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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: line 8 the new term “defining” needed also to be with an underline markings. Appropriate correction is required.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8/12/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Application No. 18/244,389, Application No. 18/244,397, Application No. 18/244,398, Application No. 18/244,401, Application No. 18/235,269, Application No. 18/244,406, and Application No. 18/244,411 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 8-12-2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: it raises new matter that was not filed within the original disclosure 9-11-2023. The original disclosure is not specific to any dimensions regarding the angled “V-shape” platform to replace paragraphs [0041] and [0105] (which seems as a “typo” as it seems to be related to original paragraph [00102]).
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/12/2025. These drawings are unacceptable. New drawings of Fig. 21 and Fig. 22 contain new matter. As mention above, to original disclosure does not provide any disclosure regarding such dimensions/angled of the “V shape” platform, and new Figs. 21 and 22 are showing such dimension as related to the not enter “paragraph [0105]”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19, 20, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not disclose the added dimension of the flat base portion, when viewed in vertical cross-section, has a rearward slope angle from front-to-rear of the rigid platform of from about 0.1 degree to about 10 degrees; the upper surfaces near the interior left elastic support and the interior right elastic support, when viewed in vertical cross-section, have a rearward slope angle from front-to-rear of the rigid platform of from about 5 degrees to about 35 degrees; and the upper surfaces near the rigid exterior left elastic support and the rigid exterior right elastic support, when viewed from the rear, each have a downward slope angle of from about 30 degrees to about 80 degrees from the respective distal edges to proximal edges that are adjacent to the upper surfaces near the interior left elastic support and the interior right elastic support, and then abuts the flat base portion of the rigid platform defined near the vertex of the shallow "V-shaped" structure (claim 19). Same issues with regard to claims 20 and 23, the original disclosure is silent regarding such angles as claimed.
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 1-23 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 1, the claim amended to recite “a flat base portion, the flat base portion” (lines 3-4) and “a rigid central region defining a flat base portion” (lines 7-8). Furter clarification is require if “ a flat base portion” of line 4 is the same as “a flat base portion of line 8.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations "the rear edges" in line 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 18, the limitations "the edges of the flat base portion” (line 8); “the respective upward left and right legs” (lines 9-10); “the distal end of the rigid” (line 13) and “the distal end of the rigid right” (line 14); “then to the right elastic support” (lines 25-26); “the left elastic support” (lines 31-32); “the right elastic support” (line 33), there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Also, “the rigid platform” does not have “an upper first elastic launching element” (line 23) and does not have “a lower second elastic launching element (line 29)”. It is suggested to “delete” the term "the rigid platform having” before the “an upper first elastic launching element…” and before “a lower second elastic launching element…” to remedy such deficiencies
With respect to claim 23, same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 18.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17 and 19-22 are rejected based upon their dependency to claims 1 and 18, respectively.
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) 1-2, 5-7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walterscheid et al US 8,662,060 (“Walterscheid”) in view of LI CN105973064A (“LI”).
As per claim 1, Walterscheid discloses a toy projectile launching assembly for launching toy projectiles (toy assembly 70)(Fig. 5 and 4:8-18 in conjunction to Figs. 1-3; 2:33-3:40 and 3:56-4:7), comprising:
a platform defined by a rigid shallow "V-shaped" structure with a flat base portion, the flat base portion having an upper surface and a lower surface (construed as V shape of stock 74 with upper and lower surfaces)(Fig. 5; see also the examiner’s markings hereinafter), including:
a rigid left extension having a rigid exterior left elastic support (first arm section 28 with post 44)(Fig. 5 (4:8+) in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2; 2:57-67 and 3:11-17), a rigid right extension having a rigid exterior right elastic support (second arm section 30 with post 46)(Fig. 5 (4:8+) in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2; 2:57-67 and 3:11-17), and a rigid central region defining a flat base portion disposed between the left extension and the right extension (of stock 74 between first arm section 28 and second arm section 30)(Fig. 5);
PNG
media_image1.png
1016
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an interior left elastic support and an interior right elastic support situated between the rigid exterior left elastic support, and the rigid exterior right elastic support (such as posts structures 32 and 31(Fig. 5 (4:8+) in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2; 3:1-10); a first elastic launching element extending from the left elastic support to the right elastic support, and a second elastic launching element extending from the left elastic support to the right elastic support (such as runs 47 and 48 running along first and second arms 28 and 30, from exterior post 44-intrerior post 31 (e.g. along arm section 28) of loop 16; and from post 46-to post 32 (along second arm section 30); of loop 18 (Fig. 5 (4:8+) in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2; 3:11-36; also, note the examiner’s marking hereinafter).
