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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munsell et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,544,457, in view of Clark et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,621,763, and in further view of Mooney et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,988,052, and Guthmann, U.S. Patent No. 4,109,603. As to Claim 1, Munsell teaches a system (securing mechanism) for use with an arrow rest, Col. 1, ln. 53-54 and Col. 6, ln. 63-66. The system may comprise a top configured to attach to an archery bow limb and a bottom, comprising a rear side, configured to engage the top, wherein the top and bottom sandwich the archery bow limb when the system is in an engaged position, Col. 6, ln. 63-66 and see Figure 2, noting clamp. Munsell teaches an arrow rest cable (80) secured to the top and the arrow rest cable is configured to engage the arrow rest (12, 64), Col. 3, ln. 62-66 and Col. 6, ln. 63-66 and see Figure 2. Munsell is silent as to at least two socket head screws and a set screw. Clark teaches a system (50) configured for removably attaching (noting clamp) comprising a top (110) and a bottom (100) configured to removably engage the top, Col. 4, ln. 15-23 and see Figures 1 and 3, noting threaded holes receiving screws. At least two screws (130) may be configured to engage the top and bottom, Col. 4, ln. 20-23. The top and bottom may sandwich a member (500) when the screws are in an engaged position, and the bottom may have a rear side extending a full distance between each of the two screws, see Figures 1 and 4. A set screw (140) may be configured to removably secure a cable (510) to the top, Col. 5, ln. 62-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munsell with at least two screws configured to engage the top and bottom to sandwich a member when engaged and to provide a set screw configured to removably secure a cable, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell with fasteners to secure the top and bottom to the bow limb in sandwiched fashion and with a set screw configured to removably secure an arrow rest cable to yield the predictable result of facilitating the attachment and removal of the top and bottom from the limb and to facilitate detachment of the arrow rest cable. Munsell, as modified, does not disclose that the at least two screws may be socket head screws. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select socket type screws since it was known in the art that socket head screws may be selected as a convenient substitute to allow the use of a preferred tool for manipulating the screws. Munsell, as modified, discloses the threaded tap holes, for receiving the screws to engage the top and bottom, in the bottom instead of in the top. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the location of the threaded tap holes, to place them in the top, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Clark teaches that a rear side of the top may comprise a notch (rounded portion of aperture 120) configured to engage an inner side of a member (500), wherein the member may be recessed in the notch when the top and bottom sandwich the member, Col. 4, ln. 46-52 and see Figure 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munsell, as modified, with a notch in the rear side of the top, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with notch between the top and bottom, to allow the limb to be recessed in the notch. Munsell, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing the notch with a planar shape and except for configuring the bottom rear side with a planar surface. Mooney teaches a similar system comprising a top (13) and bottom (14) secured by screws (16, 17), Col. 2, ln. 20-24. A notch (aperture between top and bottom) may comprise a planar notch in the top, see Figures 1 and 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munsell, as modified, with a planar shape for the notch, as taught by Mooney, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a flat area at the base of the notch, to yield the predictable result of maintaining the system in alignment with the limb. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the bottom rear side with a planar shape, since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Clark teaches a slot (220) in communication with a quick connect cable lock hole (170), Col. 5, ln. 49-50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munsell, as modified, with a slot in communication with a quick disconnect cable lock hole, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute entry path and retention portion for inserting an archery rest cable to be secured in the system. Munsell, as modified, is silent as to the slot being sized with a width less than the width of the quick disconnect cable lock hole, the slot being configured to receive a knotted end of an arrow rest cable, wherein the knotted end is configured to fit within the quick disconnect cable lock hole, and wherein the knotted end has a diameter greater than a width of the slot such that the knotted end is prevented from passing through the slot. Guthmann teaches that a slot (54) may be sized with a width less than a width of a quick disconnect cable lock hole (60), the slot being configured to receive a knotted end of a cable (68), the knotted end of the cable may be configured to enter the quick disconnect cable lock hole and rest within the arcuate portion (42), the knotted end having a diameter greater than the width of the slot such that the knotted end is prevented from passing through the slot, Col. 3, ln. 37-46, 60- Col. 4, ln. 3 and see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Munsell, as modified with the slot being configured with a quick disconnect cable lock hole sized to receive a knot at the end of the cable and the slot sized to receive the cable and having a width configured to prevent passage of the knot to prevent passage of the knotted end to provide Munsell, as modified with a known substitute configuration of the system to secure the arrow rest cable having a knotted end. As to Claims 2, 13, and 21, The examiner finds that the system of prior art as discussed in the treatment of Claim 1 possesses the structural features of the claimed inventive system and is capable of performing in the same manner, namely by retaining the knotted end within the quick connect cable lock hole independent of engagement of the set screw with the knotted end being the primary structure preventing withdrawal of the cable through the slot. "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112. As to Claim 3, Guthmann teaches that a cable may be insertable into a quick disconnect cable lock hole only by lateral movement through the slot, see Figure 2, noting that the cable may move laterally