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 11-17, 19 and 20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " wherein the lever arm " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-17 are rejected based upon their direct or indirect dependency to claim 11.
With respect to claim 19, further clarification is require regarding “that are independent of the force applying fastener”. It is unclear if such limitations are related to functionality or structure (applying fastener, is not positively claiming a fastener structure).
With respect to claim 20, further clarification is require regrading “to mount to the mounting bracket second portion” (lines 5-6) as preceding lines 2 and 3 each recites “a mounting bracket”, as such it is not clear to which “the mounting bracket”, the claim further referred to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munsell et al US 8,544,457 (“Munsell”).
As per claim 1, Munsell discloses an arrow rest device (archery rest system 10)(Figs. 1-15; 3:53-8:33) comprising:
a mounting bracket for attachment to a bow riser (attachment arm 16)(Figs. 1-3; 3:61-4:49; note also Fig. 7);
a geometrically shaped surface of the mounting bracket (Figs. 1-3);
a coupler having a mating attachment surface for connecting with the geometrically shaped surface of the mounting bracket (attachment piece 14)(Figs. 1-3; 3:61-4:49); an accessory for attachment to the coupler (construed as body 12 attached to coupler 14)(Figs. 1-3; 3:61-5:35); an opening formed in the accessory (Figs. 12-13);
and a shaft received through the opening formed in the accessory (shaft 58 position within the opening of body/accessory 10)(Figs. 1-3 and 9-15; 5:36-6:28), the shaft rotatable in the opening formed in the accessory, the shaft having a first end to accommodate an arrow launcher, and the shaft having a second end to attach to a cord (shaft first end 60 attached to cord assembly, lever arm 64 connected to cord 80; the shaft second end 62 attached to launcher 20)(Figs. 1-3, and 9-15; 5:36-7:44).
As per claim 2, Munsell discloses further comprising a cord accessory attached to the shaft, wherein the cord is attached to the shaft via the cord accessory (coord 80 connected with lever arm 64)(Figs. 1-2, 6-7 and 15; 6:59-7:44) .
As per claim 3, Munsell discloses wherein the shaft has a portion with a geometric shape, and the cord accessory has a portion with a corresponding geometric shape, wherein the geometric shape of the shaft fits together with the corresponding geometric shape of the cord accessory (the shaft 58 formed by a multi-sided and the lever arm 64 has a corresponding multi-sided C-clamp)(Figs. 1, 3, and 12-15; 5:36-52).
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein the geometric shape of the shaft and the corresponding geometric shape of the cord accessory include at least one flat surface to cause the cord accessory to move with the shaft, note 5:36-52 in conjunction to at least Fig. 3 as marked hereinafter. Note also Figs. 11-15 in conjunction to at least 5:36-52 and 6:10-57 and 7:45+ regarding the operation of the rest as the shaft-to-cord assembly rotate.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the geometric shape of the shaft and the corresponding geometric shape of the cord accessory include at least one flat surface to prevent the cord accessory from rotating on the shaft, note 5:36-52 in conjunction to at least Fig. 3 as marked above with respect to claim 4. Note also Figs. 11-15 in conjunction to at least 5:36-52 and 6:10-57 and 7:45+ regarding the operation of the rest as the shaft-to-cord assembly rotate.
Note: with respect to above claims 4 and 5, it is noted that per MPEP 2114 under II. Manner Of Operating The Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim From The Prior Art "[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) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Thus, the examiner takes the position that Munsell’s rotatable shaft and the corresponding geometric cord assembly is fully capable to perform as claimed, since the device includes all the structural limitations as claimed.
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein the geometric shape of the shaft and the corresponding geometric shape of the cord accessory have at least two flat sides, note 5:36-52 in conjunction to at least Fig. 3 as marked above with respect to claim 4.
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein the geometric shape of the shaft and the corresponding geometric shape of the cord accessory are polygon shapes, note 5:36-52 in conjunction to at least Fig. 3 as marked above with respect to claim 4.
As per claim 8, Munsell discloses wherein the cord accessory is re-indexed by selecting a side of the geometric shape (the multi-sided shaft 58 is reindexed with the corresponding multisided C shape clamp of lever arm 64 (i.e., cord accessory))(Figs. 1-3, 10 and 11; 5:36-53).
As per claim 9, Munsell discloses wherein the geometric shape of the shaft and the corresponding geometric shape of the cord accessory clamp together (the multi-sided shaft 58 is clamped with the corresponding multisided C shape clamp of lever arm 64 (i.e., cord accessory))(Figs. 1-3, 10 and 11; 5:36-53).
