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 8/12/2026, Applicant amended claim 1. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kronfeld US Pub. No. 2004/0077440 in view of Lee US Pat. No. 7,637,256.
In Reference to Claim 1 (102 interpretation)
Kronfeld teaches:
A limb assembly (limb assembly with vibration dampening material, Fig. 6-7c) comprising:
a limb cup (limb cup 6 secures a first end of any limb member to a riser of a bow as is common and known in the art to attach a limb to a bow), a first limb member (first split limb member (left member) of limb 3), a second limb member (second split limb member (right member) of limb 3) and a damping material (a dampener 8 formed of dampening material is placed between and in contact with both limb member);
the first limb member comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion supported by the limb cup (the proximal end of the left limb member 3 is secured to a limb cup/pocket 6 as shown in Fig. 6-6a and would be secured in the same manner in Fig. 7-7c as this is how bow limbs are secured to bow risers as is known in the art), the second portion arranged to support a rotatable member (distal end of the left limb member 3 supports a rotatable cam member thereon, Fig. 6-7a);
the second limb member supported by the limb cup (the proximal end of the right limb member 3 is secured to a limb cup/pocket 6 as shown in Fig. 6-6a and would be secured in the same manner in Fig. 7-7c as this is how bow limbs are secured to bow risers as is known in the art),
the damping material positioned between the first limb member and the second limb member (elastomeric channel/limb coupling member 7 holds elastomeric dampener 2/8 between the limb members, Fig. 7-7c, [0039]-[0042], wherein this collective member 7/8 is formed of elastomeric dampening material), the damping material comprising a first side and a second side, the first side contacting the first limb member, the second side contacting the second limb member (the left channel/side of 7 contacts the first limb member (left split limb 3) while the right channel/side of 7 contacts the second limb member (right split limb 3)), the damping material extending from the first portion to the second portion (the dampening material of 7/8 extends from a first portion of the limb (near the proximal limb pocket end wherein the “first portion” may be considered the limb pocket area or about a quarter of the limb length or so for example) to a second portion of the limb (which may be considered the other three quarters of the length of the limb to the distal rotatable member end), the elastomeric material 8 extending most of the length of the limb between the split limb members as shown in Fig. 7-7a).
In Reference to Claim 16 (102 interpretation)
Kronfeld teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 1, the damping material extending parallel to the first limb member (Kronfeld: the dampening material of portion 7 extends entirely parallel to the first split limb member (left 3) and the dampening material of portion 8 extends parallel to the proximal/first portion of the first limb member, Fig. 7-7c).
In Reference to Claim 1 (103 interpretation)
Kronfeld teaches:
A limb assembly (limb assembly with vibration dampening material, Fig. 6-7c) comprising:
a limb cup (limb cup 6 secures a first end of any limb member to a riser of a bow as is common and known in the art to attach a limb to a bow), a first limb member (first split limb member (left member) of limb 3), a second limb member (second split limb member (right member) of limb 3) and a damping material (a dampener 8 formed of dampening material is placed between and in contact with both limb member);
the first limb member comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion supported by the limb cup (the proximal end of the left limb member 3 is secured to a limb cup/pocket 6 as shown in Fig. 6-6a and would be secured in the same manner in Fig. 7-7c as this is how bow limbs are secured to bow risers as is known in the art), the second portion arranged to support a rotatable member (distal end of the left limb member 3 supports a rotatable cam member thereon, Fig. 6-7a);
the second limb member supported by the limb cup (the proximal end of the right limb member 3 is secured to a limb cup/pocket 6 as shown in Fig. 6-6a and would be secured in the same manner in Fig. 7-7c as this is how bow limbs are secured to bow risers as is known in the art),
the damping material positioned between the first limb member and the second limb member (elastomeric channel/limb coupling member 7 holds elastomeric dampener 2/8 between the limb members, Fig. 7-7c, [0039]-[0042], wherein this collective member 7/8 is formed of elastomeric dampening material), the damping material comprising a first side and a second side, the first side contacting the first limb member, the second side contacting the second limb member (the left channel/side of 7 contacts the first limb member (left split limb 3) while the right channel/side of 7 contacts the second limb member (right split limb 3)), the damping material extending from the first portion to the second portion (the dampening material of 7/8 extends from a first portion of the limb (near the proximal limb pocket end wherein the “first portion” may be considered the limb pocket area or about a quarter of the limb length or so for example) to a second portion of the limb (which may be considered the other three quarters of the length of the limb to the distal rotatable member end), the elastomeric material 8 extending most of the length of the limb between the split limb members as shown in Fig. 7-7a).
Lee teaches:
A limb assembly (archery bow with limb assembly, Fig. 13-14) comprising:
a limb cup, a first limb member, and a second limb member (upper limb set 210 has four limb portions forming the upper limb assembly 210, wherein each limb portion is secured to the riser 200 at a first end in a limb cup and extend away from the riser to a second distal end at rotatable member 220);
the first limb member comprising a first portion and a second portion, the first portion supported by the limb cup, the second portion arranged to support a rotatable member (each split limb segment has a first portion secured to the riser 200 at the limb cup (unlabeled) and second portion at a distal end at rotatable member 220, Fig. 13);
the second limb member supported by the limb cup (a second of the limb segments has a first portion supported by the limb cup area of the bow, Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kronfeld to have specifically included a limb cup to attach the limbs to the bow riser as this is commonly known and used in essentially all compound bows in the art and as taught and shown by Lee as discussed above. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the limbs as four split limb members vs. two split limb members as both arrangements are well-known and commonly used in the art as taught by Lee (Fig. 1 vs. Fig. 13, Col. 11 lines 5-24).
Claims 2-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronfeld or Kronfeld and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mancini US Pub No. 2008/0216804.
In Reference to Claim 2
Kronfeld (or Kronfeld and Lee) teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 1, the damping material contacting the first limb member continuously from the first portion to the second portion (in the broadest reasonable interpretation, if the first portion of the limb is defined to end at a point where the dampener contacts between the limbs and the second portion starts at that point, the dampening material is in continuous contact from the first portion (at the end of the first portion) to the second portion (at the beginning of the second portion) as the claim does not require the dampening material continuously contacting the entire first portion or any defined length and second portion (for example, from a proximal end surface of the limb at the limb pocket to the distal end surface of the limb near the rotatable member). The dampening material contacts both portions continuously as it contacts both portions (even if it is minimal) and is placed in a continuous manner of contact).
Alternatively and/or further, the exact dimensions or extent of contact between the dampening member and bow limb portions would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify to optimize the vibration dampening properties of the bow during use and as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (dampening material length between the limbs) as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Alternatively and/or additionally, Mancini teaches:
An archery bow having a riser and limbs attached to the riser, the limbs and riser including a vibration dampening coating formed of vibration dampening material provided on the entire outer surface of the limbs such that the damping material contacts the first limb member continuously from the first portion to the second portion (“Each limb, top and bottom, is coupled to each end of the riser of the bow. In accordance with the invention, the vibration and/or sound abating coating is temporarily, or preferably permanently affixed over a substantial amount of the surface area, or preferably all, or nearly all of the exposed surface area of the riser and/or limbs of the archery bow. Because virtually all of the exposed surfaces of the bow is covered with said vibration and/or noise abating material, the bow itself has a far superior vibration and noise dampening effect than the apparatus and/or methods proposed by the prior art.”, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kronfeld to have included the vibration dampening material provided on the limb members extending from the first portion to the second portion in order to improve the dampening characteristics of the bow and reduce vibrations, noise, and other forces imparted on the bow parts of the bow during use as is known in the art and as taught by Mancini (Abstract, [0001], [0019], [0022]-[0031]).
In Reference to Claim 3
Kronfeld (or w/Lee) or in view of Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 2, the damping material contacting a compression surface of the first limb member (Kronfeld: the dampening material of left channel 7 contacts the top, inside, and bottom surfaces of the limb, of which the bottom surface would be a compression surface during use).
In Reference to Claim 4
Kronfeld (or w/Lee) or in view of Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 2, the damping material contacting the second limb member continuously along its length (Kronfeld: in the broadest reasonable interpretation, if the first portion of the limb is defined to end at a point where the dampener contacts between the limbs and the second portion starts at that point, the dampening material contacts the second limb member continuously along the length of the dampening member (its length) and along a length of the second limb member (over the portion of an entire length) as the claim is unclear as to if the defined length is intended to be a length of the second limb member or a length of the dampening material as presented).
Alternatively and/or further, the exact dimensions or extent of contact between the dampening member and bow limb portions would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify to optimize the vibration dampening properties of the bow during use and as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (dampening material length between the limbs) as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Alternatively and/or additionally, Mancini teaches:
An archery bow having a riser and limbs attached to the riser, the limbs and riser including a vibration dampening coating formed of vibration dampening material provided on the entire outer surface of the limbs such that the damping material contacts the first limb member continuously from the first portion to the second portion (“Each limb, top and bottom, is coupled to each end of the riser of the bow. In accordance with the invention, the vibration and/or sound abating coating is temporarily, or preferably permanently affixed over a substantial amount of the surface area, or preferably all, or nearly all of the exposed surface area of the riser and/or limbs of the archery bow. Because virtually all of the exposed surfaces of the bow is covered with said vibration and/or noise abating material, the bow itself has a far superior vibration and noise dampening effect than the apparatus and/or methods proposed by the prior art.”, [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kronfeld to have included the vibration dampening material provided on the limb members extending an entire length of each limb from a proximal end of the first portion to the distal end of the second portion in order to improve the dampening characteristics of the bow and reduce vibrations, noise, and other forces imparted on the bow parts of the bow during use as is known in the art and as taught by Mancini (Abstract, [0001], [0019], [0022]-[0031]).
In Reference to Claim 5
Kronfeld (or w/Lee) or in view of Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 4, the damping material contacting a tension surface of the second limb member (Kronfeld: the dampening material of right channel 7 contacts the top, inside, and bottom surfaces of the right/second limb member, of which the top surface would be a tension surface during use).
In Reference to Claim 6
Kronfeld (or w/Lee) teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 1, the limb cup comprising a cavity, a portion of the damping material oriented in the cavity (Kronfeld: the limb is shown as having a standard limb cup 6 in Fig. 6/6a and the dampening member 7 is shown in a similar area of the limb but realistically would likely extend within and/or slightly outward from the limb cup (Fig. 6a shows a height of the limb cup being slightly less than a height of the dampener 7 shown in Fig. 7a and therefore it is assumed that it may be used in conjunction with the limb cup as a limb cup is a commonly known and required component of a compound bow in order to attach the limbs to the riser member)).
Alternatively and/or additionally, Mancini teaches:
An archery bow having a riser and limbs attached to the riser, the limbs and riser including a vibration dampening coating formed of vibration dampening material provided on the entire outer surface of the limbs such that the damping material contacts the first limb member continuously from the first portion to the second portion (“Each limb, top and bottom, is coupled to each end of the riser of the bow. In accordance with the invention, the vibration and/or sound abating coating is temporarily, or preferably permanently affixed over a substantial amount of the surface area, or preferably all, or nearly all of the exposed surface area of the riser and/or limbs of the archery bow. Because virtually all of the exposed surfaces of the bow is covered with said vibration and/or noise abating material, the bow itself has a far superior vibration and noise dampening effect than the apparatus and/or methods proposed by the prior art.”, [0024]) such that the damping material is oriented in the cavity of the limb cup (the entire outer surface of the limb may be covered in dampening material as taught by Mancini ([0024]) and as discussed above, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the cavity of the limb cup holding the limb therein (the unlabeled limb cup clearly shows cutouts/cavity portions that receive the first ends of the limb members 210 therein, Fig. 13 of Lee) to couple the limb to the riser as is known in the art to include the dampening material therein. Further, many limb cups in the art include dampening material between respective contacting surfaces of a limb cup and a limb).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kronfeld to have included the vibration dampening material provided on the limb members extending an entire length of each limb from a proximal end of the first portion to the distal end of the second portion (so that it is also oriented within a cavity of the limb pocket) in order to improve the dampening characteristics of the bow and reduce vibrations, noise, and other forces imparted on the bow parts of the bow during use as is known in the art and as taught by Mancini (Abstract, [0001], [0019], [0022]-[0031]). Further, though the prior art as discussed would teach the claim limitations, it further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have further included the dampening material between the respective limb surfaces and coupling surfaces of the limb cup or rotatable member bracket as Mancini teaches that the entire bow limb surfaces may be covered in the dampening material and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (placement of dampening material) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70)
In Reference to Claim 10
Kronfeld as modified by Lee and Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 1, comprising a third limb member, a fourth limb member and a second damping material, the third limb member supported by the limb cup and arranged to support the rotatable member (Lee: each split limb segment of the four limb members 210 of Lee has a first portion secured to the riser 200 at the limb cup (unlabeled) and second portion at a distal end at rotatable member 220, Fig. 13), the second damping material positioned between the third limb member and the fourth limb member (as described using Mancini previously, the limbs are preferably all covered in the exposed surface area of the limbs, therefore the third and fourth limb members have dampening material on all of its surfaces (the dampening material between the third and fourth limb members may be considered second dampening material) and therefore would have dampening material between the third and fourth limb members (dampening material is placed on the inner surfaces of the third and fourth limb members) as taught by Mancini).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kronfeld and Lee to have included the vibration dampening material provided on each of four limb members which is known and therefore obvious to use to one having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Lee, the limb members extending from the first portion to the second portion with first and second dampening materials placed between four limb members as the use of four limb members is known as taught by Lee as discussed above and the use of more/different dampening material between each limb portion may improve the dampening characteristics of the bow and reduce vibrations, noise, and other forces imparted on the bow parts of the bow during use as is known in the art and as taught by Mancini (Abstract, [0001], [0019], [0022]-[0031]).
In Reference to Claim 11
Kronfeld as modified by Lee and Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 10, the limb cup comprising a cavity, a portion of the second damping material oriented in the cavity (the entire outer surface of the limb may be covered in dampening material as taught by Mancini ([0024]) and as discussed above, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the cavity of the limb cup holding the respective limb member therein (the unlabeled limb cup clearly shows cutouts/cavity portions that receive the first ends of the limb members 210 therein, Fig. 13 of Lee) to couple the limb to the riser as is known in the art to include the dampening material therein. Further, many limb cups in the art include dampening material between respective contacting surfaces of a limb cup and a limb).
Further, though the prior art as discussed would teach the claim limitations, it further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have further included the dampening material between the respective limb surfaces and coupling surfaces of the limb cup or rotatable member bracket as Mancini teaches that the entire bow limb surfaces may be covered in the dampening material and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (placement of dampening material) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 12
Kronfeld as modified by Lee and Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 10, the second damping material extending parallel to the third limb member (as described above, the limbs are preferably all covered in the exposed surface area of the limbs, therefore the second dampening material would extend along a surface parallel to the third limb member as modified with the limb arrangement like Lee (ex. along the bottom/compression surface of the third limb member), as modified above and taught by Mancini, [0024]).
In Reference to Claim 13
Kronfeld as modified by Lee and Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 10, the third limb member extending parallel to the first limb member (each limb member of the four limb members of 210 as shown by Lee are parallel to one another, Fig. 13).
In Reference to Claim 14
Kronfeld as modified by Lee and Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 13, the fourth limb member extending parallel to the second limb member (each limb member of the four limb members of 210 as shown by Lee are parallel to one another, Fig. 13).
In Reference to Claim 15
Kronfeld as modified by Lee and Mancini teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 10, the first limb member and the second limb member oriented to a first side of the rotatable member (as shown by Lee: the first two limb members (left most two limb members) are positioned to a left side of the right rotatable member 220, Fig. 13), the third limb member and the fourth limb member oriented to a second side of the rotatable member (Lee: the third and fourth limb members (right most two limb members) are positioned to the right side of the left rotatable member 220, Fig. 13).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronfeld (or w/Lee) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mancini and Schaffer US Pat. No. 5,697,355.
In Reference to Claim 7
Kronfeld (or w/Lee) teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 1 as rejected above.
Kronfeld fails to teach:
The second portion supporting a bracket, the bracket arranged to support the rotatable member, the damping material extending to the bracket.
Mancini teaches as discussed above:
An archery bow having a riser and limbs attached to the riser, the limbs and riser including a vibration dampening coating formed of vibration dampening material provided on the entire outer surface of the limbs such that the damping material contacts the first limb member continuously from the first portion to the second portion (“Each limb, top and bottom, is coupled to each end of the riser of the bow. In accordance with the invention, the vibration and/or sound abating coating is temporarily, or preferably permanently affixed over a substantial amount of the surface area, or preferably all, or nearly all of the exposed surface area of the riser and/or limbs of the archery bow. Because virtually all of the exposed surfaces of the bow is covered with said vibration and/or noise abating material, the bow itself has a far superior vibration and noise dampening effect than the apparatus and/or methods proposed by the prior art.”, [0024]).
