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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-27, 28-34, and 49-53 (groups II-IV) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/26/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-16, 35-48, and 54-60 in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the examiner to examine all of the groups. This is not found persuasive because though each group is similarly classified and generally disclose significantly different versions of arrow inserts, they each include separately patentable features and distinct characteristics that are not commonly shared and therefore require separate consideration and searching, which is a significant burden on the examiner. Further, it is noted that any process/method claims would be considered allowable and rejoined if they contain all of the allowable features of the product claim and therefore it is unnecessary and burdensome to examine those invention group(s) at this time.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-60, filed 1/24/2024, are pending with claims 17-34 and 49-53 being withdrawn from consideration as elected. Claims 1-16, 35-48, and 54-60 are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Regarding the IDS, received 4/16/2024, the Office requests some relief in the amount of references the Office is being asked to consider. The applicant is asking the Office to consider hundreds of references, which is taking up a considerable amount of the allotted examining time the Office has for just one case. The applicant’s submission of a large number of references, many of which are irrelevant with respect to the instant claimed invention, really affects the examining process and takes away a significant amount of time the Office has to work on the merits of a case. True, if prior art or other information material to the patentability of pending claims is discovered that is relevant to a pending case at the Office, the applicant is required to disclose this discovery under 37 CFR 1.97, 37 CFR 1.98, and 37 CFR 1.56. However, the applicant has many pending cases before the Office and it seems that much of the prior art for many of these pending cases is being submitted for the consideration by the Office in every application without the applicant’s evaluation as to whether the prior art is relevant to the pending claims. By way of example only, note the following references cited in the 4/16/2024 IDS:
USPN 0540834 – Pump Rod Coupling
USPN 1073614 – Pile Splice
USPN 1493165 – Screwdriver
USPN 1845818 – Safety Device
USPN 1853294 – Archer’s Bow
USPN 2415638 – Resinous Copolymers…
USPN 2519553 – Radio Apparatus…
USPN 2907327 – Pellet Implanter
USPN 3103102 – Propulsion Power…
USPN 3156230 – Takedown Bow
NPL – Lamiglas dealer Price…, Shaft specs…
NPL – Letter from RESCO 1994/1998
These references, along with many others cited on the 4/16/2024 IDS, have absolutely nothing to do with the claimed invention. Thus, the Office respectfully requests that a better effort be made, with a more common sense approach by the applicant, to screen and submit only those references that really are necessary for the Office to consider and that are relevant for the pending, claimed invention, so that the Office is able to spend time on the merits of the case.
Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings would preferably be presented in the same upright/portrait orientation 37 CFR 1.84(h)-(i)). The drawings are mostly presented in landscape and sideways orientation making it potentially difficult for viewers to clearly read and understand and the scale/details of the drawings do not appear to require the figures to be presented in this view as the drawings appear to be capable of fitting in the preferred vertical/upright orientation. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language (ex. “is disclosed”, “The disclosed”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: only the first letter of the preamble of the claim should be capitalized (MPEP 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “claim1” should read “claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “the narrower bore at the distal end of the sleeve” should read “the narrower distal bore at the distal end of the sleeve”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: only the first letter of the preamble of the claim should be capitalized (MPEP 608.01(m)) and in line 1, “with frictional retaining mechanism” should likely read “with a frictional retaining mechanism”, and in line 5-6 “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “also comprising two or more” could more clearly read “comprising at least two frictional retaining mechanisms” as it is unclear if also comprising two or more is intending to require three frictional retaining mechanisms as claim 35 requires at least one already. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-5, the limitation “wherein the arrow sleeve is secured to the arrow by the shaft of an arrow point which is secured to the arrow insert through a bore in the arrow sleeve” does not appear to further define over claim 35 and therefore should be changed to further define the invention or may be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: only the first letter of the preamble of the claim should be capitalized (MPEP 608.01(m)), and in line 1 “with frictional retaining mechanism” should likely read “with a frictional retaining mechanism”, and in line 5-6 “the frictional retaining mechanism” should read “the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms” or “one of the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 55 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “also comprising two or more” could more clearly read “comprising at least two frictional retaining mechanisms” as it is unclear if also comprising two or more is intending to require three frictional retaining mechanisms as claim 54 requires at least one already. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “54 also configured” could more clearly read “54 is configured”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 60 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “the narrower bore” should read “the narrower distal bore”, in line 6 and 7, “the arrow shaft” should read “the shaft of an arrow”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16, 35-48, and 54-60 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inner diameter of an arrow shaft” in line 2 and “the shaft of an arrow point” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the threaded shaft” in line 2 and “the arrow” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the junction” in line 2, “the threaded portion of the bore” in line 2, and “the smooth portion of the bore” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the insert” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the rest of the bore” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “the setting comprising a ring in the bore”. It is unclear if the ring is intended to be in the bore of the insert as previously presented or if it is intended to be a ring in the setting.