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 .
Status of Claims
In an amendment filed 7/16/2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 9-13, 16-20, canceled claim 2, and added new claims 21-24. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-24 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: “polyurethan” should likely read “polyurethane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). This limitation is already presented in claim 1.
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.
Claim 23 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.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "or the like" (“gel-like”, “foam-like”, and “plastic-like”) renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews US pub. No. 2003/0172915 in view of Kempf US Pat. No. 9,038,619, Soracco et al. US Pat. No. 8,939,848, and Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184.
In Reference to Claim 1
Andrews teaches:
An archery bow (10, Fig. 1-4, 9-14) comprising:
a riser (12);
a limb coupled to the riser (20/24);
a cam coupled to the limb (pairs of cams 22/26 attached to limbs 20/24), the cam including a damper at least partially formed from a Non-Newtonian material (NN material) or similar polymer material (dampening assembly 58 [0027]-[0031] formed of different material layers 64/76/78 formed of dampening elastomeric material, such as urethane, polyurethane, etc., [0029], and may further include interior held dampening fluid (air, gas, liquid), [0037]-[0041] Fig. 1-4, 9-14, wherein the dampening material 76 may be part of the string receiving groove 80, Fig. 11, [0038]); and
a bowstring coupled to the cam (34).
Andrews fails to specifically teach:
The dampening material being specifically Non-Newtonian material that exhibits a viscosity temporarily increasing or decreasing when a projectile is launched from the archery bow.
Kempf teaches:
A similar archery bow (1, Fig. 1-2C) comprising: a barrel (12), a riser (10); a limb coupled to the riser (14), two cams attached to the limbs (18), the bow including a damper at least partially formed from a Non-Newtonian material (NN material), wherein the NN material exhibits a viscosity temporarily increasing or decreasing when a projectile is launched from the archery bow (vibration absorbing material or combinations of materials, which may be specifically Non-Newtonian material (ex. Oobleck that solidifies (increases viscosity) when it senses vibration, Col. 3 lines 5-14) 156/166/168, is placed within chosen positions in the bow to provide vibration dampening by temporary viscosity changes when a projectile is fired from the bow, Fig. 1-2C, Col. 2 line 43 – Col. 3 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Andrews to have provided other dampening material (Non-Newtonian) on portions of the cam as Andrews teaches that numerous similar dampening materials may be used (fluid, air, gas, liquid, elastomeric polymer such as urethane or polyurethane, etc. [0006], [0029], [0037]-[0041]) and as providing dampening material on the cam member of a bow is a well-known and commonly used means of providing vibration dampening in the art to further reduce vibrations and sound produced by the bowstring during use as taught by Kempf (Col. 1 lines 7-10, Col. 1 line 56 – Col. 2 line 2, Col. 3 lines 1-27). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included Non-Newtonian dampening material as Non-Newtonian dampening material is known and commonly used dampening material as taught by Kempf and other similar prior art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). For example, Soracco teaches that vibration dampening inserts may include many of the same materials discussed by the references above (Col. 3 line 58 – Col. 4 line 12, Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 line 13), including rubber, urethane, thermoplastic, thermoset polymer, and non-Newtonian materials having polymer (D30 (D30 is non-Newtonian and contains polymer), thixotropic gel or other shear thickening materials while referencing Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184 which also discuss numerous non-Newtonian polymer, shear thickening materials used in sporting equipment for the same intended purpose of dampening vibrations)).
In Reference to Claim 3
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 1, wherein the damper is at least partially disposed within an aperture formed within the cam (Andrews: damper material 58/76/78/etc. is placed within a central aperture in the cam as apertures extending through both lateral sides and damper material is held therebetween, ex. dampening layers 64 within constraining layers 74, Fig. 11, dampening layers 76/78 in aperture within layers 60/62, Fig. 12, etc.).
