Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 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 3, amended to recites “an interior angle of the first arc the same as an interior angle of the second arc”, further clarification is require to which “angle of an arc” (i.e., weight portion/s 38) applicant referred to. According to at least original Figs. 3A-4D, it seems as each arc (38) would have infinite number of interior angles.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-3, and 9-11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurney US 4,515,142 (“Nurney”) in view of Gallops US 2005/0268892 (“Gallops”).
As per claim 1, Nurney discloses an archery bow (compound bow 10)(Figs. 1-7; 4:19-7:43) comprising:
a riser (handle portion 11), a first limb (limb 13) supporting a first rotatable member (eccentric wheel assembly 15) and a second limb (limb 12) supporting a second rotatable member (eccentric wheel assembly 14)(Fig. 1; 4:31-38);
the first rotatable member (15) comprising a body (bowstring wheel 24) comprising a bowstring track (groove 25)(Figs. 2 and 3; 5:31-63) and a first cam module attached to the body (construed as second wheel component 30)(Fig. 2; 5:64-6:32), the first cam module comprising a power cable track (construed as groove 37)(Fig. 2 and 6:12-32); a bowstring extending from the first rotatable member to the second rotatable member (bowstring 17 extends between eccentric wheels 15 and 14)(Fig. 1; 4:37-46); a power cable arranged to contact the first cam module (construed as cable portion 19 in contact with wheel component 30)(Fig. 2; 6:12-31); and a second cam module interchangeable with the first cam module (such as a second wheel component 30A)(Figs. 6 and 7; 6:33-7:43); wherein the first cam module (30) and the second cam module (e.g., 30A and/or 30B) each comprise a high weight portion and a let-off portion (note the examiner’s markings hereinafter in conjunction to Figs. 5-7 regarding such portions), the high weight portion of the first cam module shaped differently from the high weight portion of the second cam module (again, note the examiner’s markings hereinafter).
Nurney’s cam modules including heigh weight portion and let-off portion
PNG
media_image1.png
897
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nurney is not specific regarding the let-off portion of the first cam module shaped similarly to the let-off portion of the second cam module.
However, Gallops discloses a let-off portion of a first cam module shaped similarly to a let-off portion of a second cam module (let off portions of cam modules 324-324’’’ are shaped similarly)(Figs. 9A-9E; also, note the examiner’s markings in conjunction to Figs. 9B-9E).
PNG
media_image2.png
788
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’s let-off portion of the first cam module shaped similarly to the let-off portion of the second cam module as taught by Gallops for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable results of forming the let-off of each cam module to be in a similar shape to provide an enhance drawing properties of the bow based upon the modules’ shape and configuration. As stated by Gallops “Each module is preferably designed to be mounted on cam body 320 to form a portion of anchor cam 316, with each module assisting to define a different geometry anchor cable path 316'. “ (e.g. [0062]). It is well known that a geometry, a shape, of a cam module, among other things, administering, controlling, the properties of drawing a bow, as the bow’s cable means are engaging with such shape, geometry, of the cam module, as the bow is drawn.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique (forming the cam modules’ let off portions shaped similarly, as taught by Gallops) to a known device (Nurney’s archery bow with cam modules having let-off portions ) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.
