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 .
Status of Claims
In an amendment filed 11/18/2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 6, 11, and 18. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McPherson US Pat. No. 11,486,674.
McPherson teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
A cam assembly for an archery bow (archery bow 10 having cam assemblies 20/22, Fig. 1-11), comprising:
a cam (20);
an axle (30); and
a bearing rotatable about the axle (a bearing assembly is formed by three adjacent/connected bearings 40 that each rotate about axle 30), the bearing comprising:
an inner race (inside surface/race 54 of the bearing that the ball bearings contact during use);
an outer race defining a first raceway and a second raceway discrete from the first raceway (outer race 56 forms three laterally distinct raceways via groove 58 while inner race 54 forms a first raceway with a groove 59, Fig. 3, 7, 10);
a first set of balls disposed within the first raceway and between the inner race and the outer race (each bearing has a set of balls rotatable between the respective inner and outer races); and
a second set of balls disposed within the second raceway and between the inner race and the outer race (a plurality of balls 55 are placed between the inner and outer races 54/56 to form three sets of balls within the three raceways of the three connected adjacent bearings, wherein a set of the plurality may be considered the first set and the others may be considered the second set (and third set), to form the at least two separate parallel raceways (three total shown), each having sets of rolling balls therein are shown in bearing portions 42/44/46, Fig. 3, 7, 10).
In Reference to Claim 2
The cam assembly of claim 1, wherein: the outer race has a first width; the inner race has a second width; and the second width is greater than the first width (the outer race 56 has a first width and the inner race 54 has a second width, wherein the inner race may further include an extension 64, which is wider than the outer race, Fig. 10, Col. 7 lines 5-52).
In Reference to Claim 3
The cam assembly of claim 1, wherein: the bearing is a first bearing; the inner race is a first inner race; the outer race is a first outer race; and the cam assembly further includes a second bearing rotatable about the axle (first bearing 42 has first inner and outer races 54/56 and a second bearing 44 or 46 is rotatable about the axle 30, Fig. 3, 7, 10).
In Reference to Claim 7
The cam assembly of claim 1, wherein: the first set of balls engage the first raceway to provide a first thrust resistance; the second set of balls engage the second raceway to provide a second thrust resistance; and the bearing has a total thrust resistance greater than the first thrust resistance or the second thrust resistance (the total bearing assembly 40 would have a total thrust resistance (thrust resistance of 42+44+46) larger than any individual thrust resistance of each of the bearings 42/44/46 via forces between the balls 55 held within the raceways between the inner and outer races 54/56 within grooves 58/59).
In Reference to Claim 8
The cam assembly of claim 1, wherein: the first set of balls engage the first raceway to provide a first radial load threshold; the second set of balls engage the second raceway to provide a second radial load threshold; and the bearing has a total radial load threshold greater than the first radial load threshold or the second radial load threshold (the total bearing assembly 40 would have a total radial load threshold (radial load threshold of 42+44+46) larger than any individual radial load threshold of each of the bearings 42/44/46 via forces between the balls 55 held within the raceways between the inner and outer races 54/56 within grooves 58/59).
In Reference to Claim 18
A bearing for an archery bow (archery bow 10 having cam assemblies 20/22, Fig. 1-11, a bearing assembly 40 (forming a collective “bearing”) is formed by three adjacent/connected bearings 42/44/46 that each rotate about axle 30), comprising:
an inner race (inside surface/race 54 of the bearing portions 42/44/46) defining a first raceway and a second raceway discrete from the first raceway (each of the three bearing portions has a respective raceway 58 defined therein distinct from one another);
an outer race (outer race 56 forms respective matching outer raceways via groove 58 while inner race 54 form respective inner first raceways with a groove 59, Fig. 3, 7, 10);
a first set of balls disposed within the first raceway and between the inner race and the outer race (the first raceway of inside surface/race 54 and outer race 56 of a first bearing 46 that the first set of ball bearings 55 contact during use); and
a second set of balls disposed within the second raceway and between the inner race and the outer race (a second inside surface/race 54 and outer race 56 of a second bearing 44 that the second set of ball bearings 55 contact during use).
In Reference to Claim 19
The bearing of claim 18, wherein: the outer race has a first width; and the inner race has a second width greater than the first width (the outer race 56 has a first width and the inner race 54 has a second width, wherein the inner race may further include an extension 64, which is wider than the outer race if bearing 42 is used as one of the bearings, Fig. 10, Col. 7 lines 5-52).
