DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3, 16, and 19-26 are 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. In Claim 1, line 8, the limitation providing that the ball and spring are retained within the bore is unclear in that the bore is understood to be in the assembly cap, which does not comprise a structural feature capable of retaining the ball and spring. The examiner suggests that the ball and spring are retained in a bore below a lower surface of the crossbow frame adjacent the rope-cocker channel. The same applies to Claims 19 and 23. The scope of each claim is indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simonds, U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0069403, in view of Zhou, Chinese Patent Application No. 212583407, and in further view of West et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,088,055, and Tidd, U.S. Patent No. 0681379. As to Claim 1, Simonds teaches a crossbow (10) having a frame (20), paragraph 0027. Simonds teaches a rope-cocker channel (37) sized to receive a rope (42) from a rope cocker (40), paragraphs 0032 and 0033, noting that the rope may be trained around anchor (36), which includes channel (37), suggesting that the rope may be received in the channel with the channel being sized to receive the rope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to size the channel to receive the rope, as suggested. The channel may have an upper surface and a lower surface, paragraph 0033, noting that the channel may be U-shaped along its length with an arcuate shape about a vertical axis. Simonds teaches a protrusion (38) associated with the channel and arranged to retain the rope in the channel, paragraph 0033, noting that the anchor may comprise the protrusion, but Simonds does not teach that the protrusion may be configured as a bore, a ball, and a spring. Zhou teaches a device for retaining a member (ground rod management device) in a channel (11), Detailed Description, 5th paragraph. Zhou teaches an elastically biased member (20) and a spring (204), received in a bore (206) located below a lower surface, Detailed Description, 9th paragraph and see Figures 2 and 4. The elastically biased member may be biased toward the opposite surface of the channel, creating a rope retained position, Detailed Description, 5th paragraph , noting that the member may be prevented from falling out of the channel. The elastically biased member may be concentric with the spring, a center of the spring asserting contact against a center of the elastically biased member, see Figures 4 and 5. The elastically biased member may be movable from a rope retained position to a rope released position, with the rope released position having the elastically biased member lower in the bore than the rope retained position, wherein the rope-retained position retains the rope and the rope-release position does not, Detained Description, 5th paragraph. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Simonds with the protrusion configured as a bore with an elastically biased member and elastic spring bias arranged as claimed and as taught by Zhou, to provide Simonds with a known alternative protrusion for creating a rope-retained position and a rope-release position. Simonds, as modified, does not disclose that the member may be a ball and that a perimeter of the ball may extend to be in contact with lower and upper surfaces. West teaches a device (10) for retaining a cylindrical element (12) in a channel (33), Col. 2, ln. 67-68 and Col. 3, ln. 27. West teaches that a spring biased ball (39) having a perimeter extending out of a bore (38) and in contact with first and second sides of the channel, Col. 3, ln. 27-35 and see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the biased ball to extend out of a bore and contact both channel surfaces, as taught by West to provide Simonds, as modified, with a ball extending entirely across the channel to yield the predictable result of more securely retaining the cocking rope when in rope-retained position. Simonds, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing an assembly cap retained below a lower surface or above an upper surface, the assembly cap including a bore sized to receive the ball and spring, the ball and spring retained within the bore. Tidd teaches a spring (f) biasing a ball (e), both retained in an assembly cap (d), page 1, ln. 65-82. The assembly cap may include a bore, see Figure 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an assembly cap including a bore for receiving and retaining the ball and spring, as taught by Tidd, to provide Simonds, as modified, with a known substitute feature for providing a bore adjacent a rope-cocker channel. Claim 1 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claims 2 and 24, Zhou teaches that the member may be retained in the channel by compressing the elastically spring biased member into the bore (the spring being compressed), moving the member over the elastically biased member and into the channel, the elastically biased member returning to the member retained position, Detailed Description 5th paragraph. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the rope cocker channel of prior art, as taught by Zhou, to provide a known substitute configuration. Further, the examiner finds that the rope-cocker channel of prior art possesses the structural features of the inventive rope-cocker channel and is capable of performing in the same manner, namely by retaining a rope in the channel by compressing the ball into the bore, moving the rope, over the ball and into the channel, the ball returning to a rope retained position. "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112. As to Claims 3 and 25, the examiner finds that the rope-cocker channel of prior art is capable of performing the claimed function of removing a rope from the channel by compressing the ball into the bore, moving the rope over the ball and away from the channel, the ball returning to the rope-retained position, for the same rationale expressed in the treatment of Claim 2. As to Claims 16 and 26, Zhou teaches that the elastically spring biased member may make contact with an outer surface of the member, see Figure 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure an elastically spring biased member to contact an outer surface of a member, as taught by Zhou, to provide Simmonds, as modified, with the ball contacting an outer surface of the rope to yield the predicable result of effectively maintaining a rope retained position. As to Claim 23, Simmonds, as modified by Zhou, West, and Tidd, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Tidd teaches that the assembly cap may include an assembly cap projection, see drawing below. The inner perimeter of the spring may be sized to receive the projection, see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Simmonds, as modified, with an assembly cap projection configured and claimed and as taught by Tidd, to provide Simmonds, as modified, with a feature supporting the inner perimeter of the spring within the bore, to yield the predictable result of maintaining alignment of the spring. Claim 23 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmonds, in view of Zhou and Tidd, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Macintyre, U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0203406. Simmonds, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above, with the spring biased ball extending into a rope-cocker channel being considered to be a rope-cocker retainment assembly. As to Claim 19, Tidd teaches that the assembly cap may be threadably retained adjacent a surface from which the ball may protrude, page 1, ln. 57-60 and see Figure 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Simmonds, as modified, with exterior threads on the assembly cap, as taught by Tidd, to provide Simmonds, as modified with an assembly cap threadably retained in a rope cocker retainment assembly, as a known substitute feature for securing an assembly cap in position. Simmonds, as modified, is silent as to a socket formed in the assembly cap. Macintyre teaches a one-piece ball plunger (11) comprising a spring biased ball (20) including an assembly cap (12) comprising threads (14) and a socket (16) suitable to receive a drive tool (noting hex socket), paragraph 0022 and see Figures 3 and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Simmonds, as modified, with a socket in the assembly cap, as taught by Macintyre, to provide Simmonds, as modified, with a feature configured to facilitate installation and removal of the retainment assembly. Claim 19 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 20, Zhou is applied as in Claim 2, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 21, the examiner finds that the same rationale set forth in the treatment of Claim 3 is equally applicable. As to Claim 22, Zhou is applied as in Claim 16, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 10 March 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The examiner notes that the claims do not specifically claim a reciprocating projection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 24 March 2026