As per claim 2, with respect to wherein a peak draw force provided by the high weight portion of the first cam module is different from a peak draw force provided by the high weight portion of the second cam module, and a reduction in draw force provided by the let-off portion of the first cam module is similar to a reduction in draw force provided by the let-off portion of the second cam module, such limitations are construed as properties related to the shape of the different cam modules as shown in at least applicant’s Figs. 3A- 3D (page 13, lines 9+)” As further shown in figures 3A-3D, each cam module 30 comprises a let- off portion 36 and a high weight portion 38. As the bow 10 is drawn from brace condition, the power cable 26 is first taken up in the high weight portion 38 of the cam module 30. As the bow10 reaches full draw, the power cable 26 is taken up in the let- off portion 36 of the can module 30. In order to achieve the desired draw force reduction/let-off at full draw, the power cable 26 must move closer to the center of rotation 25 of the rotatable member 20/cam module 30 at full draw”. Also, consider applicant’s page 4:13-15” A maximum draw force of the bow using the second cam module is greater than a maximum draw force of the bow using the first cam module. In some 15 embodiments, the second cam module is larger than the first cam module” and page 6:1-2”A peak draw force of the bow using the first cam module is less than a peak draw force of the bow using the second cam module”. Accordingly, the modified Nurney having cam modules 30-30A with heigh weight portion/s shaped differently (as taught by Nurney; Figs. 5-7, note the examiner markings above) and the let-off portion/s shaped similarly (as taught by Gallops; Figs. 9B-9E; note the examiner’s markings above) would have included such properties of the “peak draw force” as claimed.
In addition, such limitations regarding “a peak draw force” and “a reduction in draw force”, are limitations related to a function of the bow rather than its structure, and to the end it note that that it has been held 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).
Thus, Nurney – Gallops’ structure is fully capable of performing the same function as claimed, since the modified device is equipped with the same features as the claim subject matter.
As per claim 3, with respect to the high weight portion of the first cam module comprising a first arc having a first radius, the high weight portion of the second cam module comprising a second arc having a second radius different from the first radius, note the examiner’s markings above with regard to the cam modules’ high weigh portion/s of Nurney’s; as shown in Fig. 5 the cam module 30 high weigh portion comprising an arc having a first radius different than the module 30A arc’s radius. With respect to “an interior angle of the first arc the same as an interior angle of the second arc” as marked above with respect to claim 1 regard to Nurney’s arcs high weight portions, to the best of his understanding the examiner construed the interior angle of cam module 30 (Fig. 5) as same interior angle of cam module 30A.
As per claim 9, Nurney discloses further comprising a third cam module interchangeable with the first cam module (such as a second wheel component 30B)(Figs. 6 and 7; 6:33-7:43), the third cam module (30B) comprising a high weight portion shaped differently from the high weight portion of the first cam module and shaped differently from the high weight portion of the second cam module (note the examiner’s markings above with respect to claim 1 regarding the high weight portions of modules 30-30B).
Nurney is not specific regarding the third cam module comprising a let-off portion shaped similarly to the let-off portion of the first cam module.
However, Gallops discloses a third cam module comprising a let-off portion shaped similarly to a let-off portion of a first cam module (let off portions of cam modules 324-324’’’ are shaped similarly)(Figs. 9A-9E; also, note the examiner’s markings above in conjunction to Figs. 9B-9E).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’ third cam module comprising a let-off portion shaped similarly to the let-off portion of the first cam module as taught by Gallops for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 (that is, to enhance the proprieties of the bow as the bow is drawn and the cables means engaging the “shaped, geometry” of the cam module; i.e., a third cam module).
As per claim 10, Nurney discloses the power cable comprising a first power cable (cable 19), the first cam module comprising an upper first cam module (construed as wheel component 30 with eccentric wheel assembly 14)(Fig. 1), the archery bow (10), the second rotatable member comprising a lower first cam module (construed as wheel component 30 with eccentric wheel assembly 15)(Fig. 1), the lower first cam module comprising a high weight portion shaped similarly to the high weight portion of the upper first cam module (both eccentric wheels 14 and 15 having an identical wheel component 30 with identical heigh weight portion (note the examiner’s markings above regarding the “high weight portion/s” of each module).
Nurney is not specific regarding further comprising a second power cable and the second rotatable member’s lower cam module arranged to contact the second power cable.
However, Gallops discloses a second power cable (such as cables 214 and/or cable 216)(Fig. 12 in conjunction to Fig. 6 and [0059]) and a second rotatable member’s lower cam module arranged to contact the second power cable (lower cam module 300, to contact cable 214 and/or 216) (Fig. 12).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’s further comprising a second power cable and the second rotatable member’s lower cam module arranged to contact the second power cable as taught by Gallops for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results of including cabling system with “dual power cables” arrangement that developed to enhance the draw properties, among other things, to control the bow’s draw weight and synchronize the rotatable/cam rotation.
