DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
As written, claim 13 currently depends from claim 2. However, it appears this may be erroneous, as the claim limitations recited in claim 13 are previously recited in claim 2, but are not in claim 12. See the 112(b) rejection of claim 13 below.
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.
3. Claims 1-11 and 13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “archery cord” in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As written, it is unclear if “archery cord” is a different cord than the “bow cord” recited throughout the rest of the claim. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “archery cord” to mean the same “bow cord”.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies as above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said bundle" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As written, it is unclear if “said bundle” refers to the bow cord, or a completely different element. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “said bundle” to mean “said bow cord”.
Claim 7 is dependent upon claim 6 and therefore inherits the same deficiencies as above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a peep sight body" and "a peep aperture"" in lines 2 and 3 of the claim, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As written, it is unclear if the “peep sight body” and “peep aperture” are different than the limitations previously recited in claim 2, or entirely new features. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “peep sight body” and “peep aperture” to be the same limitations as those recited in claim 2.
It should be noted that due to the order of the claims, it seems claim 13 is erroneously dependent from claim 2, and was intended to be dependent from claim 12. If claim 13 were to be amended to be dependent from claim 12, this particular 112(b) rejection would be overcome.
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 (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 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.
4. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated Saunders (US 4563821 A; Saunders, C.; hereinafter "Saunders").
In regard to claims 1-11 and 13, Saunders discloses:
{claim 1} an apparatus [bow-string mounted, self-aligning, positively positioned peep sight; abstract] comprising:
an archery cord constrictor [peep sight body 40/40a] having two parallel outside edges [generally planar lateral sides 42/42a and 44/44a], wherein each of said parallel outside edges having a series of offset alternating projections extending outward from each of said parallel edges [plurality of posts (48/48a/48b, 50/50a/50b, 52/52a/52b, etc.) described in col. 4 lines 44-65 and col. 5 lines 5-10, shown throughout, with best examples being Figs. 3, 7A-7D, and 13-16], wherein said alternating projections defining a travel path longitudinally along each outside edge for a strand of a bow cord such that said device is positionable between two split strands of the bow cord [Figs. 3 and 13 best show the alternating pattern of the posts (end post 48/48a/48b, middle post 40/40a/40b, and end post 52/52a/52b)], said alternating projections being are positioned and configured to deflect one of said two split strands of the bow cord in a wave shape when tension is applied to said archery cord and thus securing said archery cord constrictor between said split strands of said bow cord [two split strands of bow cord deflected in a wave shape best shown in Figs. 15-16];
{claim 2} a peep body [peep sight body 40/40a] defining a peep aperture [sighting bore 102] is positioned between said parallel outside edges [Figs. 13 and 16 show the peep bore 102 between the lateral sides 42a and 44a];
{claim 3} that said peep body is not parallel to said travel path [Figs. 3-4 and 14 best show that the axis of the bore intersects the travel path];
{claim 13} comprising a peep sight body [peep sight body 40/40a] defining a peep aperture [sighting bore 102] positioned between said two opposite sides [Figs. 13 and 16 show the peep bore 102 between the lateral sides 42a and 44a];
{claim 4} that each of said projections is grooved for travel to define said travel path [Figs. 3-4, 13, and 16 best show that the posts have grooves to define a path for the cable and thus a travel path];
{claim 5} that said projections extend perpendicular to said parallel edges [shown throughout, especially in Figs. 3-4, 13, and 16];
{claim 6} that each of said projections comprise a groove on an inside surface of each of said projections for travel thereon of said bundle [shown throughout, especially in Figs. 3-4, 13, and 16];
{claim 7} that said groove is U-shaped [Figs. 3 and 13 best show that the grooves are U-shaped];
{claim 8} that said projections comprise pegs [plurality of posts (48/48a/48b, 50/50a/50b, 52/52a/52b, etc.) described in col. 4 lines 44-65 and col. 5 lines 5-10, shown throughout, with best examples being Figs. 3, 7A-7D, and 13-16];
{claim 9} that said pegs are grooved on an inside surface to define said travel path [Figs. 3-4, 13, and 16 best show that the posts have grooves to define a path for the cable and thus a travel path];
{claim 10} that said archery cord constrictor comprises a knotting device having a knotting device body extending between said outside edges [cable clip 30, best shown in Fig. 6];
{claim 11} said knotting device body comprises at least one opening extending through said knotting device body [channel 218, shown in Fig. 6 and described at least in col. 6 line 49 - col. 7 line 7].