In Reference to Claim 4
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 3, wherein: the cam includes a lobe; and the aperture is formed within the lobe (Andrews: dampened cam 58 has lobe portions on 26/64/26 wherein damper material is placed therein, Fig. 2-3).
In Reference to Claim 5
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 1, wherein the cam includes a string track extending around a periphery of the cam; the bowstring is partially disposed within the string track; and the damper is at least partially disposed within the string track (Andrews: the dampening assembly 58 [0027]-[0031] formed of different material layers 64/76/78 formed of dampening elastomeric material, such as urethane, polyurethane, etc., [0029], Fig. 1-4, 9-14, wherein the dampening material 76 may be part of the string receiving groove 80, Fig. 11, [0038], as modified above to include NN material).
In Reference to Claim 6
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 1, wherein the damper forms a lobe of the cam (Andrews: dampened cam 58 has lobe portions on 26/64/26 wherein damper material is placed therein and therefore at least partially forms a lobe of a cam, Fig. 2-3).
In Reference to Claim 21
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 1, wherein the NN material exhibits a viscosity temporarily increasing when a projectile is launched from the archery bow (the material generally solidifies of increases in viscosity when vibrations are sensed during use as discussed above in Kempf (Col. 3 lines 5-14), Soracco, and Lammer (lengthy shear-thickening discussion (viscosity increasing during use))).
In Reference to Claim 22
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 1, wherein the NN material comprises a polymer (Soracco teaches that vibration dampening inserts may include many dampening materials as discussed above (Col. 3 line 58 – Col. 4 line 12, Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 line 13), including rubber, urethane, thermoplastic, thermoset polymer, and non-Newtonian materials having polymer (D30 (D30 is non-Newtonian and contains polymer), thixotropic gel or other shear thickening materials while referencing Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184 which also discuss numerous non-Newtonian polymer, shear thickening materials used in sporting equipment for the same intended purpose of dampening vibrations)).
In Reference to Claim 23
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 22, wherein the NN material comprises a gel-like polymer, a foam-like polymer, or a plastic-like polymer (Soracco teaches that vibration dampening inserts may include many dampening materials as discussed above (Col. 3 line 58 – Col. 4 line 12, Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 line 13), including rubber, urethane, polyurethane, thermoplastic, thermoset polymer, and non-Newtonian materials having polymer (D30 (D30 is non-Newtonian and contains polymer), thixotropic gel or other shear thickening materials while referencing Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184 which also discuss numerous non-Newtonian polymer, gel, foam, and plastic-like shear thickening materials used in sporting equipment for the same intended purpose of dampening vibrations)).
In Reference to Claim 24
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 1, wherein the NN material comprises a cellular polyurethan foam and a polymer (Soracco teaches that vibration dampening inserts may include many dampening materials as discussed above (Col. 3 line 58 – Col. 4 line 12, Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 line 13), including rubber, urethane, polyurethane, thermoplastic, thermoset polymer, numerous polymers, and non-Newtonian materials having polymer (D30 (D30 is non-Newtonian and contains polymer), thixotropic gel or other shear thickening materials while referencing Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184 which also discuss numerous non-Newtonian polymer, gel, foam, and plastic-like shear thickening materials used in sporting equipment for the same intended purpose of dampening vibrations). Lammar: Col. 7 lines 24-47 specifically mentions closed cell foam matrix and polyurethane used as the shear thickening non-Newtonian dampening material).
In Reference to Claim 7
Andrews teaches:
An archery bow (10, Fig. 1-4, 9-14) comprising:
a riser (12);
a limb coupled to the riser (20/24);
a cam coupled to the limb (pairs of cams 22/26 attached to limbs 20/24), the cam including a spoke at least partially formed from a Non-Newtonian material (NN material) or similar polymer material (dampening assembly 58 [0027]-[0031] formed of different material layers 64/76/78 formed of dampening elastomeric material and takes the form of a spoke (ex. left most spoked layer between 62/66 (ex. Fig. 2) and the layer 62 and 64 (ex. Fig. 4, 11-14), each have multiple structural spoke portions formed therein radially extending from the rotational central axis about axle 30), such as urethane, polyurethane, etc., [0029], and may further include interior held dampening fluid (air, gas, liquid), [0037]-[0041] Fig. 1-4, 9-14, wherein the dampening material 76 may be part of the string receiving groove 80, Fig. 11, [0038]); and
a bowstring coupled to the cam (34).