As per claim 11, with respect to the lower first cam module comprising a let-off portion shaped differently from the let-off portion of the upper first cam module, note Nurney’s Fig. 5 (regarding module 30) and Fig. 6 (module 30A) having a different let-off portion (note the examiner’s markings above regarding the “let off portion of modules 30 and 30A). As module 30 attached to lower eccentric wheel 15 (Fig. 1) and module 30A attached with eccentric wheel 14 (Fig. 1) the let-off portion of module 30 is different than let off portion of module 30A.
Claims 4-6 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurney and Gallops as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Land US 7,082,937 (“Land”).
As per claim 4, Nurney is not specific regarding the first cam module attachable to the body in a first orientation to provide a first draw length, the first cam module attachable to the body in a second orientation to provide a second draw length different from the first draw length.
However, the position of a module in different orientations to provide different draw lengths, is well-known in the art as taught by Land (adjuster 16 configure to be in different orientations, relative to cam 12, via a plurality of holes (arrays 46, 48, and 50)(Figs. 2-7; 3:36-4:18; also 5:66-6:46 as Land gave example of different draw length in conjunction to Fig. 4, between position A and position C relative to array 46).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’s first cam module attachable to the body in a first orientation to provide a first draw length, the first cam module attachable to the body in a second orientation to provide a second draw length different from the first draw length as taught and suggested by Land for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Land’s suggestion that bow draw length can be varied as desired (e.g., 2:1+”A plurality of positions for the adjuster may be provided so that the draw length and draw weights can be varied as desired.”)
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the second orientation comprises a rotation of the first orientation, note Land’s Fig. 4 and 6:10-43, as the adjuster at first position A (hole 46f in array 46) to be rotate to position C (hole 46a in array 46). Within the modified Nurney by at least the teachings of Land, the rotation would have been about a center of rotation of the first rotatable member (e.g., eccentric wheel assembly 15 as taught by Nurney).
As per claim 6, Nurney is not specific regarding the second cam module attachable to the body in a first orientation to provide a first draw length, the second cam module attachable to the body in a second orientation to provide a second draw length different from the first draw length.
However, the position of a module in different orientations to provide different draw lengths, is well-known in the art as taught by Land (adjuster 16 configure to be in different orientations, relative to cam 12, via a plurality of holes (arrays 46, 48, and 50)(Figs. 2-7; 3:36-4:18; also 5:66-6:46 as Land gave example of different draw length in conjunction to Fig. 4, between position A and position C relative to array 46).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’s second cam module attachable to the body in a first orientation to provide a first draw length, the second cam module attachable to the body in a second orientation to provide a second draw length different from the first draw length as taught and suggested by Land for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Claims 7 and 8 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurney and Gallops as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooper et al US 2004/0074485 (“Cooper”).
As per claim7, Nurney is not specific regarding the first cam module comprising a draw stop.
However, Cooper discloses a cam module comprising a draw stop (draw stop 194)(Fig. 5; [0069] and [0070]).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’ cam module comprising a draw stop as taught by Cooper for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Cooper’s suggestions to use a draw stop within bow’s cam module for timing and controlling of drawing the bow (for example, [0016] ”A notable benefit of such Cam&1/2.TM. bows is their ability to combine the forgiveness and symmetry of a "dual cam" system with the positive draw stop (hard wall), enforced synchronization (or built-in timing) between opposite pulley assemblies, and high let-off associated with "single cam" systems.” Or [0069] ”This spaced apart structure forms a lever arm adapted to resist further rotation of the control pulley 110 by forming a transverse interference with the power cable.”).
As per claim 8, Cooper discloses the draw stop arranged to contact the power cable ([0069]” Draw stop 194 is arranged to cause a transverse interference with the power cable (not illustrated) at a full-draw position.”).
Claims 12-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nurney in view of Land.