In Reference to Claim 20
The bearing of claim 18, wherein the bearing is configured to be disposed within a cam or a roller wheel of an archery bow (bearing assembly 40 is disposed in a bore of the cam 20 on axle 30 of the archery bow 10, Fig. 1-11).
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 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.
Claims 4-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson as applied to claim 3/1 above.
In Reference to Claim 4
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 3, wherein the second bearing comprises: a second inner race; a second outer race defining a third raceway; a third set of balls disposed within the third raceway and between the second inner race and the second outer race (each bearing portion 42/44/46 have respective inner and outer raceways to receive sets of balls 55 therein, which is shown as three sets and raceways).
Though McPherson fails to specifically teach a fourth bearing portion including a fourth raceway and a fourth set of balls disposed within the fourth raceway, the fourth bearing including a fourth inner race at least partially defining the fourth raceway, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of McPherson to have formed the bearing assembly with a fourth bearing in the set of bearing in order to even out the bearings on the axle and the cam assembly and as McPherson teaches that the number/arrangement of bearings in the bearing assembly may be modified (Col. 3 lines 47-63, Col. 4 lines 5-42, Col. 4 line 61 – Col. 8 line 19) and further as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
In Reference to Claim 5
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 4, wherein a first rim of the first inner race contacts a second rim of the second inner race (the bearing may be defined as bearings 44/46 being the first and second bearings instead of 42/44, wherein the inner races 54 of bearings 44/46 are adjacent and directly contact one another, Fig. 7).
Further, though McPherson may not specifically teach each inner race directly abutting/contacting each other, McPhersons shows essentially each inner race of each respective bearing portion directly abutting one another and form a generally connected and functionally integral bearing during use. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) and it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)). In this case, the bearing portions are only functionally separated when not in use (replacement, etc.) and when in use function as and form essentially a one-piece integral bearing unit and therefore any specific bearing portions exact touching parts or integrated/separable bodies do not act as such when used on the bow and therefore forming the bearing parts to have been integral or in direct contact would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Contacting is equivalent language to connected to, adjacent, or abutting. “Abutting” cannot be construed as requiring that sections contact each other, since specification and drawing show that movement of sections stops short of actual contact (In re Lillich (CCPA) 114 USPQ 291) and “Adjacent” does not require absolute contact, but requires relatively close position (Ex parte Hadsel (PO BdApp) 109 USPQ 509). In this case, the prior art shows connected portions that function as one connected bearing unit between the axle and cam during use and therefore the prior art appears to show the same relationship as claimed and interpreted above. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find modification of the prior art to be one connected bearing member having connected/abutting/contacting portions as the relationship of the working parts of the prior art is functionally the same during use and therefore the exact arrangement/relationship of the functionally integrated parts is a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 6
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 1, wherein the cam defines a bore spanning a width of the cam and the bearing occupies an entirety of the width of the bore (the entire assembled bearing assembly/bearings 40 (42/44/46) extends across the width D (wherein bearing 42 may include inner flange 64 which extends beyond the bore), which is greater than the width of the bore 68 of the cam assembly 20, Fig. 7, further, the spacing flange 69 may be considered part of the assembled bearing within the bore as they are all connected to one another during use).
Further, though McPherson may not specifically teach each inner race directly abutting/contacting each other such that it occupies the entire width of the bore, McPhersons shows essentially each inner race of each respective bearing portion directly abutting one another and form a generally connected and functionally integral bearing during use. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) and it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)). In this case, the bearing portions are only functionally separated when not in use (replacement, etc.) and when in use function as and form essentially a one-piece integral bearing unit and therefore any specific bearing portions exact touching parts or integrated/separable bodies do not act as such when used on the bow and therefore forming the bearing parts to have been integral or in direct contact would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
“Abutting” cannot be construed as requiring that sections contact each other, since specification and drawing show that movement of sections stops short of actual contact (In re Lillich (CCPA) 114 USPQ 291) and “Adjacent” does not require absolute contact, but requires relatively close position (Ex parte Hadsel (PO BdApp) 109 USPQ 509). In this case, the prior art shows connected portions that function as one connected bearing unit between the axle and cam during use and therefore the prior art appears to show the same relationship as claimed and interpreted above. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find modification of the prior art to be one connected bearing member having connected/abutting/contacting portions as the relationship of the working parts of the prior art is functionally the same during use and therefore the exact arrangement/relationship of the functionally integrated parts is a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 9
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 4, wherein the first inner race and the second inner race contact one another to form a continuous load path (the bearing may be defined as bearings 44/46 being the first and second bearings instead of 42/44, wherein the inner races 54 of bearings 44/46 are adjacent/contact one another to form a continuous load path on that portion of the cam, Fig. 7).