PNG
media_image2.png
758
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Walterscheid is not specific regarding the upper first elastic launching element extending continuously from and attached to the upper portion of the left elastic support, then through the upper portion of the interior left elastic support and the upper portion of the interior right elastic support, and to the upper portion of the right elastic support; and the lower second elastic launching element extending continuously from and attached to, the lower portion of the left elastic support, then through the lower portion of the interior left elastic support and the lower portion of the interior right elastic support, and to the lower portion of the right elastic support.
However, in the field of devices for launching projectiles, LI discloses a launching element extending continuously from and attached to a left support then through an interior left and right supports and to a right support (rope 7 extends continuously and attached to left and right supports (of frame 2) while passes through interior left and right supports (such as through pulleys 6 and 8)(Fig. 1; pages 1 and 2 of the machine translation). 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 Walterscheid’s launching element extending continuously from and attached to the left support then through the interior left and right supports and to the right support as taught by LI for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as a matter of substituting one known launching element with another launching element to cause projectiles to launch therefrom.
Within the modified Walterscheid-LI both, the upper and lower launching elements would have extends continuously from and attached to the left support then through the interior left and right supports and to the right support, and thus the upper first elastic launching element extending continuously from and attached to the upper portion of the left elastic support, then through the upper portion of the interior left elastic support and the upper portion of the interior right elastic support, and to the upper portion of the right elastic support; and the lower second elastic launching element extending continuously from and attached to, the lower portion of the left elastic support, then through the lower portion of the interior left elastic support and the lower portion of the interior right elastic support, and to the lower portion of the right elastic support.
Lastly, With respect to “the platform defined by a rigid shallow "V-shaped" structure” if there is any doubt as Walterscheid’s platform as such (e.g., as shown in Fig. 5 and as marked above ), it is further noted that it has been held that the particular configuration of the object is nothing more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious as a matter of users preference or design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
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 Walterscheid’s platform as "V-shaped" structure for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as merely an obvious user’s choice, without any more.
As per claim 2, with respect to wherein the first elastic launching element and the second elastic launching element are each removably attached to the rigid left elastic support and the rigid right elastic support, the examiner construed either launching means of Walterscheid (i.e., loops 16 and 18 forming runs 47 and 48)(Figs.1- 23 and 5; 3:21-36) as well as LI’s rope 7 as such removable means. As no specific structure nor any specific function was defined, the examiner, in the broadest and most reasonable manner construed the elastic launching means of Walterscheid-LI as been removable.
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the interior left elastic support and the interior right elastic support each include an axle-roller assembly to accommodate freely reversible stretch, bend, run, or roll of the first and second elastic launching elements about the roller-axle subassembly, and to reduce frictional wear of the first and second elastic launching elements during launching of a projectile, construed as LI’s pulleys 8 (Fig. 1) as such axle roller, as claimed. In addition, with regard to the functionality of the axle-roller as “to accommodate freely reversible stretch, bend, run, or roll of the first and second elastic launching elements about the roller-axle subassembly, and to reduce frictional wear of the first and second elastic launching elements during launching of a projectile”, 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).
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein each axle-roller assembly is reversibly attached to the interior left elastic support and an interior right elastic support, the examiner construed LI’s pulleys 8 (Fig. 1) as such axle-roller assembly thereof. With regard to the “reversibly attached” as no specific structure claimed, the examiner, in the broadest and most reasonable manner, construed the rollers of LI to be capable to be attached to the launcher in such “reversible manner”. Again, as no apparent structure was claimed, note the examiner discussion above with respect to claim 5, whereas claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein each axle-roller assembly is permanently attached to the interior left elastic support and an interior right elastic support, note LI’s Fig. 1 regarding pulleys 8 attached thereto.
As per claim 15, with respect to the first elastic launching element and the second elastic launching element are coplanar and extend substantially parallel relative to each other above the flat base portion, note Walterscheid’s Figs. 1 and 5 regarding runs 47-48 attached within respective posts (i.e. 31/32-44/46) of a respective first arm section 28 and second arm section 32. Within the modified Walterscheid- LI the upper and lower launching elements would have extends continuously from and attached to the left support then through the interior left and right supports and to the right support , and parallel to each other.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walterscheid, and LI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cummings US 9,395,141 (“Cummings”) .
As per claim 3, the modified Walterscheid is not specific regarding wherein both ends of the first elastic launching element and both ends of the second elastic launching element are each removably attached to two different removable brackets situated within and attached to the lower surface side of the rigid left elastic support and the rigid right elastic support.
However, Cummings discloses wherein both ends of an elastic launching element are each removably attached to two different removable brackets situated within and attached to a lower surface side of a rigid left elastic support and a rigid right elastic support (construed as elastic loops 16 and 18, each includes runs 38 and 40 and are connected to launcher 12 via removable blocks 54)(Figs. 2-4; 3:36-4:21).