In regard to claim 12, Saunders discloses an archery bow cord constrictor [peep sight body 40/40a] positioned within an archery bow cord [Fig. 1, seen throughout] wherein: said archery bow cord comprising a plurality of strands forming said archery bow cord [Figs. 15-16, seen throughout], said archery cord string constrictor comprising two parallel sides comprising a first side and a second side being parallel along of length of each side [generally planar lateral sides 42/42a and 44/44a], wherein said first side defining a first side strand travel path and said second side defining a second side strand travel path [Fig. 16 shows a path on each side], wherein said plurality of strands of said archery bow cord is split at least a first strand of said plurality of strands is positioned in said first side strand travel path and at least a second strand of said plurality of strands is positioned within said second side strand travel path such that said cord string constrictor is positioned between said strands [shown in Figs. 15-16]; and wherein said bow cord constrictor comprising a series of alternating projections [plurality of posts (48/48a/48b, 50/50a/50b, 52/52a/52b, etc.) described in col. 4 lines 44-65 and col. 5 lines 5-10, shown throughout, with best examples being Figs. 3, 7A-7D, and 13-16; Figs. 3 and 13 best show the alternating pattern of the posts (end post 48/48a/48b, middle post 40/40a/40b, and end post 52/52a/52b)] extending into each of said first side strand travel path and said second side strand travel path perpendicularly to said length such that each of said first strand and said second strand travel in a wave configuration through said first side strand travel path and said second side strand travel path respectively [shown in Figs. 15-16].
In regard to claims 14-19, Saunders discloses:
{claim 14} peep sight [peep sight, abstract] comprising: two parallel side edges [planar lateral sides 42/42a and 44/44a] having a series of offset projections extending outward from said parallel edges [plurality of posts (48/48a/48b, 50/50a/50b, 52/52a/52b, etc.) described in col. 4 lines 44-65 and col. 5 lines 5-10, best examples being Figs. 3, 7A-7D, and 13-16; Figs. 3 and 13 best show the alternating pattern of the posts (end post 48/48a/48b, middle post 40/40a/40b, and end post 52/52a/52b)], said offset projections each defining a travel path for one bundle of fibers of a split bowstring such that said bundle of fibers travels through said travel path in a wave configuration [Figs. 15-16 show the split fibers of a bowstring routed in a wave configuration]; a peep body [peep sight body 40/40a] positioned at least partially between said two parallel side edges [shown throughout, Figs. 15-16], said peep body defining a peep aperture, said peep aperture sighting bore 102] configured for an archer to look through said peep aperture when said peep site is positioned in said bow string [shown in Fig. 2];
{claim 15} that each of said projections comprises a peg [plurality of posts (48/48a/48b, 50/50a/50b, 52/52a/52b, etc.) shown throughout, with best examples being Figs. 3, 7A-7D, and 13-16];
{claim 16} that each of said projections comprises a channel [channel 218, shown in Fig. 6 and described at least in col. 6 line 49 - col. 7 line 7];
{claim 17} that each of said channels is U-shaped [Figs. 3 and 13 best shows U-shaped grooves];
{claim 18} that said peep body is round [Figs. 15-16 show rounded corners]; and
{claim 19} that the opposing edges comprise legs extending [plates 104 and 106] from said peep body [Figs. 8-12 show an embodiment using plates 104 and 106 that utilize fasteners 118, 120, 122, and 124 as posts in order to better adjust the size of the peep hole; described in col. 5 lines 11-41].
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Said prior art pertains to a variety of peep sights and bow string constrictors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached T-R 07:00-19:00, F 07:00-11:00.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights