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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 December 2025 has been entered.
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 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly, U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0231077, in view of Estevo et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0136565. As to Claim 1, Kelly teaches a handle (20) for an archery release, paragraph 0040. The handle may comprise a body (22) having a longitudinal axis (28), paragraphs 0040 and 0041. The body may have a front, rear, top and bottom portions and side surfaces extending between front, rear, top and bottom portions, see drawing below. The top portion of the body may contain a concave surface (16) configured to support a finger of an archer, paragraph 0043. Side surfaces may each contain a recess (arced or curved surfaces) extending from a concave surface toward the bottom portion, paragraph 0043 and see Figures 2A and 2B. Kelly does not teach that the recess may be tapered. Estevo teaches an ergonomic handle having a body (208) configured for gripping (comfortable ergonomic handle), paragraphs 0021 and 0022. Estevo teaches that the body may have a side surface having a tapered recess (204) extending continuously from a concave surface toward a body bottom portion with the tapered recess having a depth which decreases from the body top portion toward a body bottom portion, paragraphs 0022 and 0023 and see Figure 2, noting that the portion of the recess proximate the bottom of the body meets the surrounding surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kelly with a continuous tapered recess with depth decreasing toward the bottom of the body, on side surface, as taught by Estevo, to provide Kelly with recesses to comfortably receive fingers to yield the predictable result of an ergonomic handle grip. Kelly, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing a duplicate tapered recess on the opposite side. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a duplicate recess on the opposite side, since it has been held that a 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3, Estevo teaches that the tapered recess may have a length in a direction of a longitudinal axis (vertical as it appears in Figure 2) which decreases toward the bottom portion, see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kelly, as modified, with a tapered recess having a length in a direction of a longitudinal axis which decreases toward the bottom portion as taught by Estevo, to provide Kelly, as modified, with a known substitute tapered recess shape. As to Claim 4, Estevo teaches that an upper portion of the tapered recess extends a length equal to a longitudinal length of at least one concave surface, see Figure 2, noting upper portion of the recess spanning the concave surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the tapered recess to equal the length of the concave surface, as taught by Estevo, to provide Kelly, as modified, with the upper portion of the recess complementing the shape of the concave surface to yield the predictable result of a smooth area for receiving fingers. As to Claim 5, Estevo teaches that the tapered recess may terminate short of the bottom portion, see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kelly, as modified, with the tapered recess configured as claimed and as taught by Estevo, to provide Kelly, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for finger receiving recess. As to Claim 6, Kelly teaches that the handle may comprise a pair of longitudinally spaced concave surfaces (16), paragraph 0041 and see Figure 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly, in view of Estevo, as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and further in view of Rentz, U.S. Patent No. 9,982,961. Kelly, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 7, Kelly, as modified, does not teach a neck portion extending from, the top portion between concave surfaces. Rentz teaches an archery release comprising a neck portion (10) extending from a top portion between a pair of longitudinally spaced concave surfaces (4, 6), Col. 3, ln. 30-36 and see Figure 1. The neck portion may be configured to receive a head assembly (12) operable to hold and release a bowstring, Col. 3, ln. 37-45 and see Figure 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the handle with a neck portion extending between a pair of longitudinally spaced concave surfaces and configured to receive a head assembly operable to hold and release a bowstring, as taught by Rentz, to provide Kelly, as modified, with a known substitute configuration of a handle for an archery release. As to Claim 8, Rentz teaches that a handle body may be formed of a pair of concave mating handle sections which define an internal cavity containing a sear assembly of an archery release, Col. 3, ln. 20-23 and 36-40 and see Figure 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kelly, as modified, with the handle being formed of a pair of concave mating handle sections containing a sear assembly within, as taught by Rentz, to provide Kelly, as modified, with a sear assembly in an internal cavity between mating concave handle sections, to yield the predictable result of a sear assembly protected from the elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 2 December 2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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 5 February 2026