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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,060,657, in view of Knowles, U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0073556. As to Claim 1, Frye teaches a support member (31) comprising a first portion (42) comprising a first surface, a second surface opposite the first surface and a first through-hole extending from the first surface to the second surface, Col. 3, ln. 17-25 and see drawing below. Frye teaches a clip (43) integral with the first portion and comprising a third surface and a fourth surface opposite the third surface, Col. 3, ln. 38-39 and see drawing below. The support member may be configured to be fixedly secured to the bow (1) by a stabilizer (32) being secured to a stabilizer mount (3) through the first through-hole, Col. 3, ln. 17-23. The clip may be configured to vertically support the bow while a user is aiming, Col. 3 ln. 29-40 and see Figure 6. It is inherent that a user may aim the bow when supported as shown in Figure 6. Frye discloses the clip being integral with the support member instead of being coupled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the support member and clip as separate parts coupled together since it has been held that construction a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Frye discloses the claimed invention except for providing a configuration wherein the support member may be directly secured to the stabilizer mount through the first through hole. Knowles teaches that a support member (bracket extension arm) may be directly secured to a bow stabilizer mount through a first through hole, paragraph 0009 and see Figure 1, noting the extension arm secured between the stabilizer and the bow frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the support member to be directly secured to a stabilizer mount, as taught by Knowles, to provide Frye with a known substitute mounting configuration for the support member.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 2, Frye teaches that the clip may be substantially flat, see Figure 3a and drawing above. As to Claim 3, Frye teaches that the first surface and the second surface may be substantially parallel to one another, the third surface and the fourth surface may be substantially parallel to one another, and the first surface and the third surface may be not parallel to one another, see Figure 3a and drawing above. As to Claim 4, Frye teaches that the first surface and the third surface may be substantially orthogonal to one another, see Figure 3a and drawing above. As to Claim 5, Frye teaches that the clip may be coupled with the first portion through a second portion, wherein the second portion is not substantially parallel with the first surface or the third surface, see drawing below.
PNG
media_image2.png
460
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 6, Frye teaches that the clip may comprise a second through-hole, Col. 3, ln. 47-49. As to Claim 7, Frye teaches that the first portion may comprise a protrusion (30) extending from the first surface and configured to resist rotation of the support member relative to the stabilizer mount when the stabilizer is secured to the stabilizer mount through the first through-hole, Col. 3, ln. 42-47. As to Claim 9, Frye teaches that the clip may be substantially rectangular, see Figure 3a.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye, as modified by Knowles, and in further view of Justice et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0403862. Frye, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 8, Frye, as modified, is silent as to a recess in the second surface. Justice teaches that an outer facing surface of support member (500) may comprise a recess shaped and sized to receive a component (125, 126, 127) through a through-hole (515), paragraph 0110 and see Figure 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Frye, as modified, with a recess, as taught by Justice, to provide Frye, as modified, with recess in the second surface of the first portion to yield the predictable result of recess shaped and sized to at least partially house a first end of the stabilizer.
