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 19 and 20 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 19, line 15, the limitation indicating that the standoff has a cross-sectional area through a cross-section is unclear. A standoff is understood to be a feature having a direction of extension such that a cross-section would be understood to exist generally perpendicular to the direction of extension. The additional phrase indicating that the cross-sectional area is through a cross-section suggests that the area being claimed is an area other than the ordinary cross-section of the standoff. The scope of the 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPherson, U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0247602, in view of McPherson, U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0283982, and in further view of McPherson et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0019704. As to Claim 1, McPherson,’602 teaches an archery bow (10) comprising a riser (12), and a limb (30) extending from the riser, paragraph 0026 and see Figure 1. The riser may have a first lateral side (first side) and a second lateral side (second side), paragraph 0080. The examiner finds that the riser may be considered to have a center line defined by plane incorporating the bowstring and passing through the riser. McPherson, ‘602, teaches that the first lateral side may have a first set of braces defining a first plane and that the second lateral side may have a second set of braces defining a second plane, see drawing below. The examiner finds that the first and second sets of braces each have a generally vertical layout when the bow is oriented as in Figure 6 and may be considered to each define a planes associated with opposite sides of the bow. McPherson, ‘602 teaches that the second set of braces (77) may be configured to receive a standoff, paragraph 0031, noting accessory mounting location, but McPherson does not disclose a standoff. McPherson, ‘982 teaches that an archery bow riser, Claim 14, and a standoff (51) couplable to an archery bow accessory (40), the standoff extending through a first side and coupling to a second side, paragraph 0038 and see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide McPherson, ‘602, with a standoff couplable to an accessory and extending through a first side and coupling to a second side, as taught by McPherson, ‘982, to provide McPherson, ‘602, with a standoff extending through the first plane and coupled to the second lateral side, to yield the predictable result of seating the standoff through the central portion of the riser. McPherson, ‘602, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for configuring the first and second lateral sides equidistant from the centerline. McPherson, ‘602, discloses the first set of braces defining a first plane coincident with the near side of the riser, see drawing below showing a continuous portion of the braces meeting the front and rear of the bow and see Figure 10. The second set of braces is recessed from the first plane and defines a second plane beyond the first, see drawing below showing that the second braces do not have a continuous portion meeting the front and rear of the bow. McPherson, ‘602, does not disclose the second set of braces to be recessed to a degree so as to place the second set of braces equidistant from the centerline of the riser and coincident with the second lateral side. McPherson, ‘704, teaches an archery bow riser (12), paragraph 0028. The riser may comprise first and second lateral sides with a first set of braces on the first side and a second set of braces, capable of mounting a standoff, on the second side, see drawing below. The first set of braces may be coincident with the first lateral side and the second set of braces may be coincident with the second lateral side equidistant from the center line of the riser, see drawing below, noting that the center line of the riser may be considered to exist equidistant from the lateral sides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified, with first and second lateral sides disposed equidistant from the riser centerline as taught by McPherson, ‘704, to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified, with an accessory mounting point coincident with the second lateral side.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
566
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 2, McPherson, ‘602, teaches that the first set of braces and the second set of braces define a tunnel cavity between the first and second lateral sides, see drawing below.
PNG
media_image3.png
332
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3, McPherson, ‘602, as modified, teaches a standoff coupled to the second braces, as discussed above. It follows that the standoff may be disposed within the tunnel cavity. As to Claim 4, McPherson, ‘982, teaches that the standoff may have a length greater than width of the riser, see Figures 3 and 4, noting that the standoff receives a fastener (56) on one side of the riser and projects beyond the opposite side of the riser. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified, with a standoff having a length greater than the width of the riser, as taught by McPherson, ‘982, to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified, with a standoff length greater than tunnel cavity width, to yield the predictable result of providing space for the attachment of an accessory. As to Claim 5, McPherson, ‘602, teaches that the first set of braces define an aperture and the second set of braces define a through hole for mounting an accessory, see drawing above, suggesting that the standoff coupled as disclosed by McPherson, ‘602, as modified, would leave space within the aperture surrounding the standoff. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the aperture and standoff, as taught and suggested by McPherson, ‘602, as modified, to provide a standoff free-floating within the aperture, as a known substitute configuration. As to Claim 6, McPherson, ‘602, teaches that a second accessory mounting location (77) may be provided on a lower portion of the riser (76) opposite the first portion (75), paragraph 0032, suggesting that a second accessory mounting location may be provided in a lower portion of the riser, configured in the same manner as the first mounting location, namely with the first lateral side including a third set of braces defining a third plane, and a second lateral side including a fourth set of braces defining a fourth plane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified, with a third set of braces defining a third plane and a fourth set of braces defining a fourth plane as suggested. Further, McPherson, ‘892, is applied as in Claim 1, with regard to a second standoff extending through the third plane and coupling to the second lateral side, the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 7, McPherson, ‘602, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for arranging the first and second planes in parallel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the first and second planes in parallel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As to Claim 8, McPherson, ‘602, teaches that the riser may include a standoff engagement feature (hole