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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
This application was filed before September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not an attorney or agent of record, is not recognized as an officer of the assignee, and has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP § 324. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). Applicant need to file POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, or file a TD that is signed by applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 13 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.
Furter clarification is required if “the one or more longitudinal members” are any different than already claimed within claim 12, which claim 13 dependent from.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,953,284 (“ ‘284”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘284 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “A modular quiver system, comprising: a base portion configured to be attachable to a bow and having a first hood portion including a first engagement member, the first hood portion configured to removably hold a first arrow between the first engagement members with the arrowhead portion of the first arrow retained in the first hood portion; and a detachable portion having one or more second hood portions defining an exterior profile sized to receive the first hood portion and including a second engagement member, the one or more second hood portions configured to removably hold a plurality of second arrows with the arrowhead portions of the second arrows retained in the one or more second hood portions; wherein the plurality of second arrows are positioned on opposite sides of the first arrow when the detachable portion is removably attached to the base portion; wherein the first and second hood portions are sized, shaped, and positioned so that the entire first hood portion is nested interstitially within the exterior profile between the one or more second hood portions when the detachable portion is removably attached to the base portion; wherein the first and second engagement members are configured and positioned to engage with each other in a fixed manner when pushed together by a user's hands, and the first and second engagement members further configured to disengage from each other when pulled apart by the user's hands”. Also, claim 1 of ‘284 recites all the limitations of above claim 18, namely “A modular quiver system, comprising: a base portion configured to be attachable to a bow and having a first hood portion and first engagement members, the first engagement members comprising flexible and resilient concavities and having an arrow engagement member disposed therebetween, the first hood portion configured to removably house a first arrow between the first engagement members with the arrowhead portion of the first arrow retained in the first hood portion and the arrow shaft retained in the arrow engagement member; and a detachable portion having at least two second hood portions defining an exterior profile therebetween sized to receive the first hood portion and second engagement members, the second hood portions configured to removably house a plurality of second arrows with the arrowhead portions of the second arrows retained in the one or more second hood portions; wherein the plurality of second arrows are positioned on opposite sides of the first arrow when the detachable portion is removably attached to the base portion; wherein the first and second hood portions are sized, shaped, and positioned so that the entire first hood portion is nested interstitially within the exterior profile between the at least two second hood portions when the detachable portion is removably attached to the base portion; wherein the arrow engagement member of the base portion is coplanar with the concavities of the first engagement members; wherein the first and second engagement members are configured and positioned to engage with each other in a fixed manner when pushed together by a user's hands, and the first and second engagement members further configured to disengage from each other when pulled apart by the user's hands”. Every limitations in the above claim 1 and above claim 18 is recited in claim 1 of ‘284, and thus claims 1 and 18, each, is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘284.
Claim 7 recite the same limitations as claim 3 of the ‘284.
Claim 8 recite the same limitations as claim 4 of the ‘284.
Claim 9 recite the same limitations as claim 5 of the ‘284.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,953,284 (“ ‘284”) in view of Walk et al US 8,714,147 (“Walk”).
Claim 1, of ‘284 recites the limitations of above claim 12, namely “A modular quiver system, comprising: a base portion configured to be attachable to a bow and having first engagement member and a first hood portion configured to removably hold a first arrow between the first engagement member with the arrowhead portion of the first arrow retained in the first hood portion; and a detachable portion having second engagement members and one or more second hood portions defining an exterior profile sized and configured to removably hold a plurality of second arrows with the arrowhead portions of the second arrows retained in the one or more second hood portions; wherein the first engagement portions and the second engagement portions are configured to be removably attachable from one another by hand without the use of any tools” except “wherein the first and second hood portions are sized, shaped, and positioned such that the entire first hood portion is adjacent to one end of the exterior profile of the second hood portion when the detachable portion is removably attached to the base portion such that the first arrow is linearly arranged with the second arrows”.
