure to the “drive shaft/coking handle”, the examiner takes the position that Rasor’s cocking mechanism, is fully capable of performing the same function as claimed (e.g., applying compressive load; and/or allow relative slippage”, and etc.), since his device is equipped with the same features as the claim subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-23-2025, with respect to claims 1-10 and 12-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the current prior art to, Rasor, Prior and Norkus is not specific regarding the amended limitations marked in underline (remarks page 10), and applicant concluded “ However, as shown in FIG. 18A of Rasor, the pins 188/190 are not positioned rearward of the bowstring hook 162.” (remark page 11).
The examiner respectfully disagrees and further asserts that the pins 188/190 are not relied as the claimed retaining mechanism, as set forth above.
As set forth above in claim 1, the examiner construed Rasor’s cutouts 100 (e.g., Figs. 4-5 and at least Figs. 8-9B) as the retaining mechanism, and wherein the retaining mechanism is positioned rearward of the string catch (cutouts 100 are rearward to catch (162) while the carrier 86 engages drawstring 66 (via catch 162)(Fig. 1). As clearly shown in Fig. 1, the cutouts 100 are rearward to catch 162 while the catch engages drawstring 66. Also, as mentioned above, if there is any doubt regarding the examiner interpretation about, wherein the retaining mechanism is positioned rearward of the string catch, and in the hope of expedite prosecution, such limitations are taught by Prior (pins 146 (i.e., retaining mechanism) is position rearward to a string catch (cable 108 catches by carrier 120 (e.g., Figs. 3, and 4; 8:34-51; 9:7-26).
Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, the combination Rasor, Prior and Norkus teaching and disclosing all the limitations of amended claim 1 as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 2/23/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711