in accessory mounting location 77), the standoff engagement feature facing the first plane (noting the accessory mounting location facing outward on both sides toward the first and second lateral sides of the riser, and configured to receive a proximal end of the standoff, paragraph 0031 and see Figure 1. As to Claim 9, McPherson, ‘602, teaches that standoff engagement feature may define a through hole, see Figure 1. As to Claim 10, McPherson, ‘982, teaches that the standoff may be configured to couple to the riser by engaging a fastener (56) disposed within a through hole, paragraph 0038 and see Figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified, with the standoff configured to couple to the riser by engaging a fastener within a through-hole, as taught by McPherson, ‘982, to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified, with a known substitute mechanical coupling. As to Claim 11, McPherson, ‘602, as modified is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, McPherson, ‘602, is applied as in Claim 8. As to Claim 12, McPherson, ‘982, teaches that a standoff engagement feature (mounting hole) has a recess portion (mating shape for keyhole) configured to receive an accessory (51), paragraph 0038. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide McPherson, ‘602, as modified with an engagement feature recess portion configured as claimed and as taught by McPherson, ‘982, to provide McPherson, as modified, with a known substitute mechanical connection. As to Claim 13, McPherson, ‘602, is applied as in Claim 9. As to Claim 14, McPherson, ‘602, is applied as in Claims 2 and 3. Given that the standoff may be disposed in the tunnel cavity, it follows that the tunnel cavity may be configured to receive it. As to Claim 15, The examiner finds that the standoff engagement feature may be considered to be a first standoff engagement feature. McPherson, ‘602, is applied as in Claim 6 with regard to the first and second lateral sides including third and fourth sets of braces defining third and fourth planes, and as to a second standoff engagement feature (second accessory mounting location), paragraph 0032. McPherson, ‘602, is applied as in Claim 8 with regard to the standoff engagement feature defined by the second set of braces and facing the first plane. McPherson, ‘602, discloses the claimed invention except for specifically describing the second standoff engagement feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the second standoff engagement feature as a duplicate of the first, being defined by the fourth set of braces and facing the third plane, since 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. As to Claims 16 and 17, McPherson, ‘602, teaches that a second lateral side may define an arrow shelf disposed between first and second standoff engagement features (77), see drawing below.
PNG
media_image4.png
468
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 18, McPherson, ‘602, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the second plane may be arranged to intersect the arrow shelf. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the arrow shelf and second plane so as to intersect, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As to Claim 19, McPherson, ‘602, as modified, is applied as in Claims 1 and 8, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. McPherson, ‘602, teaches the standoff engagement feature defined by the second set of braces, as discussed above but McPherson does not provide that the standoff engagement feature may be coupled to the braces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the standoff engagement feature as a separate component coupled to the second braces, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. McPherson, ‘602, as modified, teaches that the standoff may be coupled to the second lateral side, as discussed in the treatment of Claim 1. McPherson, ‘602, suggests that the coupling may be the standoff coupled to the standoff engagement feature, paragraph 0031. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the coupling at the standoff engagement feature as taught and suggested by McPherson, ‘602. Further, McPherson, ‘602, as modified, is applied as in Claims 3, 4, and 5, establishing a standoff free-floating within the aperture. It is inherent that the aperture and the standoff each have a cross-section, with the cross-section of the aperture being larger. McPherson, ‘602, as modified, does not disclose a ratio of the cross-sections demonstrating that the aperture cross-section is at least 3 times larger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the aperture and standoff such that the aperture may have an aperture at least 3 times larger, since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, McPherson, ‘602, teaches that the archery bow may comprise a limb (30) and a bowstring (14), paragraph 0026. Claim 19 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 20, McPherson, ‘602, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the cross-section may be arranged to extend parallel to the aperture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the cross-section in parallel with the aperture, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 18 November 2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
With regard to the rejection of Claims 19 and 20, under 35 USC §112(b), the examiner maintains the position that the reason for the rejection related to the cross-sectional area through the cross-section remains unresolved. The limitation appears to define a cross-sectional area of the standoff different from the ordinary understanding of the cross-section of an extending feature. The examiner suggests that a standoff having a cross-sectional area would refer to the cross-section of a standoff taken perpendicular to the direction of extension.
In response to applicant's argument that the configuration of the braces of McPherson, ‘602, prevents the incorporation of the structure of McPherson, ‘982, so that a standoff cannot extend through a first plane and couple to a second lateral side of the riser, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). McPherson, ‘982, teaches that the second set of braces may be recessed from the first lateral sides of the riser, as discussed above. The first braces may be considered to establish a first plane coincident with the first braces and with the first lateral side. The second braces are spaced from the first lateral side and may be considered to be on a plane of the second side but not necessarily spaced to a location equidistant from the riser centerline, as now claimed. The newly cited reference, McPherson, ‘704, addresses this limitation.
In response to applicant’s argument that McPherson, ‘982, does not teach that a standoff can extend through a first plane of the first lateral side and couple to the second lateral side, the examiner maintains the position that McPherson, ‘982, teaches a riser having first and second lateral side with a standoff extending through the first lateral side (first plane), crossing to the second lateral side and receiving a capscrew, such that, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, is coupled to the second lateral side.
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 1 December 2025