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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 25 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The archery rest device of Claim 25 is understood to be an archery accessory arranged to support a nocked arrow on an archery bow. The archery mounting assembly of independent Claims 1 and 13 is understood to be a number of components configured to mount an archery accessory on an archery bow.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 25 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble must match the preamble of Claim 13, from which Claim 29 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claim 24, the feature, “locking device comprises a locking fastener” constitutes new matter which was not disclosed in the originally filed specification and cannot be added. The same applies to the same feature in Claim 33.
Claims 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claim 25, line 9, the feature, “second locking device” constitutes new matter which was not disclosed in the originally filed specification and cannot be added. The same applies to the same feature in Claim 29.
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 1-12 and 21-25 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 is prolix in that a number of redundant phrases raise a question as to whether a new feature is intended to be introduced.
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) 1-10 and 12-24, and 26-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bear et al., U.S. Patent No. 3,787,984, in view of Summers et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0187997, and in further view of Hamm et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,519,694. As to Claim 1, Bear teaches an archery mounting assembly (4, 5, 6, 9, 22, 12, 11) comprising a mount device (4, 5, 6, 9 12, 11) comprising a coupler portion (4, 5, 12, 11), a support portion (9), and an adjuster (22), Col. 2, ln. 36-39, ln. 52-54, Col. 3, ln. 22-29, and see Figure 1. The coupler portion may comprise a coupler surface (forward face of coupler part 4) configured to at least partially face a rear surface (1) of an archery device (bow), see Figure 1. The support portion may be movable relative to the coupler portion, Col. 3, ln. 30-38. The coupler portion may be configured to be coupled to an archery device, Col. 2, ln. 40-43. Bear teaches that the coupler portion may be coupled to the archery bow, with a coupler surface at least partially facing the rear surface, as noted above, Col. 2, ln. 30-34. Given the disclosed configuration, the examiner finds that the mounting assembly of prior art is capable of facing in a rearward direction away from a target while a front surface of the bow faces in a forward direction toward a target. The adjuster may be movably coupled to the coupler portion, Col. 3 ln. 27-37. The adjuster may at least partially support the support portion, Col. 3, ln. 37-38, noting that a screw attached to the adjuster moves the support portion. Bear teaches an accessory support integral with the support portion, Col. 2, ln. 49-52, noting an accessory (8) attached to a portion for the support portion, see Figure 3, providing an integral accessory support configured to support the archery accessory, as part of the archery mounting assembly, instead of a separate accessory support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the accessory support as a separate element, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. The adjuster and the mount device are configured to cooperate so that when the coupler portion is coupled to the rear surface of the archery bow aimed toward a target, the support portion may be repositionable relative to the rear surface in response to a movement of the adjuster relative to the coupler portion, Col. 3 ln. 33-38. Bear, as modified, does not disclose that when the archery bow is aimed toward a target, the forward direction may intersect with a target plane. Summers teaches that an archery bow (2) may have a front (14) facing in a direction toward a target, paragraph 0052. A shooting axis A sub S may align with an arrow (24) to be launched, paragraph 0054. It follows that the shooting axis defines a forward direction which may intersect a target plane. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the bow with a forward direction intersecting a target plane, as taught by Summers, to provide Bear, as modified, with an identified forward direction to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of shooting toward a target. Bear, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing a locking device. Hamm teaches a coupler portion (16) coupled to an archery device (bow) and an adjuster (42) supporting a support portion (94), Col. 6, ln. 13-21, Col. 7, ln. 15-22 and see Figure 2A. A locking device (118) may be coupled to the coupler potion and configured to secure the position of the support portion, Col. 6, ln. 66 – Col. 7, ln. 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bear, as modified, with a locking device configured as claimed and as taught by Hamm, to provide Bear, as modified, with a feature to fix and adjust a position of the support member to yield the predictable result of preventing inadvertent adjustment of an accessory. Claim 1 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claims 2 and 14, Bear teaches that the coupler portion may comprise a positioning clamp assembly ( 16, 17, 18), Col. 2, ln. 59 – Col. 3, ln. 8. As to Claim 3, Bear teaches that positioning clamp assembly may comprise a plurality of clamp portions (16), Col. 2, ln. 62-63. As to Claim 4, Bear teaches that the support portion may comprise a clamp (10), Col. 2, ln. 52-54, noting that the support portion is retained on the coupling portion. As to Claim 5, Bear teaches that the support portion may be slidably retained on the coupling portion, Col. 2, ln. 52-54, noting keyway (10), but Bear does not specify a dovetail shape. Summers teaches that an adjuster (112) may be movably retained on a bow engager (32) by mating dovetail elements (120, 76), paragraph 0058. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bear, as modified, with a dovetail shape, as taught by Summers, to provide Bear, as modified, with a known substitute retaining shape for a support portion. As to Claim 6, Bear teaches that the adjuster may comprise a plurality of threads, Col. 3, ln. 28-36, noting screw on the adjustment knob. As to Claim 7, Bear teaches that the coupler portion may comprise a threaded surface (23) configured to be engaged by threads of the adjuster, Col. 3, ln. 30-39. As to Claim 8, Bear teaches that the adjuster may comprise a threaded shaft (24), Col. 3, ln. 35-39, noting screw. As to Claim 9, Bear teaches a knob coupled to the adjuster, Col. 3, ln. 34-35 and see Figure 3. As to Claim 10, Bear teaches an adapter (25), Col. 3, ln. 59-62, but Bear does not indicate that the adapter may be configured as an adapter rail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the adapter as an adapter rail, since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As to Claim 12, Summers teaches that the archery accessory may comprise a projectile support device, paragraph 0055. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bear, as modified, with an arrow rest accessory, as taught by Summers, to provide Bear, as modified, with an accessory benefiting from an archery mounting assembly having an adjustability feature, to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of aiming the bow. As to Claims 13 and 18, Bear, as modified by Summers, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. The examiner finds that the first portion may be considered as a counterpart to the support portion and the second portion may be considered a counterpart to the coupler portion. As to Claim 15, Bear, as modified by Summers, is applied as in Claims 4 and 5 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claim 16, Hamm teaches that the adjuster may comprise a knob (42), Col. 3, ln. 1-3 and see Figure 2A. Hamm teaches that the first portion may comprise a gear (60) having a toothed surface (62) surrounded by an opening (126) and the second portion may comprise a gear rack (98) having toothed surface (96) configured to engage with the toothed surface of the gear, Col. 6, ln. 22-25, and Col. 7, ln. 15-20, noting that the toothed surface of the gear surrounds the opening of the first portion and the gear rack engages the gear in the opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bear, as modified, with a knob adjusting a mechanical linkage between first and second portions, as taught by Hamm, to provide Bear, as modified, with incremental adjustment of the second portion. Bear, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for configuring the mechanical linkage as a threaded shaft entering a threaded opening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a threaded shaft engaged with a threaded opening as an incrementally adjustable mechanical linkage since it was known in the art that each configuration was a suitable substitute for the other. As to Claim 17, Bear, together with cited case law is applied as in Claim 10. As to Claims 18, 24, and 33, Hamm teaches that the locking device may comprise a locking fastener (118), Col. 6, ln. 66 – Col. 7, ln. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the locking device as a locking fastener, as taught by Hamm, to provide Bear, as modified, with a known substitute locking device type. As to Claim 19, Bear, as modified by Summers, is applied as in Claims 1, 13, and 12, with the same obviousness rationales being found applicable. As to Claim 20, Bear, as modified by Summers, is applied as in Claims 1 and 13, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, the examiner finds it inherent that the archery mounting device may be manufactured by a method including configuring to establish the claimed components arranged as claimed. As to Claims 21, 26, and 30, Hamm teaches that the adjuster may move incrementally, Col. 3 ln. 1-3, noting dial marked in minutes of angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bear, as modified, with incremental movement of the adjuster, as taught by Hamm, to provide Bear, as modified with incremental adjustment to yield the predictable result of accurate and fine adjustment. As to Claims 22, 27, and 31, the examiner finds that adjuster of prior art possesses the structural features of the inventive adjuster and is capable of performing in the same manner, namely by providing a position of the support portion determined by incremental adjuster movements. "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 Claims 23, 28, and 32, Hamm teaches that movement may be rotational, Col. 6,ln. 46-49. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the adjuster with rotational movement, as taught by Hamm, to provide Bear, as modified, with a known substitute form of movement. As to Claim 29, Hamm teaches that the adjuster may be a first adjuster configured to adjust a vertical position of the second portion, Col. 8, ln. 48-56. The locking device may be considered a first locking device. Hamm teaches a second adjuster (230) may be movably coupled to the second portion and configured to adjust a lateral position of the support portion relative to the archery device, Col. 12, ln. 31-39, noting that a micro knob may be rotated for lateral movement of a second portion/support portion by a worm gear. A second locking device (286) may be configured to couple to the second portion being operable to inhibit a change in lateral position, Col. 14, ln. 18-31. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bear, as modified, with a second adjuster and a second locking device inhibiting lateral movement, configured as claimed and as taught by Hamm, to provide Bear, as modified, with lockable lateral adjustment feature to yield the predictable result of adding versatility to the assembly.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bear, in view of Summers, ‘997, and Hamm, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Summers, U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0059269. As to Claim 11, Bear teaches an adapter (25) attached to an archery bow, Col. 3, ln. 60-62. Bear teaches that the adapter may have an opening configured to receive a fastener (7), Col. 2, ln. 40-44, and see Figure 1, It is inherent that an opening is present, given that the fastener passes through the adapter. Bear is silent as to the adapter comprising a dovetail shape. Summers, ‘269, discloses an accessory coupler (108) coupled to an archery bow by an adapter (120) comprising a dovetail shape, paragraph 0041. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Bear, as modified, with a dovetail shaped adapter, as taught by Summers, ‘269, to provide Bear, as modified, with a known substitute adapter configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 August 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 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 8 September 2026
Prosecution Insights