In Reference to Claim 10
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 9, further comprises: a first spacer disposed on the axle and adjacent the first inner race; a second spacer disposed on the axle and adjacent the second inner race, wherein the first spacer, the second spacer, the first inner race, and the second inner race form a continuous load path (first spacer 60/69 sits adjacent/proximate the inner races of bearings 42/46 while spacer 62 sits adjacent/proximate to the inner race of bearing 44 to provide support and form a continuous load path within the cam assembly, Fig. 7).
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson US Pat. No. 11,486,674.
In Reference to Claim 11
McPherson teaches:
A cam assembly for an archery bow (archery bow 10 having cam assemblies 20/22, Fig. 1-11), comprising:
a cam defining a bore (cam 20 having a central bore for axle 30);
an axle at least partially disposed within the bore (30); and
a set of bearings at least partially disposed within the bore and rotatable about the axle (bearings set 40 rotate about axle 30), the set of bearings comprising:
a first bearing including a first raceway and a first set of balls disposed within the first raceway, the first bearing including a first inner race at least partially defining the first raceway (a first inside surface/race 54 of the first bearing 42 that the first set of ball bearings 55 contact during use);
a second bearing including a second raceway and a second set of balls disposed within the second raceway, the second bearing including a second inner race at least partially defining the second raceway (a second inside surface/race 54 of a second bearing 44 that the second set of ball bearings 55 contact during use); and
a third bearing including a third raceway and a third set of balls disposed within the third raceway, the third bearing including a third inner race at least partially defining the third raceway (a third inside surface/race 54 of the third bearing 46 that a third set of ball bearings 55 contact during use), wherein the first inner race, the second inner race, and the third inner race form a continuous load path (Fig. 3, 7 show the aligned bearings form a continuous path of force/loading across the width of the cam assembly).
wherein the first inner race abuts the second inner race and the second inner race abuts the third inner race to form a continuous load path (the inner races 54 of each adjacent bearing abuts the adjacent inner race (wherein 42/46 indirectly abut each other via extension 64 (Fig. 10) (as the plain meaning of abut is “border on”, “neighboring” or “adjacent” which does not necessarily require direct contact with) which would space the small gap 50/”X” caused by spacing flange 69), wherein Fig. 3, 7 show the aligned bearings forming a substantially a continuous path of force/loading across the width of the cam assembly).
Further, though McPherson may not specifically teach each inner race directly abutting/contacting each other, they show essentially each inner race of each respective bearing portion directly abutting one another and form a generally connected and functionally integral bearing during use. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) and it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)). In this case, the bearing portions are only functionally separated when not in use (replacement, etc.) and when in use function as and form essentially a one-piece integral bearing unit and therefore any specific bearing portions exact touching parts or integrated/separable bodies do not act as such when used on the bow and therefore forming the bearing parts to have been integral or in direct contact would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
“Abutting” cannot be construed as requiring that sections contact each other, since specification and drawing show that movement of sections stops short of actual contact (In re Lillich (CCPA) 114 USPQ 291) and “Adjacent” does not require absolute contact, but requires relatively close position (Ex parte Hadsel (PO BdApp) 109 USPQ 509). In this case, the prior art shows connected portions that function as one connected bearing unit between the axle and cam during use and therefore the prior art appears to show the same relationship as claimed and interpreted above. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find modification of the prior art to be one connected bearing member having connected/abutting/contacting portions as the relationship of the working parts of the prior art is functionally the same during use and therefore the exact arrangement/relationship of the functionally integrated parts is a matter of obvious design choice.