Andrews fails to specifically teach:
The spoke material being specifically Non-Newtonian material that exhibits a viscosity temporarily increasing or decreasing when a projectile is launched from the archery bow.
Kempf teaches:
A similar archery bow (1, Fig. 1-2C) comprising: a barrel (12), a riser (10); a limb coupled to the riser (14), two cams attached to the limbs (18), the bow including a damper at least partially formed from a Non-Newtonian material (NN material), wherein the NN material exhibits a viscosity temporarily increasing or decreasing when a projectile is launched from the archery bow (vibration absorbing material or combinations of materials, which may be specifically Non-Newtonian material (ex. Oobleck that solidifies (decreases viscosity) when it senses vibration, Col. 3 lines 5-14) 156/166/168, is placed within chosen positions in the bow to provide vibration dampening by temporary viscosity changes when a projectile is fired from the bow, Fig. 1-2C, Col. 2 line 43 – Col. 3 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Andrews to have provided other dampening material (Non-Newtonian) on portions of the cam as Andrews teaches that numerous similar dampening materials may be used (fluid, air, gas, liquid, elastomeric polymer such as urethane or polyurethane, etc. [0006], [0029], [0037]-[0041]) and as providing dampening material on the cam member of a bow is a well-known and commonly used means of providing vibration dampening in the art to further reduce vibrations and sound produced by the bowstring during use as taught by Kempf (Col. 1 lines 7-10, Col. 1 line 56 – Col. 2 line 2, Col. 3 lines 1-27). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included Non-Newtonian dampening material as Non-Newtonian dampening material is known and commonly used dampening material as taught by Kempf and other similar prior art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). For example, Soracco teaches that vibration dampening inserts may include many of the same materials discussed by the references above (Col. 3 line 58 – Col. 4 line 12, Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 line 13), including rubber, urethane, thermoplastic, thermoset polymer, and non-Newtonian materials having polymer (D30 (D30 is non-Newtonian and contains polymer), thixotropic gel or other shear thickening materials while referencing Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184 which also discuss numerous non-Newtonian polymer, shear thickening materials used in sporting equipment for the same intended purpose of dampening vibrations)).
In Reference to Claim 8
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 7, wherein a viscosity of the NN material is configured to: temporarily increase when a projectile is launched from the archery bow; or temporarily decrease when a projectile is launched from the archery bow (the material generally solidifies of increases in viscosity when vibrations are sensed during use as discussed above in Kempf (Col. 3 lines 5-14), Soracco, and Lammer (lengthy shear-thickening discussion (viscosity increasing during use))).
In Reference to Claim 9
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 7, wherein: the cam includes a string track extending around a periphery of the cam; the bowstring is partially disposed within the string track; and the string track is at least partially supported by the spoke (Andrews: bowstring receiving track 80 extends around the cam periphery to receive the bowstring therein, wherein the spoked dampening material extends between the axle 30 and the string track, Fig. 1-2, 12, [0038]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 9, wherein: the cam is configured to rotate about an axis of rotation; and spoke extends between the axis of rotation and the string track (Andrews: bowstring receiving track 80 extends around the cam periphery to receive the bowstring therein, wherein the spoked dampening material extends between the rotation axle 30 and the string track, Fig. 1-2, 12, [0038]).
In Reference to Claim 11
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 7, wherein the spoke is a first spoke and the cam further includes a second spoke (Andrews shows multiple spoked portions (at least three) formed of the dampening material 58/76/78 as discussed above, Fig. 2-4, 11-14).
