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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masterfield, U.S. Patent No. 4,570,608. As to Claim 1, Masterfield teaches a stabilizer assembly (12) comprising an elongated shaft (26) extending along a longitudinal axis and comprising a first end (lowermost end) and a second end (uppermost end), Col. 3, ln. 7-10 and see Figure 2. A mount (38) may be attached to the first end and configured to attach the stabilizer assembly to a riser (5), Col. 2, ln. 64-68 and Col. 3, ln. 18-21. A riser core (20) may be attached to the mount and may extend into the elongated shaft, Col. 2, ln. 68 – Col. 3, ln. 5, and see Figure 2. A weight (32) may be attached to the second end of the shaft, Col. 3, ln. 9-13 and see Figure 2. As to Claim 14, Masterfield teaches that the elongated shaft may define a lumen extending along the longitudinal axis, Col. 3, ln. 8-10 and see Figure 2. As to Claim 15, Masterfield teaches a vibration dampening system, (24), Col. 3, ln. 4-7. As to Claim 18, Masterfield teaches that the vibration dampening system may comprise a fluid dampening system, Col. 3, ln. 22-24.
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) 2, 3, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterfield, in view of Felt et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0260902. Masterfield substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 2, Masterfield teaches a riser cap (22) attached to the mount and adjacent an outer edge of the elongated shaft, Col. 3, ln. 1-4 and 16-19, noting that the riser cap is threadably engaged to a core (20) which is engaged with the mount. Masterfield does not specify that the riser cap may extend around an outer edge of the elongated shaft. Felt teaches a stabilizer (150) including an elongated shaft (157) with a riser cap (152), which may extend around an outer edge of the elongated shaft, paragraphs 0071 and 0072 and see Figure 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the riser cap to extend around an outer edge of the elongated shaft, as taught by Felt, to provide Masterfield with a known substitute configuration for attaching a core to the proximal end of a stabilizer. As to Claim 3, Masterfield teaches that the riser core may extend into the elongated shaft beyond an end of the riser cap, see Figure 2. As to Claim 7, Masterfield is silent as to a weight cap. Felt teaches a weight cap attached to a second end of an elongated shaft, paragraph 0070 and see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Masterfield with a weight cap, as taught by Felt, to provide Masterfield with a known substitute mounting for a weight at a distal end of a stabilizer.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 8, Masterfield teaches that a weight end core (28) may extend into the second end of the elongated shaft, Col. 3, ln. 8-10 and see Figure 2. Masterfield does not disclose that the stabilizer assembly may comprise a weight cap. Felt is applied as in Claim 7 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. The examiner finds that Masterfield, as modified, discloses an elongated shaft comprising a weight cap and weight cap core at a distal end. As to Claim 9, Masterfield teaches that the weight end core may extend a substantial distance into the second end of the elongated shaft, see Figure 2, but Masterfield, as modified, does not specify that the weight cap core may be arranged to extend beyond the end of the weight cap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the weight cap and weight cap core such that the weight cap core extends beyond the end of the weight cap, 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). As to Claim 10, Masterfield teaches that the weight (32) may include a core (30) and may be configured to thread onto the weight end core, Col.3, ln. 10-13. Felt is applied as in Claim 7 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Masterfield, as modified, having a weight cap and weight cap core, with the weight threaded into the core, suggests that the weight may be considered to thread into the weight cap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Masterfield, as modified, with the weight threading onto the weight cap, as suggested. As to Claim 11, the weight may comprise a body (32) and an internal core (30) comprising threads, Col. 3, ln. 10-12 and see Figure 2. Masterfield discloses a core (30) received into the weight end core and threaded into the weight body (30) rather than the reverse. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the configuration of the core to provide the body with an internal core comprising threads, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. As to Claim 12, Masterfield, as modified, discloses the internal core received in the body, as discussed in the treatment of Claim 11. Masterfield, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the internal core may be attached by press fit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the internal core by press fit since it was known in the art that an inserted part may be secured by press fit.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterfield, in view of Martens, U.S. Patent Application No. 2015/0184973. Masterfield substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 4, Masterfield is silent as to the mount being configured to adjust a position of the elongated shaft. Martens teaches an apparatus for mounting an accessory comprising a first coupling member (13) configured to allow rotatable adjustment about a first longitudinal axis (19), paragraph 0040. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Masterfield with a mount having a coupling member configured as claimed and as taught by Martens, to provide Masterfield with a mount configured to adjust a position of an elongated shaft. As to Claim 5, Martens teaches that the apparatus may further include a second coupling member (14) having a second longitudinal axis (26) configured to allow rotatable adjustment about an axis perpendicular to the first and second longitudinal axes, paragraph 0043 and see Figures 8 and 9 illustrating first and second coupling members being rotatable about a first horizontal axis extending fore and aft through the riser and the second coupling member rotatable about a second horizontal axis perpendicular to the first (Figure 8) and the second coupling member rotatable about a vertical third axis perpendicular to the first and second axes (Figure 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Masterfield, as modified, with three axis rotatable adjustment, as taught by Martens, to provide Masterfield, as modified, with an adjustable shaft adjustable in three different axes to yield the predictable result of versatile position options for the stabilizer. As to Claim 6, Martens teaches that the mount may comprise a quick disconnect (17), paragraph 0039. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Masterfield, as modified, with a quick disconnect, as taught by Martens, to provide Masterfield, as modified, with a feature providing convenient detachment of the stabilizer to yield the predictable result of facilitating disassembly for transport or storage.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterfield, in view of Felt, and in further view of Leven, U.S. Patent No. 5,273,022. Masterfield, as modified by Felt, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 13, Mansfield, as modified, is silent as to materials selected for forming the internal core and the body. Leven teaches stabilizer assembly comprising a weight (weight mounting apparatus) comprising an elastomeric body (100) and a metallic core (104, 106, 108), being different materials, Col. 5, ln. 26-35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the body and internal core of different materials, as taught by Leven, to provide Masterfield, as modified, with the body and internal core having different characteristics to yield the predictable results of facilitating the process of tailoring the performance of the stabilizer.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterfield, in view of Legate, U.S. Patent No. 5,996,570. Masterfield substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 16, Masterfield does not teach a dampening weight positioned within the lumen. Legate teaches a stabilizer assembly (stabilizer) comprising a dampening weight (32) positioned within a lumen (25), Col. 3, ln. 63-65. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Masterfield, as modified, with a dampening weight within a lumen, as taught by Legate, to provide Masterfield with a known substitute vibration dampening component. As to Claim 17, Legate teaches a spring (34) in communication with the dampening weight, Col. 3, ln. 60-61. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Masterfield, as modified, with a spring communicating with the weight, as taught by Legate, to provide Masterfield, as modified, with a component to absorb motion of the weight to yield the predictable result of quelling vibration of the bow. As to Claim 19, Masterfield is applied as in Claims 1, 14, and 15. Legate is applied as in Claims 16 and 17, with the same obviousness rationales being found applicable.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masterfield, in view of Legate, and in further view of Felt. Masterfield substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 20, Masterfield, as modified by Legate, is applied as in Claim 19. Further, Felt is applied as in Claims 2 and 3 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable, the inside of the elongated shaft being considered to be the lumen.
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 15 December 2025