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 the modified Walterscheid wherein both ends of the elastic launching element are removably attached to two different removable brackets situated within and attached to the lower surface side of the rigid left elastic support and the rigid right elastic support as taught by Cummings for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known mechanical means to attached the elastic launching means in a firm and safe manner while in use yet allow an easy removable therefrom for maintenance, replacement, and alike.
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein both ends of the upper first elastic launching element and both ends of the lower second elastic launching element include a sub-assembly including a mated double-nippled bead and hollow elastic combination configured for attaching the ends of the launching elements to two different removable brackets through retention slots, note Cummings’s at least Figs. 2 and 3 (3:45-4:7) regarding ends 44 and 46 at each end of the elastic run 38 and 40; note Figs. 2-4 (3:57+) as the blocks 50 (removable brackets) to be position within receptacle 52 (e.g., a retention slots). Within the modified Walterscheid, by at least the teaching of LI, as there are first and second launching elements, the ends of each launching element would have been attached thereto using the bead means (as taught by Cummings).
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 the modified Walterscheid wherein both ends of the upper first elastic launching element and both ends of the lower second elastic launching element include a sub-assembly including a mated double-nippled bead and hollow elastic combination configured for attaching the ends of the launching elements to two different removable brackets through retention slots taught by Cummings for similar reason discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim(s) 8-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walterscheid and LI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamlett US 4,957,093 (“Hamlett”).
As per claim 8, Walterscheid is not specific regarding further comprising a handle attached to the lower surface at the flat base portion.
However, Hamlett discloses further comprising a handle attached to the lower surface at the flat base, note Hamlett’s Figs. 1-6 in conjunction to 5:17-6:49 regarding grip 20 attached to support/central body 12 via apertures 50 (within the body) and members 24. More specific, note Hamlett’s Figs. 1-6 in conjunction to 5:17-6:49 regarding grip 20 attached to support/central body 12 via apertures 50 (within the body) and members 24. Hamlett discloses arm support 22 with members 24 extending from platform/central body 12 (Figs. 1-7; 5:7-7:13).
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 Walterscheid’s further comprising a handle attached to the lower surface at the flat base as taught by Hamlett for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Hamlett’s suggestion to include such grip within launching devices that enhance the use of the launcher as for example in 2:50-59 ”The present invention is especially directed to an asymmetrical pistol grip assembly adapted for compound bow usage which includes an arrow positioning arrangement which accommodates positive positioning of the arrow at the center line of the bow plane and which removes the grip and sight window from the central portion of the body thereby greatly reducing the bow height and placing the grip at a position which eliminates misdirecting torques applied upon the arrow.”. Thus, utilizing such handle within the device of Walterscheid would have provided much desired properties of aiming, and launching a projectile therefrom.
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein the handle is reversibly attachable-detachable to the lower surface of the platform and extends substantially orthogonally downwardly from the lower surface of the flat base portion,” as no specific structure claimed, the examiner, in the broadest and most reasonable manner, construed the handle of Hamlett (i.e., grip 20; as for example shown in Figs. 1-6) to be capable to be attached to the launcher in such “reversible manner” as claimed. Again, note the examiner discussion above with respect to claim 5, whereas claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
As per claim 10, with respect to wherein the handle is permanently attached to the lower surface to the platform, note Hamlett’s Figs. 1-6 in conjunction to 5:17-6:49 regarding grip 20 attached to support/central body 12 via apertures 50 (within the body) and members 24.
As per claim 11, with respect to further comprising an arm support strap attached to the left side and right side of the arm support structure, Hamlett discloses an arm support strap (forearm portion 26)(Fig. 5 in conjunction to Figs. 9 and 10; also at least 6:50-54).
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 Walterscheid’s further comprising an arm support strap attached to the left side and right side of the arm support structure, Hamlett discloses an arm support strap as taught by Hamlett for similar reasons that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Hamlett’s suggestion to include such grip within launching devices that enhance the use of the launcher as for example in 2:50-59, as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Within the modified Walterscheid- Hamlett the arm support and the handle would have been attached to the lower surface of the flat base to be grasped by a user.
As per claim 12, with respect further comprising an arm support strap attached to the left side and right side of the arm support structure, note Hamlett’s Figs. 1-6 in conjunction to 5:17-6:49 regarding grip 20 attached to support/central body 12 via apertures 50 (within the body) and members 24. Hamlett discloses arm support 22 with members 24 extending from platform/central body 12 (Figs. 1-7; 5:7-7:13). Also, Hamlett discloses an arm support strap (forearm portion 26)(Fig. 5 in conjunction to Figs. 9 and 10; also at least 6:50-54).