In Reference to Claim 12
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 11, wherein the second spoke is at least partially formed from an NN material (Andrews shows multiple spoked portions (at least three) formed of the dampening material 58/76/78 as discussed above, Fig. 2-4, 11-14).
In Reference to Claim 13
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 11, wherein the first spoke and the second spoke define a through-hole (Andrews: through-holes/open areas are formed between adjacent spokes formed in the dampening material, Fig. 2-4, 11-14).
In Reference to Claim 14
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 7, wherein the NN material comprises a polymer (Soracco teaches that vibration dampening inserts may include many dampening materials as discussed above (Col. 3 line 58 – Col. 4 line 12, Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 line 13), including rubber, urethane, thermoplastic, thermoset polymer, and non-Newtonian materials having polymer (D30 (D30 is non-Newtonian and contains polymer), thixotropic gel or other shear thickening materials while referencing Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184 which also discuss numerous non-Newtonian polymer, shear thickening materials used in sporting equipment for the same intended purpose of dampening vibrations)).
In Reference to Claim 15
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 7, wherein the archery bow is a compound bow or a crossbow (Andrews shows a compound bow, Kempf shows a crossbow).
In Reference to Claim 16
Andrews teaches:
An archery bow (10, Fig. 1-4, 9-14) comprising:
a riser (12);
a limb coupled to the riser (20/24);
a cam rotatably coupled to the limb about an axis of rotation (cam 22/26 attached to the limbs 20/24 and rotates about axle 30), the cam comprising:
a first spoke; and a second spoke including a Non-Newtonian material (NN material) or similar polymer material (dampening assembly 58 [0027]-[0031] formed of different material layers 64/76/78 formed of dampening elastomeric material and takes the form of a spoke (ex. left most spoked layer between 62/66 (ex. Fig. 2) having three spoke members, and the layer 62 and 64 (ex. Fig. 4, 11-14), each have multiple structural spoke portions formed therein radially extending from the rotational central axis about axle 30), such as urethane, polyurethane, etc., [0029], and may further include interior held dampening fluid (air, gas, liquid), [0037]-[0041] Fig. 1-4, 9-14, wherein the dampening material 76 may be part of the string receiving groove 80, Fig. 11, [0038]); and
a bowstring coupled to the cam (34).
Andrews fails to specifically teach:
The spoke material being specifically Non-Newtonian material that exhibits a viscosity temporarily increasing or decreasing when a projectile is launched from the archery bow.
Kempf teaches:
A similar archery bow (1, Fig. 1-2C) comprising: a barrel (12), a riser (10); a limb coupled to the riser (14), two cams attached to the limbs (18), the bow including a damper at least partially formed from a Non-Newtonian material (NN material), wherein the NN material exhibits a viscosity temporarily increasing or decreasing when a projectile is launched from the archery bow (vibration absorbing material or combinations of materials, which may be specifically Non-Newtonian material (ex. Oobleck that solidifies (decreases viscosity) when it senses vibration, Col. 3 lines 5-14) 156/166/168, is placed within chosen positions in the bow to provide vibration dampening by temporary viscosity changes when a projectile is fired from the bow, Fig. 1-2C, Col. 2 line 43 – Col. 3 line 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Andrews to have provided other dampening material (Non-Newtonian) on portions of the cam (including structural spoked portions of dampening material) as Andrews teaches that numerous similar dampening materials may be used (fluid, air, gas, liquid, elastomeric polymer such as urethane or polyurethane, etc. [0006], [0029], [0037]-[0041]) and as providing dampening material on the cam member of a bow is a well-known and commonly used means of providing vibration dampening in the art to further reduce vibrations and sound produced by the bowstring during use as taught by Kempf (Col. 1 lines 7-10, Col. 1 line 56 – Col. 2 line 2, Col. 3 lines 1-27). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included Non-Newtonian dampening material as Non-Newtonian dampening material is known and commonly used dampening material as taught by Kempf and other similar prior art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). For example, Soracco teaches that vibration dampening inserts may include many of the same materials discussed by the references above (Col. 3 line 58 – Col. 4 line 12, Col. 11 line 57 – Col. 12 line 13), including rubber, urethane, thermoplastic, thermoset polymer, and non-Newtonian materials having polymer (D30 (D30 is non-Newtonian and contains polymer), thixotropic gel or other shear thickening materials while referencing Lammer US Pat. No. 8,105,184 which also discuss numerous non-Newtonian polymer, shear thickening materials used in sporting equipment for the same intended purpose of dampening vibrations)).