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the top” in line 1 and “the arrow” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the proximal end” in line 1-2 and “the distal end” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the inner diameter of an arrow shaft” in line 2 and “the shaft of an arrow point” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “the threaded shaft” in line 2 and “the arrow” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “the threaded shaft” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “the junction” in line 2, “the threaded portion of the bore” in line 2, and “the smooth portion of the bore” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “the insert” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 43 recites the limitation “the rest of the bore” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 54 recites the limitation “the shaft of an arrow point” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 56 recites the limitation “the threaded shaft” in line 2 and “the arrow” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation “the threaded shaft” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 59 recites the limitation “the top of the arrow and arrow insert” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 60 recites the limitation “the proximal end” in line 1-2 and “the distal end” in line 2-3, and “the insert in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-6, 11-14, 36, 39-40, 44-48, 55, and 58 are therefore rejected as they depend from a rejected claim.
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 1-5, 7, 12, X are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang US Pat. No. 8,337,341.
Huang teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
An arrow insert (9, Fig. 1-4) comprising:
An outer diameter configured to fit within the inner diameter of an arrow shaft (the outer surface/diameter of insert 9 fits within the inner diameter of arrow shaft 10);
A bore configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point (central bore through insert 9 receives a shaft 2/3 of an arrow point 1 therein, Fig. 4);
One or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore (frictional retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the shaft and insert to retain the arrow point in the insert, Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43).
In Reference to Claim 2
The arrow insert of claim 1 also comprising two or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore (at least two retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the shaft and insert to retain the arrow point in the insert, Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43).
In Reference to Claim 3
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore secure the threaded shaft of an arrow point and prevent the arrow point from loosening upon the arrow being fired (the frictional retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the arrow point shaft and insert to retain the threaded shaft of the arrow point in the insert (and prevent loosening), Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43, the shaft may have a threaded portion 3).
In Reference to Claim 4
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the bore is a threaded bore configured to receive the threaded shaft of an arrow point (the insert may include a threaded portion 12 at the rear end to engage the threaded portion 3 of the shaft of the arrow point, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 5
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the bore comprises a threaded portion and a smooth portion configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point (the proximal end of the insert 11 is smooth to receive a smooth portion 2 of the shaft of the arrow point with threaded rear ends 11/3 on the insert and shaft respectively, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 7
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the frictional retaining mechanism is set at the junction of the threaded portion of the bore and the smooth portion of the bore (frictional retaining mechanism O-ring 5 is set in the bore to contact the arrow point shaft where the smooth portion meets the threaded portion in the bore 11/12, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 12
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the frictional retaining mechanism comprises one or more O-rings (O-rings 4/5 are the frictional retaining mechanisms).
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 6, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above.
In Reference to Claim 6
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the bore has an inner diameter of approximately 5.16 millimeters (the inner diameter of the bore at 11/12 appears to be about 5.16mm to accept the narrow shaft of the arrow point therein, Fig. 4).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the bore would have an inner diameter of about 5.16mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the inner diameter to be about 5.16mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 bore dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
In Reference to Claim 8
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the shaft or insert also comprises a setting to secure the frictional retaining mechanism (shaft 2 has ring shaped settings 6/7 for retaining O-rings 4/5, Fig. 2-4).
Though Huang teaches the setting being located in the arrow point shaft instead of the insert bore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the ring settings within the insert bore instead of within the arrow point shaft as the location of the bore does not materially change the function of providing a frictional retaining means between the insert bore and the arrow point shaft and it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167) and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 9
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 8 wherein the setting comprises a ring in the bore which has a greater diameter than the rest of the bore (Huang: the setting/ring 6/7 would be wider than the inner diameter of the bore as it would extend into the insert inner surface to allow the O-rings to be retained therein as modified above).
