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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the limitations suggests that the grip surface is adapted for portability. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: The feature, “bracing extension” lacks an antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure 4 show(s) multiple views in the same drawing figure. See 37 CFR 1.84 (u). 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 the text exceeds the limit of 150 words . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 4, 8-10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varga, German Patent Application No. DE 102017222915, in view of Bednar, U.S. Patent No. 6,095,128. As to Claim 1, Varga teaches a rotational force assistant (drive unit) adapted for portability and single-hand use, paragraph 0005. The drive unit may be adapted to transform supplied electric power into rotational force, paragraphs 0006 and 0053, noting screwing in mode. A charge-storage unit (energy storage unit) may be adapted to store and release electric power for operation of the drive unit, paragraph 0006. Varga suggests that the charge storage unit may be rechargeable, paragraph 0006, noting lithium-ion batteries. Further, it was commonly known in the art before the effective filing date that a charging port may be provided in communication with a charge storage unit inside a device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Varga with a rechargeable charge-storage device as suggested with a charging port adapted to receive electric power for storage in the charge-storage unit, as was known in the art. Varga teaches a draw activator (actuating unit) adapted to activate the drive unit to apply rotational force in a tightening direction, paragraphs 0003 and 0038, noting stirring and frothing. The examiner finds that the direction of rotation may be considered to be a tightening direction. Varga teaches a controller (capacitive switching unit) controlling operation of the drive unit and charge-storage unit, paragraph 0024, noting electrical assembly setting operating modes. Varga teaches a rotational input unit adapter adapted to transfer rotational force from the drive unit to a rotational input unit of a rotating mechanism, paragraphs 0037 and 0038, noting input to stirrers and frothers, but Varga does not disclose adaptation for a bowstring drawing mechanism. Bednar teaches a crossbow bowstring drawing mechanism, which may be operated by input from a rotational force assistant (power screwdriver), see Abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adapt the rotational input adapter to input rotational force to an input unit of a bowstring drawing mechanism of a crossbow, as taught by Bednar, to provide Varga, as modified, with an additional use of the device to yield the predictable result of increasing versatility of the rotational force assistant. As to Claim 4, Varga teaches a grip surface may be provided on the unit case, paragraphs 0007 and 0029. As to Claim 8, Varga teaches that adapters may be provided to adapt to rotational input units of various tools and kitchen equipment, paragraph 0037, suggesting that a plurality of adapters may be adapted to mount to rotational input units of varied specific equipment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Varga, as modified, with a plurality of specifically adapted adapters, as suggested, to yield the predictable result of adapters capable of mounting to rotational input units of specific crossbows. As to Claim 9, the examiner finds that it was commonly known in the art before the effective filing date to configure a charging port to comprise a USB charging port. As to Claim 10, Varga teaches that the charge-storage unit may further comprise a battery, paragraph 0030. As to Claim 17, Varga, as modified by Bednar, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Bednar teaches an integral rotational input unit adapter on a drive unit (hand crank or power screwdriver), and mounting the rotational input unit adapter to a drive unit to a rotational input unit of a bowstring drawing mechanism of a crossbow (bowstring drawing mechanism) and causing the rotational input unit adapter to apply rotational force in a tightening direction to the rotational input unit of the bowstring drawing mechanism of the crossbow, see Abstract, noting that either an external hand crank or an external motorized device may be mounted to the drawing mechanism of a crossbow to draw the crossbow drawstring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to mount the device as claimed and as taught by Bednar to provide Varga, as modified, with a known substitute method for drawing a crossbow. Varga, as modified, discloses an integral rotational input unit adapter instead of a separate adapter mounted on the drive unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a separate adapter mounted on the drive unit, since it has been held that construction a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Further, Varga teaches engaging an activator (switching element) to activate a drive module, paragraph 0023. It follows that Varga as modified provides the step of engaging the draw activator.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varga, in view of Bednar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh, Korean Patent Application No. KR 2022000623. Varga, as modified substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 5, Varga, as modified, is silent as to an indicator on the unit case. Oh teaches a similar rotational force assistant (power tool) comprising an indicator (18), adapted to show status information, and a unit case 10, paragraphs 0022, 0047 and 0049. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Varga, as modified, with an indicator, as taught by Oh, to provide Varga, as modified, with information on the status of the device, to yield the predictable result of facilitating controlled operation. Varga, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the display may be on the unit case. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the display on the unit case 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).
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varga, in view of Bednar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ichikawa et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0213593. Varga, as modified substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 6, Varga, as modified, is silent as to an indicator on the unit case. Varga, as modified, is silent as to a tether point. Ichikawa teaches a rotational force assistant (2) provided with a tether point on a unit case to provide a mounting point for a tether, paragraphs 0060 and 0061 and see Figure 1, noting tether attached to unit case (102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Varga, as modified, with a tether point on the case, as taught by Ichikawa, to provide Varga, as modified, with feature for attaching the device to yield the predictable result of facilitating the transport of the device. As to Claim 7, Ichikawa teaches that the rotational force assistant may be activated to cause a drive unit to apply rotational force in a reverse direction, paragraph 0082. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide reverse rotational force, as taught by Ichikawa, to provide Varga, as modified with rotational force in a releasing direction to yield the predictable result of enabling de-cocking of a crossbow. As to Claim 18, Ichikawa is applied as in Claim 7, with regard to the force assistance being activated to cause a drive unit to apply rotational force in a reverse direction, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. The examiner finds that activation of the force assistance may be considered to have been performed by an activator. Bednar teaches that a rotational force assistant may cause a rotational input unit adapter mounted to a drive unit to apply rotational force in a releasing direction to the rotational input unit of the bowstring drawing mechanism of the crossbow, see Abstract noting that the bow may be drawn or released.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varga, in view of Bednar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokoyama et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0279770. Varga, as modified substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 11, Varga, as modified, teaches that the charge-storage unit may further comprise a battery, as discussed above, but Varga, as modified, is silent as to the charge-storage unit further comprising a capacitor. Yokoyama teaches that an electric storage unit (104) may have a charge-storage unit (emergency power supply) comprising a battery or a capacitor, paragraph 0060. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Varga, as modified, with a charge-storage unit comprising a capacitor, as taught by Yokoyama, to provide Varga, as modified, with a known substitute charge-storage unit.
Claim(s) 12, 14 ,and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varga, in view of Bednar, Oh, and Ichikawa. As to Claim 12, Varga, in view of Bednar, is applied as in claims 1, 4, and 8, with the same obviousness rationales being found applicable. Oh is applied as in Claim 5 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Ichikawa is applied as in Claims 6 and 7 with the same obviousness rationales being found applicable. As to Claim 14, the examiner finds that the rationale applied in Claim 9 is equally applicable. As to Claim 15, Varga is applied as in Claim 10.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varga, in view of Bednar, Oh, and Ichikawa, as applied in Claim 12, and in further view of Yokoyama. As to Claim 16, Yokoyama is applied as in Claim 11, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and subject to resolving claim objections.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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 25 September 2025