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 § 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.
Claims 10 and 12 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. In each of Claims 10 and 12, limitations indicating that the mounting plate may be configured to be joined with a second surface of a crossbow frame is unclear in that the invention is understood to comprise a housing attachable to a crossbow frame and a mounting plate attachable to the housing. The mounting plate is not disclosed in a manner which would allow attachment to the crossbow frame.
Claim 11 is 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. In line 5, the feature, “a secondary gear” is not clearly defined as a feature separate from the first secondary gear previously introduced. If the feature is intended to be a second secondary gear separate from the first secondary gear, appropriate language must be used. The scope of the claim is indefinite.
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) 1-4, 7, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempf et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,379,180, in view of Kempf et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,346,632 . As to Claim 1, Kempf, ‘180, teaches a crossbow crank (de-cocking crank) comprising a housing configured to removably secure to a crossbow frame, Col. 4, ln. 45-47. The housing may be secured on a right side, see Figure 2, noting a crank (80) on right side of a crossbow frame. Kempf, ‘180, teaches a drive shaft (24) and a drive gear (21) fixedly joined with the drive shaft for unison rotation, Col. 5, ln. 56-60. A spool (31) may be coupled to the drive gear, Col. 5, ln. 42-43 and 52-54. The spool may be configured to engage a cord (61), Col. 5, ln. 50-53. Kempf, ‘180, teaches a one-way bearing (44) joined with the housing, Col. 7, ln. 6-9, noting that support shaft (53) supporting the one-way bearing is fitted to square opening in housing, see Figure 6. Kempf, ‘180 does not teach that the one-way bearing may define an opening. Kempf, ‘632, teaches a crossbow crank (cranking mechanism) comprising a sleeve (43) disposed in an opening defined in a one-way bearing (44), Col. 5, ln. 21-22 and see Figure 2. A drive shaft (24) may be disposed in the opening with the sleeve disposed between the one-way bearing and the drive shaft, Col. 5, ln. 6-10 and see Figure 2. Kempf, ‘362, teaches a brake (40) mounted along the drive shaft distal from the one-way bearing, the brake being axially compressible along the drive shaft to fixedly join the drive shaft with the sleeve when the drive shaft is rotated in a first direction, for unison rotation of the drive shaft and sleeve, Col. 4, ln. 52-65 and see Figures 2A and 3, noting that rotation of the drive shaft in a direction to tighten the pressure locking nut (45) squeezes the clutch pressure plate (43) and friction plate (42) so that the one-way bearing engages the sleeve to impair the drive shaft and sleeve from rotating in a second opposite direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kempf, ‘180, with a one-way bearing defining an opening receiving a sleeve, both being disposed on a drive shaft with a brake configured and arranged as claimed and as taught by Kempf, ‘362, to provide Kempf, ‘180, with a mechanism configured to selectively engage and disengage a one-way bearing to yield the predictable result of facilitating winding a spool to draw a crossbow string and de-cocking the string in a controlled manner. Kempf, ‘180, as modified, discloses a crossbow crank wherein the housing, one-way bearing, sleeve, drive shaft, drive gear, and brake are joined with one another, see Kempf, ‘180, Figure 8, noting that the Kempf, ‘362, reference teaches a sleeve received in an opening of a one-way bearing and a brake and Figure 8 depicts the elements joined with one another as a crank module. The examiner finds that the crossbow crank of prior art possesses the claimed structural features of the inventive crossbow crank and is capable of performing in the same manner, namely that the crank module may be selectively mountable relative to the crossbow frame on either the right or left side to provide the ability to operate the crank arm from either side. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112. As to Claim 2, Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the cord (61) may be wound around the spool, Col. 5, ln. 50-54. The spool may be joined with a secondary gear (22), Col. 5, ln. 42-43. The drive gear may be removable from the secondary gear by removing the drive shaft from the crossbow frame with the housing, see Figure 8, noting that the drive gear and secondary gear connect only by meshing of gear teeth. As to Claim 3, Kempf, ‘180, teaches a drive nut (45) threaded to the drive shaft and joined with the crank arm, wherein tension in the cord automatically urges the drive shaft to rotate in the second direction to tighten the drive nut relative to the drive shaft, thereby frictionally engaging the brake, but the drive shaft and the drive gear being impaired from rotating in the second direction opposite the first direction via the one-way bearing interacting with the drive shaft, Col. 5, ln. 56-65 and Col. 7, ln. 18-24. Kempf, ‘180, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the one-way bearing interacts with the drive shaft instead of with the sleeve. Kempf, ‘362, is applied as in Claim 1, with regard to the inclusion of a sleeve, with the same rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 4, Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the drive shaft may include a mounting plate bearing (20) at an end of the drive shaft, suggesting that the drive shaft may register with and rotate with a mounting plate bearing on mounting plate 70a, see Figures 6 and 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the bearing to rotationally support the drive shaft, as suggested. Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the bearing may be joined with the drive shaft instead of with the mounting plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the location of the bearing to place it on the mounting plate, 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. The mounting plate may be configured to removably secure to a left side or a right side of a crossbow frame opposite the housing, Col. 4, ln. 45-47 and see Figure 2. The examiner finds that the crossbow crank of prior art possesses the claimed structural features of the inventive crossbow crank and is capable of performing in the same manner, namely being configured to secure to the left or right side of the crossbow frame, according to the same rationale cited above. As to Claim 7, Kempf, ‘180, as modified by Kempf, ‘362, together with cited case law, is applied as in Claims 1 and 2, with the same obviousness rationales being found applicable. Further, Kempf, ‘180, teaches a crank (80) having a projecting part passing through a transvers crank mounting hole in the mounting plate (70a), see Figure 6. Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the crossbow crank may be retained in the housing or may be integrated with the crossbow, suggesting that the transverse crank mounting hole may be in the crossbow frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the transverse crank mounting hole in the crossbow frame, as suggested. Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the projecting part of the crank extends within the transverse crank mounting hole to connect with the drive shaft, Col. 5, ln. 56-59 and Col. 6, ln. 58-59, instead of configuring the drive shaft to extend within the transverse crank mounting hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the parts by extending the drive shaft within the transverse crank mounting hole, 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, supra. As to Claim 9, Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the crank module may include a single crank arm mount (compression nut 45), see Figure 8. As to Claim 12, Kempf, ‘180, is applied as in Claim 3, with regard to the drive nut threadably joined to the drive shaft. Kampf, ‘180, teaches that the crank arm may be joined with the drive nut, Col. 6, ln. 58-59. Kempf, ‘362, teaches that the drive shaft (24) may be configured to extend from a threaded end (26) which receives a locking nut (45) to a sun gear (21) at an opposite end, suggesting that the drive shaft may extend through a transverse mounting hole and may protrude beyond the first and second surfaces, Col. 4, ln., 63-65, Col. 5, ln. 54-55, and see Figures 1A and 4A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kempf, ‘180, as modified, with a drive shaft configured as claimed and as taught and suggested by Kempf, ‘362, to provide Kempf, ‘180, with a known substitute drive shaft configuration. As to Claim 13, Kempf, ‘180, in view of Kempf, ‘362, is applied as in Claims 1 and 4, with the same obviousness being found applicable. The sides of the crossbow frame are considered to comprise surfaces. Kempf, ‘180, as modified, does not specifically indicate that the transverse crank mounting hole may be defined by the crossbow frame. Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the crossbow cocking assembly may be integrated with the crossbow, Col. 4 ln. 45-46, suggesting that transverse crank mounting hole may be defined by the crossbow frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the transverse crank mounting hole to be defined by the crossbow frame, as suggested. The examiner finds that the crossbow crank of prior art possesses the claimed structural features of the inventive crossbow crank and is capable of performing in the same manner, namely being configured to be reversed as claimed, according to the same rationale set forth in the treatment of Claim 1.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kempf, ‘180, in view of Kempf, ‘362, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bednar, U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/00889359. Kempf, ‘180, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 6, Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the mounting plate 70a may be configured to removably secure to the left or right side of a crossbow frame opposite the housing 70b, as discussed above and see Col. 5, ln. 41-42 and Figure 2, suggesting that the mounting plate and housing may be fastened, but Kempf, ‘180, as modified, does not disclose fastener holes. Bednar teaches that a crossbow crank (crossbow bowstring drawing mechanism) may be secured by fasteners (27) such as screws attaching mounting plates (54), paragraph 0027. It is inherent that fastener holes are present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kempf, ‘180, as modified with a plurality of fastener holes, as taught by Bednar, to provide Kempf, ’180, as modified, with a first plurality of first fastener holes defined by the housing and a second plurality of fastener holes defined by the mounting plate configured to receive fasteners to secure the housing and mounting plate on opposite surfaces of a crossbow frame, to yield the predictable result of removably securing the crossbow crank in a position suitable for use in cocking and de-cocking a crossbow. As to Claim 8, Kempf, ‘180, as modified by Kempf, ‘362, and Bednar, is applied as in Claims 1 and 6. The examiner finds that the action of the brake, when the drive shaft is rotated in a first direction, as described above may be considered as automatic. Kempf, ‘180, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the one-way bearing may be arranged inside the housing but external to the crossbow frame when the housing is removably joined with the crossbow frame via a first plurality of fasteners secured to the crossbow frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the one-way bearing, as claimed, 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 14, Kempf, ‘180, in view of Kempf, ‘362, is applied as in Claim 7, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Kempf, ‘180, as modified, does not specify that the transverse crank mounting hole may extend from a first surface to an opposing second surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the transverse crank mounting hole as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra. Kempf, ‘180, teaches that the crossbow crank is to be provided on a crossbow, Col. 4, ln. 48-49, but Kempf, ‘180, does not disclose that the crossbow may comprise first and second limbs with a bowstring extending between. Bednar teaches that a crossbow crank may be associated with a crossbow comprising first and second limbs (14) with a bowstring (16) extending between, paragraph 0026. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Kempf, ‘180, as modified, with limbs and a bowstring, as taught by Bednar, to provide Kempf, ‘180, as modified, with additional features providing for operation of the crossbow crank as a crossbow, to yield the predictable result if improving utility. As to Claim 15, the examiner finds that the same rationale applied in the treatment of Claim 1 is equally applicable to support a finding of obviousness with regard to the crossbow crank being selectively mountable on either side of the crossbow frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 18 March 2026
Prosecution Insights