In Reference to Claim 10
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 8 wherein the setting comprises a ring in the bore having an inner diameter of approximately 6.5 mm (Huang: the setting/ring 6/7 would be wider than the inner diameter of the bore as it would extend into the insert inner surface to allow the O-rings to be retained therein as modified above, wherein the ring in the bore would appear to have a diameter of about 6.5mm).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the setting ring in the bore would have an inner diameter of about 6.5mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the inner diameter to be about 6.5mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 bore dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
In Reference to Claim 11
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the frictional retaining mechanism comprises a ring of plastic or rubber secured in a setting within the bore (O-rings 4/5 are rings of plastic/rubber that are secured in settings 6/7 within the bore of the insert).
Though Huang teaches the setting being located in the arrow point shaft instead of the insert bore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the ring settings within the insert bore instead of within the arrow point shaft as the location of the bore does not materially change the function of providing a frictional retaining means between the insert bore and the arrow point shaft and it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167) and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Further, though Huang doesn’t specifically teach the O-rings being formed of plastic or rubber, these are the most commonly used and known materials used for frictionally retaining O-rings in the art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In Reference to Claim 13
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the outer diameter of the arrow insert is between about six and about eight millimeters (the outer diameter of the insert 9 appears to be between about 6 and 8mm to fit within the arrow shaft inner diameter, Fig. 4).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the insert would have an outer diameter of about 6-8mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the insert outer diameter to be about 6-8mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 insert dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
In Reference to Claim 14
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 1 wherein the outer diameter of the arrow insert is between about 7.6 and about 7.7 millimeters (the outer diameter of the insert 9 appears to be between about 7.6 and 7.7mm to fit within the arrow shaft inner diameter, Fig. 4).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the insert would have an outer diameter of about 7.6-7.7mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the insert outer diameter to be about 7-6-7.7mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 insert dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Broderick US Pat. No. 11,022,413.
In Reference to Claim 15
Huang teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 1 as rejected above.
Huang fails to teach:
The insert configured to have a sleeve placed over the top of the arrow and arrow insert so that an arrow point secured to the arrow insert also secures the sleeve to the arrow.
Further, Broderick teaches:
A similar archery arrow having an arrow shaft (106) having an insert coupled thereto (300), the insert having a central bore for receiving a shaft of an arrow point therein (bore 311 has a threaded section 310 to receive a threaded section 312 of the arrow point 104 therein), and a sleeve placed over a top end of the arrow and arrow insert so that an arrow point secured to the arrow insert also secures the sleeve to the arrow (sleeve 302 is coupled to the outer sides of the arrow insert and arrow shaft such that the connected arrow point coupled to the insert secures the sleeve to the arrow, Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Huang to have further included an arrow sleeve in order to more securely connect the arrow point to the arrow and provide structural reinforcement to the arrow, facilitate removal of the arrow from a target, allow for rotational adjustability of the arrowhead, and allow for different weighted sleeves to be used to modify the weight of the arrow for different arrow points as taught by Broderick (Col. 4 line 64 – Col. 6 line 41, Col. 6 lines 64-67).
In Reference to Claim 16
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 15, wherein the sleeve comprises a proximal bore at the proximal end of the sleeve to receive a shaft of an arrow (Broderick: proximal bore at end 322 receives arrow shaft 106 therein) and a narrower distal bore at the distal end of the sleeve which allows the shaft of the arrow point to pass through and be secured within the bore in the insert (Broderick: distal bore at 311/402 is narrower than the shaft end to allow arrow point shaft 312/313 to pass through and be secured in the insert, Fig. 1-4), wherein the narrower bore at the distal end of the sleeve is sufficiently narrow that the arrow shaft cannot pass through it, but the shaft of the arrow point can pass through and be secured within the arrow insert, thus securing the sleeve to the arrow shaft and arrow insert (Broderick: the shaft of the arrow point 312/313 passes through the distal end to secure the sleeve to the shaft and insert while the shaft 106 is secured to the opposite end at shoulder 324 such that the shaft does not pass further through the sleeve, Fig. 4).