into the slot as the knotted end enters through the cable lock hole into the area encircled by the arcuate portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the slot and cable lock hole, as taught by Guthmann, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for a slot and cable lock hole. As to Claims 4 and 15, Clark teaches that the set screw may be configured to engage the cable after the cable is positioned within the cable lock hole, see Figure 1. Guthmann teaches positioning a cable within a slot with a knotted end in a cable lock hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the system of Munsell with the set screw configured to engage the cable after a knotted end of the cable is positioned within the cable lock hole as taught by Clark and Guthmann, to provide Munsell, as modified, with two cable retaining structures to yield the predictable result of a back-up retaining structure. As to Claim 5, Clark teaches that the quick disconnect cable lock hole may provide space below the set screw, see Figure 1. It follows that a knotted end of an arrow rest cable may be received in the quick disconnect cable lock hole with the knot in the hole and the cable in position to be engaged by the set screw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the quick disconnect cable lock hole and set screw, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with quick disconnect cable lock hole and set screw arranged to receive a knot in the hole and engage the cable with a set screw, to yield the predictable result of a back-up feature for retaining the arrow rest cable. As to Claim 6, Clark teaches that the slot may be positioned opposite a rear side of the top, see Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the slot opposite a rear side of the top, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute arrangement for the slot. Munsell, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the slot may be on a facet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the slot on a facet of the top since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra. As to Claim 7, Clark teaches that the top and bottom may comprise an alloy, Col. 7, ln. 11-14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide top and bottom comprising an alloy, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute material. As to Claims 8 and 9, Munsell, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for selecting a polymer or carbon fiber as a material for the top or bottom. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a polymer or carbon fiber, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As to Claim 11, Munsell teaches a compound bow (18) comprising the system of Claim 1, Col. 8, ln. 57-63. As to Claim 12, Munsell, as modified by Clark, Mooney, and Guthmann, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable and that the system of Claim 1 may be considered to be a bow limb driven arrow rest quick disconnect cable assembly. As to Claim 14, Munsell, as modified by Clark, Mooney, and Guthmann, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claim 2, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 16, Clark teaches that the slot may be generally U-shaped, see Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the slot generally in a U-shape, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute slot shape. As to Claim 17, Clark teaches that the top and bottom may comprise an alloy, Col. 7, ln. 11-14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide top and bottom comprising an alloy, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute material. As to Claim 18, Munsell, as modified, is applied as in Claim 11. As to Claim 19, Munsell, as modified by Clark, Mooney, and Guthmann, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claim 12, with the same obviousness rationales being found applicable. Further, Clark teaches that the set screw may be configured to engage the top, Col. 8, ln. 8-14 and see Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the set screw to engage the top, as taught by Clark to provide Munsell, as modified, with feature configured to secure a cable to the top, to yield the predictable result of attaching the cable to the bow limb. With regard to a set of printed instructions, the examiner finds that the instructions do not bear a functional relationship to the assembly and as such do not patentably distinguish the inventive assembly from the prior art. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent, MPEP 2112.01. The examiner finds that the assembly as taught by prior art is capable of being packaged into a unitary packaging assembly. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112. As to Claim 20, the examiner finds that the presence of written instructions does not serve to patentably distinguish the invention from the prior art. Written instructions integral with the unitary packaging assembly does not establish a functional relationship between the instructions and the substrate and does not patentably distinguish the invention from prior art. ( "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability…The critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." ); In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392, 1396 (CCPA 1969) (finding a new and nonobvious relationship between a measuring cup and writing showing how to "half" a recipe); In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) (matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art); In re Xiao, 462 Fed. App'x 947, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (affirming an obviousness rejection of claims directed to a tumbler lock that used letters instead of numbers and had a wild-card label instead of one of the letters); In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898, 901 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (non-precedential) (printed matter on game cards bears no new and nonobvious functional relationship to game board) MPEP 2112.01 III.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 12 May 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that Clark teaches a fundamentally different cable retention structure, the examiner maintains the position that the Clark teaches a cable retaining feature on a top, which top is a part of a clamping structure in the same manner as the inventive system. Clark teaches that the cable retaining feature comprises a slot communicating with a hole into which a cable may be inserted and secured by a set screw, in the same manner as the inventive cable retaining feature. The hole includes space below the set screw capable of receiving a knot so that the knot and the set screw may cooperate to retain the cable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 17 August 2026
Prosecution Insights