As per claim 17, with respect to wherein the handle comprises a pistol grip, note Hamlett’s Figs. 2, 3 and 5 and 5:19+as the grip 20 is a pistol grip.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walterscheid, LI and Hamlett as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hunter US 2016/0313084 (“Hunter”).
As per claim 13, the modified Walterscheid by the teachings of Hamlett is not specific regarding wherein the arm support strap includes a clasp to adjust the tension of the strap.
However, such strap is well known as taught by Hunter, strap support attached within arm brace 24 in Figs. 2, 4 and 5 ([0032]-[0037]; note in particular Fig. 4 and [0037] as the strap (support 34) includes hook and loop (i.e., Velcro), claps for adjustment. Thus, Hunter discloses the arm support strap includes a clasp to adjust the tension of the strap. 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 the modified Walterscheid- Hamlett’s arm support strap including a clasp to adjust the tension of the strap as taught by Hunter for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Hunter’s suggestions to allow adjustment of the strap thereof.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walterscheid, LI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doherty et al US 6,076,513 (“Doherty”).
As per claim 16, Walterscheid is not specific regarding wherein the rear edges of the platform include one or more fasteners for removably receiving and holding one or more toy projectiles. However, Doherty discloses wherein a rear edges of a platform include one or more fasteners for removably receiving and holding one or more toy projectiles (such as storage rack 29)(Figs. 1-3; 3:46-48).
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 Walterscheid wherein the rear edges of the platform include one or more fasteners for removably receiving and holding one or more toy projectiles as taught by Doherty for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to enhance the use of the modified launcher to provide additional projectile to be readily and easily accessible to allow launching of succession projectiles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and are partially not persuasive.
Applicant argued that now claim the V-shape of claim 1 and 18 is not taught by the Walterscheid, (remarks page 33). However, the structure of the V-shape of claim 1 is much broader than of claim 18, and the examiner takes the position that Walterscheid discloses and teaches the claimed V-shape platform of the device of claim 1.
As marked above, as well as hereinafter Walterscheid includes a V-shape platform (of stock 74) with right and left rigid extension supports (arms 28 and 30)
PNG
media_image1.png
1016
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the Wu reference, as now amended claim 1, the examiner relied upon the teachings of LI as set forth above and thus applicant’s arguments are moot.
With respect to claim 3 and 4 (remarks page 34), applicant arguments are not pertinent to what the examiner relied upon the teachings of Cummings. Claim 3 and 4, claiming means to attached the elastic launching means utilizing brackets and nots. The examiner didn’t relied upon the “elastic loops” of Cummings as argued by applicant. The examiner maintains his position that Cummings teach and discloses the elements of claims 3 and 4 (i.e., brackets, loops) while connecting launching element to the launch device as set forth above. The examiner, further, asserts that the teachings of Cummings within the modified Walterscheid would have been obvious as use of known mechanical means to attached the elastic launching means in a firm and safe manner while in use yet allow an easily removable therefrom for maintenance, replacement, and alike, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8-12, and 17, applicant stated that “Hamlett is not rationally combinable for the rejected dependent claims 8-12 and 17, because the combination still does not cure at least the abovementioned deficiencies of independent Claim 1. “(remarks page 35). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hamlett explicitly suggested that using a handle and an arm support with launching device is very much beneficial (e.g. 2:50-59) ”The present invention is especially directed to an asymmetrical pistol grip assembly adapted for compound bow usage which includes an arrow positioning arrangement which accommodates positive positioning of the arrow at the center line of the bow plane and which removes the grip and sight window from the central portion of the body thereby greatly reducing the bow height and placing the grip at a position which eliminates misdirecting torques applied upon the arrow.”. Thus, utilizing such handle and arm support within the device of Walterscheid would have provided much desired properties of aiming, and launching a projectile therefrom.
With respect to claim 13 (remarks page 36), applicant stated “Hunter is not rationally combinable for the rejected dependent claim 13, because the combination still does not cure at least the abovementioned deficiencies of independent Claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hunter was cited to show that claps within a strap means, is well known within launching device and would have been obvious to incorporated within the modified Walterscheid - Hamlett as suggested by Hunter to allow adjustment of the strap thereof, which is very much beneficial to accommodate different users’ sizes and alike.
With respect to claim 16 (remarks pages 36-37), applicant stated “Doherty discloses a platform having fasteners for removably receiving and holding one or more projectiles but is not rationally combinable for the rejected dependent claim 16, because the combination still does not cure at least the abovementioned deficiencies of independent Claim 1.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Doherty, as pointed out by applicant, was cited to show that it is well known to include fasteners upon the launching device/platform to receive-hold projectile, and such teachings would have been much desired within the device of Walterscheid to enhance the use of the modified launcher to provide additional projectile to be readily and easily accessible to allow launching of succession projectiles.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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 10/28/2025 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711