Claims 35-48 and 54-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang US Pat. No. 8,337,341 in view of Broderick US Pat. No. 11,022,413.
In Reference to Claim 35
Huang teaches:
An arrow insert with frictional retaining mechanism (insert 9 having frictional retaining mechanisms therein, Fig. 1-4) comprising:
An outer diameter configured to fit within the inner diameter of an arrow shaft (the outer surface/diameter of insert 9 fits within the inner diameter of arrow shaft 10);
A bore configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point (central bore through insert 9 receives a shaft 2/3 of an arrow point 1 therein, Fig. 4);
One or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore (frictional retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the shaft and insert to retain the arrow point in the insert, Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43); and,
Wherein the arrow insert is configured to secure an arrow sleeve to fit over the frictional retaining mechanism, wherein the arrow insert is configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point and secures the arrow point to the arrow shaft (the insert is configured to receive the shaft of the arrow point therein and is capable of having a sleeve secured to the outside of the arrow, Fig. 4).
Huang fails to teach:
Wherein the arrow insert is configured to secure an arrow sleeve to fit over the frictional retaining mechanism, wherein the arrow insert is configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point which is secured through a bore in the arrow sleeve and secures the arrow sleeve to the arrow shaft.
Further, Broderick teaches:
A similar archery arrow having an arrow shaft (106) having an insert coupled thereto (300), the insert having a central bore for receiving a shaft of an arrow point therein (bore 311 has a threaded section 310 to receive a threaded section 312 of the arrow point 104 therein), and wherein the arrow insert is configured to secure an arrow sleeve to fit over the frictional retaining mechanism, wherein the arrow insert is configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point which is secured through a bore in the arrow sleeve and secures the arrow sleeve to the arrow shaft (sleeve 302 is coupled to the outer sides of the arrow insert and arrow shaft such that the connected arrow point coupled to the insert secures the sleeve and arrow point to the arrow via the arrow insert, Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Huang to have further included an arrow sleeve in order to more securely connect the arrow point to the arrow and provide structural reinforcement to the arrow, facilitate removal of the arrow from a target, allow for rotational adjustability of the arrowhead, and allow for different weighted sleeves to be used to modify the weight of the arrow for different arrow points as taught by Broderick (Col. 4 line 64 – Col. 6 line 41, Col. 6 lines 64-67).
In Reference to Claim 36
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 also comprising two or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore (Huang: at least two retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the shaft and insert to retain the arrow point in the insert, Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43).
In Reference to Claim 37
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore secure the threaded shaft of an arrow point and prevent the arrow point from loosening upon the arrow being fired, wherein the arrow sleeve is secured to the arrow by the shaft of an arrow point which is secured to the arrow insert through a bore in the arrow sleeve (Huang: the frictional retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the arrow point shaft and insert to retain the threaded shaft of the arrow point in the insert (and prevent loosening), Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43, the shaft may have a threaded portion 3, wherein the arrow point is secured to the insert and arrow shaft through the sleeve as modified by Broderick to form the connected arrow).
In Reference to Claim 38
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the bore in the arrow insert comprises a threaded bore configured to receive the threaded shaft of an arrow point (Huang: the insert may include a threaded portion 12 at the rear end to engage the threaded portion 3 of the shaft of the arrow point, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 39
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the bore in the arrow insert comprises a threaded portion and a smooth portion configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point (Huang: the proximal end of the insert 11 is smooth to receive a smooth portion 2 of the shaft of the arrow point with threaded rear ends 11/3 on the insert and shaft respectively, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 40
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the bore in the arrow insert has an inner diameter of approximately 5.16 millimeters (Huang: the inner diameter of the bore at 11/12 appears to be about 5.16mm to accept the narrow shaft of the arrow point therein, Fig. 4, and Broderick shows a insert inner diameter of about .206 inches or 5.23mm (Fig. 5)).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the bore would have an inner diameter of about 5.16mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the inner diameter to be about 5.16mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 bore dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
In Reference to Claim 41
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the frictional retaining mechanism is set at the junction of the threaded portion of the bore and the smooth portion of the bore (Huang: frictional retaining mechanism O-ring 5 is set in the bore to contact the arrow point shaft where the smooth portion meets the threaded portion in the bore 11/12, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 42
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the shaft or insert also comprises a setting to secure the frictional retaining mechanism (Huang: shaft 2 has ring shaped settings 6/7 for retaining O-rings 4/5, Fig. 2-4).