As per claim 12, Nurney discloses an archery bow kit (compound bow assembly 10)(Figs. 1-7; 4:19-7:43) comprising:
a riser (handle portion 11) and opposed limbs (limbs 12 and 13), each limb supporting a rotatable member (eccentric wheel assemblies 14 and 15)(Fig. 1; 4:30-39);
at least one rotatable member comprising a body and a first cam module (wheel assembly 15 comping a body, wheel 24 and a cam module (construed as second wheel component 30)(Fig. 2; 5:64-6:32), said body defining a bowstring payout track (such as groove 25)(Fig. 2; 5:31-48), said cam module (30) defining a power cable take- up track (construed as groove 37)(Fig. 2; 6:12-31); said kit further comprising a second cam module suitable for replacing said first cam module (construed as second wheel component 30A)(Fig. 6; 6:33-60), each of said cam modules comprising a let-off portion and a peak weight portion (note the examiner’s markings in conjunction to Figs. 5 and 6 hereinafter), the peak weight portion of said second cam module (30A) being larger than the peak weight portion of said first cam module(30)(cam module is larger than cam module 30 and includes such larger peak weight portion; again, note the examiner’s makings hereinafter);
PNG
media_image3.png
858
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein a peak draw weight of said bow using said first cam module is less than a peak draw weight of said bow using said second cam module (note at least 6:61+” In the embodiment shown, the draw force at this point in the draw for FIG. 5 is still at or near the maximum value, while at the same point in the draw in the FIG. 6 alternative wheel design, the draw force is at its minimum or "full draw" value, since at this point in the FIG. 6 design, "T" is at its minimum value and as a result of the "B" to "T" ratio is at its maximum value. Continued rotation of wheel 30 (FIG. 5) initiates a reduction in draw force until a minimum value of "T" occurs. “) . As the second cam module 30A peak weight portion is larger than the peak weight of module 30 (as marked above), thus “wherein a peak draw weight of said bow using said first cam module is less than a peak draw weight of said bow using said second cam module”, is within the cam modules of Nurney as each cam been utilized within the bow 10 while the bow is drawn.
If there is any doubt regarding such interpretations, the examiner notes that such properties are related to the shape of the cam modules, and to that end Nurney in 7:10+ states “As should be understood, there is a direct relationship between the "B" over "T" ratio, a value which changes depending on the cam design and its position of rotation, and the draw force vs. draw length curve. As the foregoing description explains, as the "B" and "T" values vary during cam rotation, the applicable force vectors change as the draw length increases. My prior, co-pending application which has been incorporated by reference, provides a detailed description of the "B" over "T" ratio and the desirable characteristics of the draw force vs. draw length curve. In much the same way that cam designs are derived by working from a curve of desired follower travel, so too can the design of the second take-up wheel be derived from a "B" over "T" curve relative to draw length. Consequently, once specific draw force and draw length characteristics are selected, the "B" over "T" curve can readily be derived, and from there the contour of the second take-up wheel determined.”
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’s wherein a peak draw weight of said bow using said first cam module is less than a peak draw weight of said bow using said second cam module for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Nurney’s suggestions to form his cam modules in a desire shape that produce drawn properties as such as draw weight and/or draw length as desired.
Nurney is not specific regarding and the let-off portions of said first and said second cam modules each produce at least 45% let-off in draw weight.
Nurney is not specific regarding and said first cam module is adjustable with respect to said rotatable member body between first and second orientations, a draw length of said bow with said first cam module in said first orientation is different from a draw length of said bow with said first cam module in said second orientation, a peak draw weight of said bow with said first cam module in said first orientation is substantially similar to a peak draw weight of said bow with said first cam module in said second orientation.
With respect to cam modules each produce at least 45% let-off in draw weight, it is noted claimed which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of weight or proportions.
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 Nurney with such dimensions as claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case the device of Nurney would have not operate differently with the dimension as claimed and would function appropriately with the claimed dimension, to provide the let-off portions of the first and the second cam modules each produce at least let-off in draw weight, as the bow drawn with while utilizing the first cam module and the second cam module.
Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, and merely indicates that the range “may” be within the claimed dimension. To that end, applicant in at least page 17:7-11, states ”As further illustrated in figure 6, at each length adjustment setting, the bow has a significant let-off. In some embodiments, the let-off is at least 25%; in some embodiments, the let-off is at least 40% and, in some embodiments, at least 45%, 50%,55%. In some embodiments, the let-off is at least 60% and, in some embodiments, at
least 65%. “. Thus, such is clearly an indication that the first and the second cam modules each produce at least 45% let-off in draw weight, is not critical to form applicant’s claimed invention.
With respect to, said first cam module is adjustable with respect to said rotatable member body between first and second orientations, a draw length of said bow with said first cam module in said first orientation is different from a draw length of said bow with said first cam module in said second orientation, a peak draw weight of said bow with said first cam module in said first orientation is substantially similar to a peak draw weight of said bow with said first cam module in said second orientation, the position of a module in different orientations to provide different draw lengths, is well-known in the art as taught by Land (adjuster 16 configure to be in different orientations, relative to cam 12, via a plurality of holes (arrays 46, 48, and 50)(Figs. 2-7; 3:36-4:18; also 5:66-6:46 as Land gave example of different draw length in conjunction to Fig. 4, between position A and position C relative to array 46).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’s wherein said first cam module is adjustable with respect to said rotatable member body between first and second orientations, a draw length of said bow with said first cam module in said first orientation is different from a draw length of said bow with said first cam module in said second orientation as taught and suggested by Land for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Land’s suggestion that bow draw length can be varied as desired (e.g., 2:1+”A plurality of positions for the adjuster may be provided so that the draw length and draw weights can be varied as desired.”).
With respect to “a peak draw weight of said bow with said first cam module in said first orientation is substantially similar to a peak draw weight of said bow with said first cam module in said second orientation”, as discussed above with respect to claim 2, the draw properties (e.g., peak draw weight) are properties related to the shape of the different cam modules as shown in at least applicant’s Figs. 3A- 3D and at least page 13, lines 9-13, and the examiner takes the position, that the peak draw weight in a first orientation and the second orientations would have exhibit such properties as claimed due to the shape of the cam module (as taught by Nurney) and the different orientations (as taught by Land).
In addition, such limitations regarding “a peak draw weight in different orientations”, are limitations related to a function of the bow kit rather than its structure, and to the end it note that that it has been held 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). Thus, Nurney – Land’s structure is fully capable of performing the same function
as claimed, since the modified device is equipped with the same features as the claim subject matter.
As per claim 13, with respect to wherein said second orientation comprises a rotation of said first orientation about a center of rotation of the rotatable member, within the modified Nurney by at least the teachings of Land, the rotation would have been about a center of rotation of the rotatable member (e.g., eccentric wheel assembly 15 as taught by Nurney)
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein said draw length changes at least six inches between said first orientation and said second orientation, Land in 6:43+ stats ”The draw length may be changed in a desired increment, as shown, the cam 12 and adjuster 16 provide six different draw lengths at one inch increments.”
As per claim 15, Nurney is not specific regarding wherein said second cam module is adjustable with respect to said rotatable member body between first and second orientations, a draw length of said bow with said second cam module in said first orientation is different from a draw length of said bow with said second cam module in said second orientation, a peak draw weight of said bow with said second cam module in said first orientation is substantially similar to a peak draw weight of said bow with said second cam module in said second orientation.