Claim(s) 10-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye, in view of Knowles, and in further view of Wessels et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0285740. As to Claim 10, Frye, as modified by Knowles, together with cited case law is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Frye teaches a clip receiver (47) comprising a pocket accessible through an open side, Col. 3 ln. 36-39 and see Figure 3a. The clip may be configured to couple with the clip receiver to vertically support the bow while a user is aiming, Col. 3, ln. 47-49 and see Figure 6. Frye does not disclose that the clip receiver may comprise a cavity accessible through an opening. Wessels teaches a clip (2) coupled to a support member (1), the support member being attached to a rifle, paragraph 0027 and see Figure 1. The rifle may be supported by the clip received in a cavity accessible through an opening, see Figure 1, noting a MOLLE vest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Frye, as modified, with a clip receiver comprising a cavity accessible through an opening, as taught by Wessels, to provide Frye, as modified, with a known substitute clip receiver configuration. As to Claim 11, Frye teaches a pole receiver (21, 26) integral with the clip receiver and configured for securing a trekking pole (leg assembly), Col. 3, ln. 30-33 and see Figure 3a. Frye, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing an integral clip receiver and pole receiver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the clip receiver and pole receiver as separate parts coupled together since it has been held that construction a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, Nerwin v. Erlichman, supra. As to Claim 12, Frye teaches that the pole receiver may comprise a substantially cylindrical hollow interior, see Figure 3a. As to Claim 13, Frye teaches a tightener (22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 7) for tightening the pole receiver around the trekking pole, Col. 4 ln. 15-34 and see Figure 3c. As to Claim 15, Wessels teaches that the cavity may be substantially rectangular, see Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the cavity with a rectangular shape, as taught by Wessels, to provide Frye, as modified, with a known substitute cavity shape. As to Claim 16, Frye is applied as in Claim 3. As to Claim 17, Frye is applied as in Claims 7 and 8. As to Claim 18, Frye teaches coupling a support member (31) to a bow, Col. 3 ln. 19-23. Frye is applied as in Claim 1. Frye teaches securing a pole receiver (21, 26) to a trekking pole (leg assembly), Col. 4 ln. 21-31. It is inherent that the pole receiver has been secured to a trekking pole. Frye teaches inserting the clip (43) into a clip receiver (47), Col. 3, ln. 36-39. It is inherent that the clip has been inserted. Wessels is applied as in Claim 10, with regard to the clip receiver being configured with a cavity accessible through an opening, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Frye teaches vertically supporting the bow using the trekking pole while aiming, Col. 5, ln. 45-47 and 53-61. As to Claim 20, Frye teaches that the bow may be coupled to the trekking pole by inserting the clip into the clip receiver, Col. 5 ln. 51-55, suggesting that the step may be reversed to decouple the bow from the trekking pole by removing the clip from the clip receiver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform the step as claimed and as suggested, to yield the predictable result of facilitating separation of the bow and trekking pole for transport or for storage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 19 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 11 August 2026 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument, in reference to Claim 7, asserting that Frye does not disclose protrusions the examiner maintains the position that the protrusion (30) is configured to rest between rails on the second surface of the first portion of the support member, as depicted in Figure 3b, such that protrusion is restricted against rotation with respect to the bow and the protrusion resting between the rails resists rotation of the support member. It follows that rotation of the support member relative to the stabilizer mount is resisted.
In response to applicant's argument, in reference to Claim 8, that Justice is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the inventive support member is provided with a through hole in the first portion intended to receive a threaded shaft extending from a stabilizer and configured to be secured to the stabilizer mount by passing the threaded shaft through the hole and into the stabilizer mount. Claim 8 adds the feature of recess surrounding the hole to receive a portion of the stabilizer surrounding the threaded shaft. Justice teaches a fitting including a recess surrounding a hole which is intended to receive a portion of a fastener surrounding a threaded shaft. Justice provides the same feature which functions in the same way to achieve the same result, namely by allowing a portion surrounding a threaded shaft to be received in a recess as the threaded shaft passes through the hole. The examiner maintains the position that Justice is analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument, regarding Claim 10, that incorporating the receivers of Wessels into the horizontal and forward adjustment mechanism of Frye would compromise the feature of Frye which allows forward and aft adjustment, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner maintains the position that the teaching of Wessels would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the connection between the support member of Frye to be received in a clip receiver as an alternative configuration for vertically supporting the support member.
In response to applicant’s argument, in reference to Claim 13, the examiner maintains the position that the teaching of Frye discloses the features as discussed in the office action which function to provide a housing configured to mount on a pole, the housing being configured to connect with the support member. The examiner maintains the position that fixing of the housing to the pole meets the limitation of tightening, such that the device is capable of tightening the pole receiver around a trekking pole
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 20 August 2026
Prosecution Insights