Though Huang teaches the setting being located in the arrow point shaft instead of the insert bore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the ring settings within the insert bore instead of within the arrow point shaft as the location of the bore does not materially change the function of providing a frictional retaining means between the insert bore and the arrow point shaft and it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167) and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 43
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 42 wherein the setting comprises a ring in the bore which has a greater diameter than the rest of the bore (Huang: the setting/ring 6/7 would be wider than the inner diameter of the bore as it would extend into the insert inner surface to allow the O-rings to be retained therein as modified above).
In Reference to Claim 44
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 42 wherein the setting comprises a ring in the bore having an inner diameter of approximately 6.5 mm (Huang: the setting/ring 6/7 would be wider than the inner diameter of the bore as it would extend into the insert inner surface to allow the O-rings to be retained therein as modified above, wherein the ring in the bore would appear to have a diameter of about 6.5mm, and Broderick shows a insert inner diameter of about .206 inches or 5.23mm (Fig. 5)).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the setting ring in the bore would have an inner diameter of about 6.5mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the inner diameter to be about 6.5mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 bore dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
In Reference to Claim 45
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the frictional retaining mechanism comprises a ring of plastic or rubber secured in a setting within the bore (Huang: O-rings 4/5 are rings of plastic/rubber that are secured in settings 6/7 within the bore of the insert).
Though Huang teaches the setting being located in the arrow point shaft instead of the insert bore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the ring settings within the insert bore instead of within the arrow point shaft as the location of the bore does not materially change the function of providing a frictional retaining means between the insert bore and the arrow point shaft and it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167) and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Further, though Huang doesn’t specifically teach the O-rings being formed of plastic or rubber, these are the most commonly used and known materials used for frictionally retaining O-rings in the art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
In Reference to Claim 46
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the frictional retaining mechanism comprises one or more O-rings (Huang: O-rings 4/5 are the frictional retaining mechanisms).
In Reference to Claim 47
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the outer diameter of the arrow insert is between about six and about eight millimeters (Huang: the outer diameter of the insert 9 appears to be between about 6 and 8mm to fit within the arrow shaft inner diameter, Fig. 4, and Broderick shows a insert outer diameter of about .247 inches or 6.27mm (Fig. 5)).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the insert would have an outer diameter of about 6-8mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the insert outer diameter to be about 6-8mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 insert dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
In Reference to Claim 48
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 35 wherein the outer diameter of the arrow insert is between about 7.6 and about 7.7 millimeters (Huang: the outer diameter of the insert 9 appears to be between about 7.6 and 7.7mm to fit within the arrow shaft inner diameter, Fig. 4, and Broderick shows a insert outer diameter of about .247 inches or 6.27mm (Fig. 5)).
Though Huang is silent to the exact measurements of the insert portions, it appears that the insert would have an outer diameter of about 7.6-7.7mm. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the insert outer diameter to be about 7-6-7.7mm as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and 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 insert dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably arrive at the optimum value of the claimed dimensions during routine experimentation.
In Reference to Claim 54
Huang teaches:
An arrow insert with frictional retaining mechanism (insert 9 having frictional retaining mechanisms therein, Fig. 1-4) comprising:
A distal section comprising a bore configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point (central bore through insert 9 receives a shaft 2/3 of an arrow point 1 received in the distal section therein (near 13), Fig. 4);
A middle section configured to be press fit to an arrow sleeve (the insert is capable of having an arrow sleeve press fit or otherwise connected to the insert);
One or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore configured to receive an arrow point (frictional retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the shaft and insert to retain the arrow point in the insert, Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43); and,
A proximal section configured to be received into the shaft of an arrow (the outer surface/diameter of insert 9 fits within the inner diameter of arrow shaft 10 at a proximal section opposite from the arrow point end/section).
Huang fails to teach:
The middle section configured to be press fit to an arrow sleeve such that the arrow insert is configured to secure an arrow sleeve to fit over the frictional retaining mechanism, wherein the arrow insert is configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point which is secured through a bore in the arrow sleeve and secures the arrow sleeve to the arrow shaft.