With respect to “wherein said second cam module is adjustable with respect to said rotatable member body between first and second orientations, a draw length of said bow with said second cam module in said first orientation is different from a draw length of said bow with said second cam module in said second orientation”, the position of a module in different orientations to provide different draw lengths, is well-known in the art as taught by Land (adjuster 16 configure to be in different orientations, relative to cam 12, via a plurality of holes (arrays 46, 48, and 50)(Figs. 2-7; 3:36-4:18; also 5:66-6:46 as Land gave example of different draw length in conjunction to Fig. 4, between position A and position C relative to array 46).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to form Nurney’s wherein said second cam module is adjustable with respect to said rotatable member body between first and second orientations, a draw length of said bow with said second cam module in said first orientation is different from a draw length of said bow with said second cam module in said second orientation as taught and suggested by Land for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Land’s suggestion that bow draw length can be varied as desired (e.g., 2:1+”A plurality of positions for the adjuster may be provided so that the draw length and draw weights can be varied as desired.”).
With respect to “a peak draw weight of said bow with said second cam module in said first orientation is substantially similar to a peak draw weight of said bow with said second cam module in said second orientation”, as discussed above with respect to claim 2, the draw properties (e.g., peak draw weight) are properties related to the shape of the different cam modules, as shown in at least applicant’s Figs. 3A- 3D and page 13, lines 9-13, and the examiner takes the position, that the peak draw weight in a first orientation and the second orientations would have exhibit such properties as claimed due to the shape of the cam module (as taught by Nurney) and the different orientations (as taught by Land).
In addition, such limitations regarding “a peak draw weight in different orientations”, are limitations related to a function of the bow kit rather than its structure, and to the end it note that that it has been held 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).
Thus, Nurney – Land’s structure is fully capable of performing the same function
as claimed, since the modified device is equipped with the same features as the claim subject matter.
As per claim 16, with respect to wherein said draw length changes at least six inches between said first orientation and said second orientation, Land in 6:43+ stats ”The draw length may be changed in a desired increment, as shown, the cam 12 and adjuster 16 provide six different draw lengths at one inch increments.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9-18-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argued that the rejection didn’t show the shape of the let-off of each module as been similar (remarks page 2). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As applicant argued that the shape of his module shown in the drawings, the examiner, in same manner, relied upon the drawings (in this case Gallops) to show such similarity shape of the let-off of each module. As marked above (on page 5) Gallops’ modules have a similar shape of the let-off portion thereof.
Also, per MPEP 2125 ”Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2121.04 for more information on prior art drawings as "enabled disclosures.". Thus, the examiner’s markings upon Gallops’ drawings is enough to show such limitations as claimed.
With respect to claim 12, applicant discussed the refence to Nurney and the reference to Land and stated “ A skilled person would recognize that Nurney teaches a two-cam bow and Land teaches a single-cam bow, and that because the Land adjuster 16 interacts with the bowstring 14 and the Nurney wheel component does not, that teachings from Land about the single cam bow cannot be incorporated into the Nurney two-cam bow” (remarks pages 3-4). The examiner respectfully disagrees and further asserts that such are applicant’s own conclusions not based upon the teaching of the prior art nor what such teachings would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In that regard, it is noted that it has been held that “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). One of ordinary skill would have not look at the teachings of Land and concluded that such adjustment can’t be with a wheel component as taught by Nurney, as argued by applicant. One of ordinary skill, would have appreciated that such teachings is much desired within rotatable cam module of an archery device. To include means that the draw length can varied as desired.
As mentioned above, such “adjustability means” is well known in the art as taught by Land (e/g/. adjuster 16 configure to be in different orientations, relative to cam 12, via a plurality of holes (arrays 46, 48, and 50)(Figs. 2-7; 3:36-4:18; also 5:66-6:46 as Land gave example of different draw length in conjunction to Fig. 4, between position A and position C relative to array 46), and to include such “adjustability means” would have been much desired as suggested by Land would have been motivated by Land’s suggestion (e.g., as the bow draw length can be varied as desired (e.g., 2:1+”A plurality of positions for the adjuster may be provided so that the draw length and draw weights can be varied as desired.”).
Furthermore, as it has been held the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references. The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”
In this case, according to the teachings of Nurney and Land, it is clear that modifying the cam module/s of Nurney according to the teachings of Land, would have resulted in an advance module/s that bow draw length can be varied as desired (e.g., Land 2:1+).
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 11/25/2025
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711