However, in a similar field of quiver devices, Walk discloses wherein a first and second hood portions are sized, shaped, and positioned such that the entire first hood portion is adjacent to one end of an exterior profile of the second hood portion when a detachable portion is removably attached to a base portion such that a first arrow is linearly arranged with second arrows, (a first hood assembly 50 (construed as related to “a base portion”) position adjacent to a second hood assembly 52 (construed as related to “a detachable portion”) connected to each other (via mounting assemblies 36 and 38, that are including engagement members, brackets 76-96 (related to the base portion); complementary to brackets 82-102 (related to the detachable portion)) as a first arrow (any of arrows 150a-150c) (e.g., Fig. 8) is in a linearly arrangement to arrows (150d and 150e)(Figs. 4-6 and 8; in conjunction to 4:59-6:50 (regarding the structure of the base portion/first hood assembly and the detachable portion/second hood assembly) and 6:51-7:48, regarding the connection of the base portion-to-the detachable portion via the first and second engagement members). Therefore, 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 to form ‘284 wherein the first and second hood portions are sized, shaped, and positioned such that the entire first hood portion is adjacent to one end of the exterior profile of the second hood portion when the detachable portion is removably attached to the base portion such that the first arrow is linearly arranged with the second arrows for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement to attach the base portion with the detachable portion to hold a plurality of arrow in a safe manner within the quiver system, yet allow easier detachment therefrom for purposes of maintenance, storage and/or transportation.
Claim 14 recite the same limitations as claim 3 of the ‘284.
Claim 15 recite the same limitations as claim 4 of the ‘284.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-17 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walk et al US 8,714,147 (“Walk”) in view of Stinson US 4,704,800 (“Stinson”).
As per claim 12, Walk discloses a modular quiver system (quiver assembly 12)(Figs. 1-9; 4:40-8:56), comprising:
a base portion (construed as “first hood assembly” 50)(Figs. 4-9; 5:20-6:6) configured to be attachable to a bow (via attachment assembly 32)(Figs. 1-3 in conjunction to at least Figs. 4-6; 4:59-5:19) and having one or more first longitudinal members including a first engagement member (member 30, i.e., a longitudinal member; having either bracket 76 and/or bracket 96 (i.e., a first engagement member) of mounting portions 72 and 92 of assemblies 36 and 38, respectively)(Figs. 4-6; 7:15-:48), a first hood portion connected to the one or more first longitudinal members and first engagement member (first hood portion 50 connected with longitudinal member 30)(Figs. 4-6; 5:20-6:6) and configured to removably hold a first arrow between the first engagement member with the arrowhead portion of the first arrow retained in the first hood portion (construed as any one of arrows 150a-150c that each retains between first engagement member (bracket 76 and/or bracket 96 of respective first mountings 72 and 92)(Figs. 8 and 9 in conjunction to at least Fig. 4 (7:15-48); and a detachable portion having s transverse member having second engagement members (construed as either bracket 82 and/or bracket 102 of mounting portions 74 and 94 of assemblies 36 and 38, respectively)(Figs. 4-6; 7:15-:48), one or more second hood portions (hood 52)(Figs. 4-6; 6:7-50) defining an exterior profile (Figs. 4-6) sized and configured to removably hold a plurality of second arrows (such as arrows 150d and 150e)(Fig. 8) with the arrowhead portions of the second arrows retained in the one or more second hood portions (Fig. 8; 7:54+) wherein the first and second hood portions (hoods 50 and 52) are sized, shaped, and positioned such that the entire first hood portion is adjacent to one end of the exterior profile of the second hood portion (Fig. 8) when the detachable portion is removably attached to the base portion (via first mounting portion 72-to- second mounting portion 74 and/or first mounting portion 92-to-second mounting portion 94)(Fig. 6; 7:15-48) with such that the first arrow (any one of arrows 150a-150c) is linearly arranged with the second arrows (arrows 150d and 150e)(Fig. 8); wherein the first engagement member (bracket 76 and/or bracket 96) and the second engagement member (bracket 82 and/or bracket 102) are configured to be removably attachable from one another by hand without the use of any tools (Fig. 6; 7:15-48).
Walk is not specific regarding one or more second longitudinal members connecting the one or more second hood portions to the transverse member; and the second hood portions, the one or more second longitudinal members, and the transverse member remain connected and continue to retain the plurality of second arrows when the detachable portion is detached. However, in a similar field of quiver systems, Stinson discloses one or more second longitudinal members connecting one or more second hood portions to a transverse member (second hood portion, of second quiver 128 connected to bracket 14 via a longitudinal member)(Fig. 1 and 7:31-42; note at least Fig. 1 as quiver 28 assembly including a first hood 32 connected via longitudinal member to bracket 14). Therefore, 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 to form Walk’s with one or more second longitudinal members connecting the one or more second hood portions to the transverse member for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical connection to provide safe and sturdy connection between the second hood-to second arrows carried within the archery bow. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Walk to include a second hood means configure to includes additional arrow/s carried upon the archery bow.
With respect to the function of the device as “ and the second hood portions, the one or more second longitudinal members, and the transverse member remain connected and continue to retain the plurality of second arrows when the detachable portion is detached”, it is noted that per MPEP 2114 under II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The examiner takes the position that the modified Walk by the teachings of Stinson is fully capable to perform as claimed since the modified device includes all the structural limitations as claimed. In addition, note Walk Figs. 7 and Fig. 9, in conjunction to Stinson’s Fig. 12, i.e., the second hood means (which it related as related to application 925,558, which US Patent 4,805,584, i.e., 7”31+), as any of the first and second hood portions is capable to be detached therefrom and carry arrow/s when each hood is detached.
As per claim 13, Walk discloses further comprising one or more longitudinal members connecting the base portion to the first hood portion (member 30 connected the first portion to hood 50 thereof)(Figs. 4-6; 4:59-5:36) .
As per claim 14, with respect to the base portion comprising a hangable structure configured to hang the bow from a structure when the modular quiver system is attached to the bow, construed as the loop structure within hood 50 (Fig. 6 and as marked hereinafter).
PNG
media_image1.png
709
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner construed such loop of Walk as “a hangable structure” according to applicant’s disclosure in at least paragraph [0010]” In various example embodiments the hangable structure may comprise a loop configured to hang on a hook, branch, or similar structure or protrusion.”
As per claim 15, with respect to the hangable structure comprising a hole formed in the hood portion of the base portion, note Fig. 6 (as well as the markings above), wherein the loop means is inserted within hole/s formed within hood 50.
As per claim 16, with respect to the base portion further comprising a flexible and resilient structure which defines a smaller concavity opening into a larger concavity, such that the smaller concavity and larger concavity are configured to deflect around and removably engage with the shaft of an arrow, note Figs. 4-6 and 7:26-8:20 regarding first seats 80 and/or 100 of base portion (of hood assembly 50; again note the examiner’s markings above, with respect to claim 12, regarding “the base portion”).
As per claim 17, with respect to the detachable portion further comprising at least one flexible and resilient structure which defines a smaller concavity opening into a larger concavity, such that the smaller concavity and larger concavity are configured to deflect around and removably engage with the shaft of an arrow, note Figs. 4-6 and 7:26-8:20 regarding second seats 88 and/or 108 of detachable portion (of hood assembly 52; again note the examiner’s markings above, with respect to claim 12, regarding “the detachable portion”).
Examiner’s Comments
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the examiner maintains his position that the closest prior art is not specific nor render it obvious to form the device of independent claim 1 and or the device of claim 18, as set forth in the previous office action (mailed 6/4/2026, pages 13-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant arguments regarding one or more second longitudinal members connecting the one or more second hood portions to the transverse member, not taught by Walk (remarks pages 9-10), are moot as such new limitations are taught by Stinson as set forth above.
With regard the function of the device as “the second hood portions, the one or more second longitudinal members, and the transverse member remain connected and continue to retain the plurality of second arrows when the detachable portion is detached”, as discussed above "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”. The examiner takes the position that the modified Walk by the teachings of Stinson is fully capable to perform as claimed since the modified device includes all the structural limitations as claimed, as set forth above with respect to claim 12.
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 AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 10/5/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