Further, Schaffer teaches:
A similar archery bow (10, Fig. 1-19) having a riser (11) with limbs attached to opposite ends of the riser via limb cups (50/11) that receive first portions of bow limb members (13/14) therein, each bow limb member having a second distal portion (43/44) that supports a rotatable member (18/19), the second distal portion supporting a bracket, the bracket arranged to support the rotatable member, the second end of the limb outer surface extending within the bracket (limb tips 43/44 extend into cavities in bracket portions 41/42 to coupled the limb tips to an axle of the rotatable assembly, Fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kronfeld to have included the vibration dampening material provided on the limb members extending an entire length of each limb from a proximal end of the first portion to the distal end to the bracket member of Schaffer at the second portion in order to improve the dampening characteristics of the bow and reduce vibrations, noise, and other forces imparted on the bow parts of the bow during use as is known in the art and as taught by Mancini (Abstract, [0001], [0019], [0022]-[0031]) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Kronfeld to have further included a bracket having respective limb tip engaging cavities to secure the rotatable member to the distal ends of each of the bow limb members as rotatable members of compound bows are widely coupled to the distal ends of limb tips via direct coupling with axles, or by a variety of brackets and both are known and commonly used in the art, and the use of a bracket may provide an adjustable arrangement for the rotatable member and/or power cables used on the bow and help to more securely couple and reduce cracking or breaking of the limb tips as taught by Schaffer (Col. 4 lines 24-52).
In Reference to Claim 8
Kronfeld (or w/Lee) as modified by Mancini and Schaffer teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 7, the bracket comprising a cavity, the second portion oriented in the cavity, a portion of the damping material oriented in the cavity (as modified by Schaffer (the limb tips 43/44 extend into cavities in bracket portions 41/42 to coupled the limb tips to an axle of the rotatable assembly, Fig. 1-3), the limb tips of each respective limb member of Kronfeld/Lee are inserted into the bracket cavity as shown by Schaffer (Fig. 3) and would include the dampening material provided on the outer surface of the entire limbs as taught by Mancini as Mancini teaches that the entire outer surface of the limb may be covered in dampening material and as discussed above, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the cavity of the bracket holding the limb therein to couple the limb to the rotatable member bracket).
Further, though the prior art as discussed would teach the claim limitations, it further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have further included the dampening material between the respective limb surfaces and coupling surfaces of the limb cup or rotatable member bracket as Mancini teaches that the entire bow limb surfaces may be covered in the dampening material and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (placement of dampening material) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70).
In Reference to Claim 9
Kronfeld (or w/Lee) as modified by Mancini and Schaffer teaches:
The limb assembly of claim 8, a portion of the second limb member oriented in the cavity (as modified by Schaffer (each of the limb tips 43/44 extend into respective cavities in bracket portions 41/42 to coupled the limb tips to an axle of the rotatable assembly, Fig. 1-3), each of the limb tips of each respective limb member of Kronfeld/Lee are inserted into a respective bracket cavity as shown by Schaffer (Fig. 3)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 103 (Lee/Mancini or Lee/Mancini/Schaffer) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kronfeld and Lee/Mancini/Schaffer as needed. The examiner reached out to the applicant’s representative to discuss potential clarifying amendments to define over the cited prior art, however no agreement was reached at this point though there appear to be numerous clarifying amendments that could overcome the cited prior art and broadest reasonable interpretations of the rejections discussed above.
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, Ellis (10,502,517), Asherman (2013/0061839), Christensen (8,196,570, Fig. 8b) teach similar bows with stacked limbs, Anselmo (12,504,251), Liu (11,448,479), Wasilewski (8,839,775), Leven (2008/0156310), Kronfeld (2004/0107952), Andrews (5,881,704), Martin (5,427,085), Troncoso (4,671,249) teach added dampening material on large portions of bow limbs, Huang (9,115,953), Martin (5,429,106), Barna (4,202,316), Darlington (4,079,723) teach similar bracket members, and Gallops (7,025,051), McPherson (6,886,549), Andrews (6,543,432) teach similar limb cups with dampening materials between the limbs and cup/pocket.
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