In Reference to Claim 17
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 16, wherein the first spoke comprises a NN material (each spoke as discussed above of Andrews may be formed of the dampening material as discussed above).
In Reference to Claim 18
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 16, wherein the first spoke and the second spoke extend radially from the axis of rotation (Andrews: the dampening assembly 58 [0027]-[0031] formed of different material layers 64/76/78 formed of dampening elastomeric material and takes the form of spokes (ex. left most spoked layer between 62/66 (ex. Fig. 2) having three spoke members, and the layer 62 and 64 (ex. Fig. 4, 11-14), each have multiple structural spoke portions formed therein radially extending from the rotational central axis about axle 30).
In Reference to Claim 19
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 16, wherein the first spoke and the second spoke define an aperture (Andrews: apertures/open areas are formed between adjacent spokes formed in the dampening material, Fig. 2-4, 11-14).
In Reference to Claim 20
Andrews as modified by Kempf, Soracco, and supported by Lammer teaches:
The archery bow of claim 16, wherein the cam further includes a string track extending about a periphery of the cam, the string track supported by the first spoke and the second spoke (Andrews: bowstring receiving track 80 extends around the cam periphery to receive the bowstring therein, Fig. 1-2, 12, [0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-17, filed 7/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102/103 (McPherson) have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Andrews in view of Kempf and further supported by Soracco and Lammar.
Though the examiner disagrees with some of the arguments as addressed below, the previously applied rejections are withdrawn in light of the newly presented amendments. The amended claims now more clearly map to other cited prior art and therefore the rejections have been updated to reflect the newly presented rejection required by the presented amendments.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the primary prior art discusses in detail that using various vibration dampening materials in bow cams may be used and secondary and supporting prior art teaches the use of different dampening materials, including non-Newtonian dampening materials are known to be specifically with used with an archery bow (Kempf), and the other prior art references teach the use of numerous different types of dampening materials, such as numerous types of non-Newtownian materials, are widely known and used for the same vibration dampening function in other similar and relevant sporting equipment, and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to look to other similar dampening materials used for the same vibration dampening function within similar sporting equipment as discussed in detail using the newly presented references which do not use hindsight to arrive at this obvious modification that one having ordinary skill in the art would look to other relevant vibration dampening functional material that is known in the sporting equipment and archery art areas and therefore arrive at the discussed invention while looking at the cited prior art.
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, McPherson (5,809,982, 6,039,035), Larson (6,360,735), McPherson (6,382,201), Andrews (6,629,522), Donovan (6,712,059), Kronfeld (6,758,205), Cooper (6,871,643), Mancini (7,438,070), Leven (8,141,548), Howard (2015/0040882), Sims (9,459,068), Houle (9,689,640), Anselmo (12,000,670), Shamblen (12,013,204) teach similar bow or cam mounted dampeners formed of similar polymers, elastomers, viscoelastics, and similar materials, Andrews (2006/0011190), McPherson (10,760,869) teach similar string groove dampening material used on cams, and Kempf (9,038,619) and Foster (10,555,566) teaches impact protection systems that specifically use Non-Newtonian materials for dampening.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
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 ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights