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 .
Status of Claims
In an amendment filed 12/17/2025, Applicant amended claim 5, 10, 13, 16-17. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
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 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Proctor US Pat. No. 6,415,780.
Proctor teaches:
In Reference to Claim 17
A cam assembly for an archery bow (rotatable cam assembly for a compound bow, Fig. 1-5), comprising:
a rotatable member (rotatable cam member 9 with bearing support system 10);
a bearing carriage (a bearing carriage is formed by the left and right bearing carriage portions 18 each holds sealed ball bearings 14 therein); and
a set of bearings comprising:
a first bearing disposed within the bearing carriage; and
a second bearing disposed within the bearing carriage, the first bearing and the second bearing disposed within opposite ends of the bearing carriage (first and second sets of ball bearings 14 are placed within the respective left and right portions of the bearing carriage on opposite ends (left and right) of the rotatable member and collective bearing carriage),
wherein the bearing carriage is configured to be removed from the rotatable member (the bearing carriage (including the left and right portions forming the entire bearing carriage) 18 is removable from the cam member body bore 40 as the carriage inserted portion 36 may be removably coupled to the bore surface 40 via different means, ex. press fitting, threaded portions, or the like, Fig. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 37-67).
In Reference to Claim 18
The cam assembly of claim 17, wherein the bearing carriage is configured to retain the set of bearings when removed from the rotatable member (bearings 14 have an outer surface 42 that is configured to be retained within the bore 44 of the carriage 18 via press fit or the like capable of allowing retention of the bearings of the carriage when the carriage is removed from the cam assembly, Col. 5 lines 37-67).
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proctor as applied to claim 17 above.
In Reference to Claim 19
Proctor teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 17, wherein:
a portion of an exterior surface of the bearing carriage defines an engagement feature (the exterior surface of portion 36 of the carriage may include threading or other similar engagement means, Col. 5 lines 37-54);
a portion of an interior surface of the rotatable member defining a second engagement feature (the interior surface 40 of the rotatable member may include threading or other similar engagement means to connect to the exterior surface of the bearing carriage, Col. 5 lines 37-54); and a threaded fastening is formed between the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature (Col. 5 lines 37-54).
Though Proctor doesn’t specifically teach a separate threaded fastener that contacts both the first and second engagement features (which may be threaded as detailed above), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the fastening means to have included a threaded fastener to engage the first and second engagement means as the resulting structure is essentially the same removable fastening engagement and Proctor teaches that other known fastening means may be used (which a threaded fastener engaging the first and second engagement features would be considered an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art and it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (removable threaded fastening/engagement between the bearing carriage and the cam bore) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184).
In Reference to Claim 20
Proctor teaches:
The cam assembly of claim 17, wherein:
a portion of an exterior surface of the bearing carriage defines an engagement feature (the exterior surface of portion 36 of the carriage may include threading or other similar engagement means, Col. 2 lines 37-54);
a portion of an interior surface of the rotatable member defining a second engagement feature (the interior surface 40 of the rotatable member may include threading or other similar engagement means to connect to the exterior surface of the bearing carriage, Col. 2 lines 37-54).
Though Proctor doesn’t specifically teach a separate pin member that contacts both the first and second engagement features (which may be threaded or any other connecting means as detailed above), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the fastening means to have included a pin to engage the first and second engagement means as the resulting structure is essentially the same removable fastening engagement and Proctor teaches that other known fastening means may be used (which a pin fastener engaging the first and second engagement features would be considered an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art and it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (removable pin fastening/engagement between the bearing carriage and the cam bore) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-16 have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 with respect to claims 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., bearing carriage being one piece and extending through an entire length of the bore of the rotatable member or being movable laterally relative to the rotatable member or bearings) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the broadest reasonable interpretation, the bearing carriage may be considered as the pair of bearing carriage portions that form an entire bearing support for each side of the rotatable member as discussed in the rejection above.
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, Strother (2025/0297826) teaches a very similar adjustable cam assembly bearing (but does not qualify as a prior art reference) and Grace (12,163,757, 11,536,532, 10,126,087), Hayes (12,130,112), Hansen (11,821,708), McPherson (11,486,674, 9,528,788), Romero (2020/0158461) teach similar bearing cam assemblies with adjustability.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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