In Reference to Claim 12
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 11, further comprising: a first spacer disposed on the axle and adjacent the first inner race; a second spacer disposed on the axle and adjacent the third inner race, wherein the first spacer, the second spacer, the first inner race, the second inner race, and the third inner race form the continuous load path (first spacer 60/69 sits adjacent/proximate the inner races of bearings 42/46 while spacer 62 sits adjacent/proximate to the inner race of bearing 44 to form a continuous load path (these all accept load during use) within the cam assembly, Fig. 7).
In Reference to Claim 13
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 11, wherein the first inner race has a first width; the second inner race has a second width; the third inner race has a third width; and the bore has a bore width less than a summation of the first width, the second width, and the third width (the inner races 54 of bearings 42/44/46 have a width, which is about equal to the bore 68 in the cam 20, with inner race extension 64 extending beyond the bore width, therefore the bore width may be less than the inner races 54/64 spanning a width D of bearings 42/44/46, Fig. 7).
In Reference to Claim 14
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 11, wherein: the first bearing includes a first outer race (each bearing has an outer race 56 opposite the inner race 54); the first outer race has a first width; the first inner race has a second width greater than the first width (the outer race 56 has a first width and the inner race 54 has a second width, wherein the inner race may further include an extension 64, which is wider than the outer race, Fig. 10, Col. 7 lines 5-52).
In Reference to Claim 15
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 14, wherein: the second bearing includes a second outer race; the second outer race has a third width; the second inner race has a fourth width greater than the third width (in each bearing 42/44/46, the outer race 56 has a first width and the inner race 54 has a second width, wherein the inner race may further include an extension 64, which is wider than the outer race, Fig. 10, Col. 7 lines 5-52).
In Reference to Claims 16-17
McPherson teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 11 as rejected above. wherein the first inner race, the second inner race, and the third inner race form the continuous load path (Fig. 3, 7 show the aligned bearings 42/44/46 form a continuous path of force/loading across the width of the cam assembly).
Though McPherson fails to specifically teach a fourth bearing including a fourth raceway and a fourth set of balls disposed within the fourth raceway, the fourth bearing including a fourth inner race at least partially defining the fourth raceway, wherein the first inner race, the second inner race, the third inner race, and the fourth inner race form the continuous load path, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of McPherson to have formed the bearing assembly with a fourth bearing in the set of bearing in order to even out the bearings on the axle and the cam assembly and as McPherson teaches that the number/arrangement of bearings in the bearing assembly may be modified (Col. 3 lines 47-63, Col. 4 lines 5-42, Col. 4 line 61 – Col. 8 line 19) and further as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the bearing parts being integrally formed or formed of a singular piece or material or in direct contact with one another) are not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims do not recite that the bearing, inner race, or outer race is one singular integral piece of material that includes all of the claimed features and therefore the prior art can show these features in more than one functionally connected piece to meet the claimed limitations. Further, though McPherson may not specifically teach each inner race directly abutting/contacting each other or each bearing portion being integrally formed (one-piece of material), McPherson shows essentially each inner race of each respective bearing portion directly abutting one another and form a generally connected and functionally integral bearing during use on the bow. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) and it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)). In this case, the bearing portions are only functionally separated when not in use (replacement, etc.) and when in use function as and form essentially a one-piece integral bearing unit and therefore any specific bearing portions exact touching parts or integrated/separable bodies do not act as such when used on the bow and therefore forming the bearing parts to have been integral or in direct contact would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Further, though not relied upon, there are numerous other ball bearings that are not specifically used with compound bows that would read on claim 18. For example, Habibvand (2020/0248746) and Andersson (5,193,916), and Robinson (3,619,017) teaches a ball bearing with two integral inner raceways and respective outer raceways to receive sets of balls therein (Fig. 1, 4a-b) that anticipate the claimed structure and would be capable of use on an archery bow (preamble intended use does not have any patentable weight) and therefore even if the argued features were positively recited in the claims, that would not expressly place them in condition for allowance.
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Grace (10,126,087), McPherson (9,528,788), Larson (8,069,848, 7,938,109), Andrews (6,964,271) and Proctor (6,415,780) teach similar bow cam assemblies having bearings therein and Habibvand (9,599,151, 2020/0248746), Koda (2016/0252134), Moratz (2016/0076590), Jepsen (2014/0199171), Andersson (5,193,916), and Robinson (3,619,017) teach similar ball bearings having angled raceways capable of use with a rotatable cam of a bow.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
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 ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711