Further, Broderick teaches:
A similar archery arrow having an arrow shaft (106) having an insert coupled thereto (300), the insert having a central bore for receiving a shaft of an arrow point therein (bore 311 has a threaded section 310 to receive a threaded section 312 of the arrow point 104 therein), and wherein the arrow insert is configured to secure an arrow sleeve via press fitting or other connection means over a middle portion of the insert, wherein the arrow insert is configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point which is secured through a bore in the arrow sleeve and secures the arrow sleeve to the arrow shaft (sleeve 302 is coupled to the outer sides of the arrow insert such that it is in frictional/press fit contact over a middle portion of the insert and also connects at one end to the arrow shaft such that the connected arrow point at another end is coupled to the insert and secures the sleeve and arrow point to the arrow via the arrow insert, Fig. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Huang to have further included an arrow sleeve in order to more securely connect the arrow point to the arrow and provide structural reinforcement to the arrow, facilitate removal of the arrow from a target, allow for rotational adjustability of the arrowhead, and allow for different weighted sleeves to be used to modify the weight of the arrow for different arrow points as taught by Broderick (Col. 4 line 64 – Col. 6 line 41, Col. 6 lines 64-67).
In Reference to Claim 55
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 54 also comprising two or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore (Huang: at least two retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the shaft and insert to retain the arrow point in the insert, Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43).
In Reference to Claim 56
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 54 wherein the one or more frictional retaining mechanisms set within the bore secure the threaded shaft of an arrow point and prevent the arrow point from loosening upon the arrow being fired (Huang: the frictional retaining mechanism O-rings 4/5 are set in the bore of the insert between the arrow point shaft and insert to retain the threaded shaft of the arrow point in the insert (and prevent loosening), Fig. 4, Col. 2 lines 26-43, the shaft may have a threaded portion 3).
In Reference to Claim 57
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 54 wherein the bore is a threaded bore configured to receive the threaded shaft of an arrow point (Huang: the insert may include a threaded portion 12 at the rear end to engage the threaded portion 3 of the shaft of the arrow point, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 58
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 54 wherein the bore comprises a threaded portion and a smooth portion configured to receive the shaft of an arrow point (Huang: the proximal end of the insert 11 is smooth to receive a smooth portion 2 of the shaft of the arrow point with threaded rear ends 11/3 on the insert and shaft respectively, Fig. 4).
In Reference to Claim 59
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 54 also configured to have a sleeve placed over the top of the arrow and arrow insert so that an arrow point secured to the arrow insert also secures the sleeve to the arrow (Broderick: sleeve 302 is coupled to the outer sides/top of the arrow insert and top of the arrow shaft such that the connected arrow point coupled to the insert secures the sleeve to the arrow, Fig. 1-4).
In Reference to Claim 60
Huang as modified by Broderick teaches:
The arrow insert of claim 59 wherein the sleeve comprises a proximal bore at the proximal end of the sleeve to receive a shaft of an arrow (Broderick: proximal bore at end 322 receives arrow shaft 106 therein) and a narrower distal bore at the distal end of the sleeve which allows the shaft of the arrow point to pass through and be secured within the bore in the insert (Broderick: distal bore at 311/402 is narrower than the shaft end to allow arrow point shaft 312/313 to pass through and be secured in the insert, Fig. 1-4), wherein the narrower bore at the distal end of the sleeve is sufficiently narrow that the arrow shaft cannot pass through it, but the shaft of the arrow point can pass through and be secured within the arrow insert, thus securing the sleeve to the arrow shaft and arrow insert (Broderick: the shaft of the arrow point 312/313 passes through the distal end to secure the sleeve to the shaft and insert while the shaft 106 is secured to the opposite end at shoulder 324 such that the shaft does not pass further through the sleeve, Fig. 4).
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, Poston (12,174,000), Kitts (10,203,185), Greenwood (2017/0299353, 9,410,773), Dickerson (8,961,341), Smith (7,651,421), Rangel (5,516,117), Schaar (4,533,146), Simo (4,381,866), and Sherwin (4,141,554) teach similar arrow inserts.
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.
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