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 .
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 11-20 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. 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). As to Claims 2 and 13, Clark teaches that the lower portion of the top may be generally truncated square pyramid 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 lower portion of the top with a generally truncated square pyramid shape, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute top shape. Munsell, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying the top being generally pyramidal-shaped or truncated square pyramid shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the top with a shape as claimed 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 (CCP:A 1966). As to Claims 3 and 15, Clark teaches that a slot (220) may be positioned in the top, Col. 5, ln. 49-50 and see Figure 1. 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 the top, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute feature for admitting the cable to the top. Munsell, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for arranging the slot in the center. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the slot in the center of the top since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As to Claim 4, Clark teaches that the cable may be positioned within the slot in the engaged position, Col. 5, ln. 62-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to position the arrow rest cable within the slot in the engaged position, as taught by Clark, to provide Munsell, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for engaging an arrow rest cable. As to Claims 5 and 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 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 and Mooney, 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 and Mooney, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claim 2, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, the examiner finds that the cited case law is applicable to support a finding of obviousness with regard to a truncated square pyramid shape specifically. 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 and Mooney, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claims 12 and 14, 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 3 February 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the receiving aperture of Clark would not function to accommodate a recessed archery bow limb, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner maintains the position that Clark teaches a two part clamp providing an aperture with a notch, as discussed above. The notch serves to confine the clamp so as to maintain alignment, because the grounding member is received in the notch. The inventive notch functions in the same way. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teaching of the cited references in combination, including the teaching of Mooney, which discloses a planar notch, to suggest the modification of Munsell to include a notch configured to receive the bow limb within the recess, in order to maintain alignment.
In response to applicant’s argument that Clark does not disclose a pair of threaded tap holes in the top, the examiner maintains the position that Clark teaches that the top and bottom are retained in engagement by two screws passing through the top and bottom, as in the inventive assembly. Clark provides the threads, for receiving the screws in the bottom instead of the top. The cited case law supports a finding of obviousness with regard to the reversal of the location of the threads.
In response to applicant’s argument that the unique design and shape of the inventive top promote easier manual manipulation of the system, the examiner maintains the position that the prior art teaches a raised portion in the center of the top, which may be easily grasped and manipulated. The record does not contain evidence sufficient to support a finding of criticality associated with a specifically claimed structural feature of the inventive system and the examiner finds that the design and shape of the prior art system top would function equally well.
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 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 February 2026