As per claim 10, Munsell discloses wherein the geometric shape of the shaft and the corresponding geometric shape of the cord accessory are splines (the multi-sided shaft 58 and the corresponding multisided C shape clam of lever arm 64 (i.e., cord accessory) are splines, connecters, connections , links, etc.)(Figs. 1-3, 10 and 11; 5:36-53).
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein the cord accessory has a lever arm assembly having a lever arm body, a looped cord, a lever arm clamp, and a clamp fastener, note Fig. 2 (also as marked hereinafter) in conjunction 5:36-52 and 6:59+ regarding lever assembly 56 with cord 80, and fastening means thereto (i.e., cram clamp and clamp fastener).
PNG
media_image2.png
926
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claim 12, with respect to wherein the lever arm has a protrusion formed thereon, and the lever arm clamp slides along an axis of the protrusion, construed as protrusion, lump, lip, flange, etc. of the body 64 to receive the arm clamp and clamp fastener thereto (as marked above with respect to claim 11).
As per claim 13, with respect to wherein the cord winds at least part way around the protrusion, note Fig. 2 (again as marked above) in conjunction to 6:59-7:6 as the cord 80 is winds, loops around the protrusion, lump, lip, flange, etc. of the body 64.
As per claim 18, since the claim’s limitations are very similar to claims 1 and 2, the examiner states that claim 18 is rejected over Munsell for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 2. Since there is no apparent different structural and/or functional limitations of the device of claim 18 and the device of claims 1 and 2, it is important to note that such statement by the examiner is not merely to “ignore” the claim’s limitations; rather, the examiner attempts to simplify the above rejection, and not “paste and copy” similar limitations, thus to create unnecessary lengthy Office action.
As per claim 19, with respect to wherein the cord clamping accessory compresses the cord between two mostly parallel surfaces that are independent of the force applying fastener, note the examiner markings in conjunction to Fig. 2 as the cord accessory attached to cord 80, via fastener and a like (also note 6:59+ as the attachment of the cord 80 to lever 64 assembly).
As per claim 20, Munsell discloses an arrow rest device (archery rest system 10)(Figs. 1-15; 3:53-8:33) comprising;
a mounting bracket with a first portion for attachment to any side of a bow riser (an attachment arm 16)(Figs. 1-3; 3:61-4:49; note also Fig. 7);
a mounting bracket with a second portion with geometric shape to receive a couple (second side of arm 16 to attached to an attachment piece 14)(Figs. 1-3 and 7; 3:59+);
a coupler with complimentary geometric shape to mount to the mounting bracket second portion (an attachment piece 14)(Figs. 1-3; 3:61-4:49);
an accessory for attachment to the coupler( construed as body 12 attached to coupler 14)(Figs. 1-3; 3:61-5:35);
an opening formed in the accessory (Figs. 12-13);
and a shaft received through the opening formed in the accessory(shaft 58 position within the opening of body/accessory 10)(Figs. 1-3 and 9-15; 5:36-6:28), the shaft freely rotatable in the opening formed in the accessory, the shaft having a first end to accommodate an arrow support device, and the shaft having a second end with a clamping lever arm (shaft first end 60 attached to cord assembly, lever arm 64 connected to cord 80; the shaft second end 62 attached to launcher 20)(Figs. 1-3, and 9-15; 5:36-7:44);
wherein the clamping lever arm comprises a cord clamping accessory (Fig. 2; 6:59-7:6);
wherein the cord clamping accessory comprises parallel clamping surfaces (Fig. 2 in conjunction to 5:36-52 and 6:59-7:6 as the connection of the cord 80 thereto); wherein the clamping surfaces are brought toward each other via a fastener orthogonal to the clamping surfaces (Fig. 2 as marked above with respect to claim 11, the use of fastener for attachment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munsell.
As per claim 14, although Munsell is not specific regarding wherein the protrusion is threaded to receive a fastener through an opening in the lever arm clamp, such modification would have been nothing more than utilizing known mechanical fasteners to firmly attached the lever arm thereto and allow easy removal thereof. 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 Munsell’s protrusion is threaded to receive a fastener through an opening in the lever arm clamp for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical fastening, as threaded, that facilitate a firm connection of the lever arm assembly yet allow easier removal for replacement, maintenance and alike.
As per claims15-17, with respect to, wherein the lever arm clamp applies a clamping force when a surface of the lever arm clamp and a surface of the lever arm body are parallel to one another (claim 15);, wherein the clamping force is applied to the cord between the lever arm clamp and the lever arm body (claim 16); and wherein the clamping force is applied to the cord via the fastener (claim 17), as discussed above with respect to claim 4-5 ” claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim” The examiner takes the position that Munsell’s lever arm assembly is fully capable to perform as claimed, since the device includes all the structural limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
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 1/28/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711