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 8/5/2026, Applicant amended claims 29, 31, 33, 36, 38-40, 42, 44, 46, and 48 and claims 1-28 remain cancelled. This amendment is acknowledged. Claims 29-48 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein first” should likely read “wherein the first”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 48 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein first” should likely read “wherein the first”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 29-35 and 44-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthert US Pub. No. 11,098,973 in view of Nizov US Pat. No. 5,630,405.
In Reference to Claim 29
Walthert teaches:
A crossbow (10/20, Fig. 1-21), comprising:
a frame defining a projectile axis (barrel/frame 30 extending along a projectile 120 axis);
a first cam and a second cam, the first cam and the second cam each coupled to the frame (first cam assembly 80 and second cam assembly 90 are coupled to the barrel/frame at mount 70), each of the first cam and the second cam having a larger diameter portion (82/92, ex. Fig. 5) and a smaller diameter portion (small diameter portions 86/96, ex. Fig. 5), the first cam positioned to a first side of the projectile axis and rotatable about a first axis (first cam 80 rotates about axle 88 on the first/left side of the frame), the second cam positioned to a second side of the projectile axis and rotatable about a second axis spaced apart from the first axis (second cam 90 rotates about axle 98 on the second/right side of the frame), the first axis fixed relative to the frame, the second axis fixed relative to the frame (both axles 88/98 are fixed in mount supports 74/78 of the mount 70, Fig. 1, 11);
a first flexible limb and a second flexible limb, each of the first flexible limb and the second flexible limb having a first end and a second end, the first end of the first flexible limb coupled to the frame positioned to the first side of the projectile axis, the first end of the second flexible limb coupled to the frame and positioned to the second side of the projectile axis (limbs 42/52 have first ends coupled to the frame at riser 60 and second distal ends and are positioned on respective sides of the frame);
a first power cable operatively engaged with the second end of the first flexible limb and coupled to the smaller diameter portion of the first cam (first power cable 84 extends from the second end of the limb 42 at one end to the small diameter portion 86, Fig. 1/5/11);
a second power cable operatively engaged with the second end of the second flexible limb and coupled to the smaller diameter portion of the second cam (second power cable 94 coupled to the distal end of limb 52 at one end and coupled to the small diameter portion 96 at another end, Fig. 1/5/11);
a drawstring coupled to the larger diameter portion of the first cam and to the larger diameter portion of the second cam and configured to move between an undrawn position and a drawn position (drawstring 100 is coupled at ends to the large diameter portions 82/92 extending axially across the frame between the axles 88/98 and the front of the frame, Fig. 1-2, 17, between undrawn (ex. Fig. 1) and drawn (ex. Fig. 7/10) positions); and
a trigger control unit configured to selectively release the drawstring upon actuation of a trigger assembly (trigger control assembly 32 holds and releases the drawn bowstring during use).
Further, Walthert fails to teach:
A drawstring carrier slidably engaged with the frame and configured to move the drawstring from the undrawn position to the drawn position.
Further, Nizov teaches:
A similar crossbow (Fig. 1a-c) having a frame (5), limbs (2), cams (3), power cables, and a drawstring movable between undrawn and drawn configurations (4), wherein the drawstring is drawn from the undrawn to the drawn position by a carriage (7) slidably engaged with the frame (in guide 8 groove) and movable along the projectile axis of the frame from the undrawn to the drawn position (Fig. 1a-c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Walthert to have further included a drawstring carrier on the frame to allow a user to more easily move the drawstring between the undrawn and drawn configurations which is widely known and common in the art and as taught by Nizov (Col. 2 line 50 – Col. 3 line 10).
In Reference to Claim 30
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 29, wherein each of the first flexible limb and the second flexible limb are in an unloaded position when the crossbow is undrawn and a loaded position when the crossbow is drawn (limbs are initially unloaded in the undrawn positions and loaded when the drawstring is drawn to provide the launching force, Fig. 1-12, Col. 9 lines 15-58).
In Reference to Claim 31
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 29, wherein the drawstring extends from the first cam to the second cam across the projectile axis and axially between the first axis and a front end of the frame (Walthert: drawstring 100 is coupled at ends to the large diameter portions 82/92 extending axially across the frame between the axles 88/98 and the front of the frame, Fig. 1-2, 17).
In Reference to Claim 32
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 29, wherein the larger diameter portion and the smaller diameter portion of each of the first cam and the second cam are integrally formed (Walthert: large and small diameter portions 82/92/86/96 are functionally integrally formed together using axle/connecting means 88/98, Fig. 5).
In Reference to Claim 33
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 29, further comprising a first pulley and a second pulley (Walthert: the bow may include pairs of pulleys 14/15 each coupled to each side of the frame, Fig. 17-18), the first pulley coupled to the frame and positioned to the first side of the projectile axis, the second pulley coupled to the frame and positioned to the second side of the projectile axis, wherein the first power cable is routed from the smaller diameter portion of the first cam to the first pulley, wherein the second power cable is routed from the smaller diameter portion of the second cam to the second pulley (Walthert: power cables 84/94 are routed from respective small diameter portions 86/96 to respective pulleys 14/15 to limbs 42/52 on respective first and second sides of the frame, Fig. 17-18).
In Reference to Claim 34
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 29, wherein, during operation with the drawstring in the drawn position, the first power cable and the second power cable respectively wrap at least one full rotation around each the smaller diameter portion of the first cam and the smaller diameter portion of the second cam (Walthert: power cables 84-94 are wound into small diameter portions 86/96 between undrawn (mostly fed out and most likely less than one rotation) and drawn (mostly taken up and may be more than one rotation depending on the shape (helix)) positions, the cables wrapping around the small diameter portions which may be formed in a helical shape therefore allowing for wrapping of the power cables to be more than one full rotation, Col. 4 lines 44-56, Col. 6 lines 30-45, Col. 7 line 53 – Col. 8 line 11, Col. 9 line 15-36, Col. 10 lines 1-15).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the small diameter portion size and respective cable end portion wrapped about the spool to have been less than one full wrap, as in the undrawn state, the cable length simply needs to reach the spool and the number of wraps or amount of cable wound around the spool in this first at rest state does not change the function of the cable and spool. Whether the cable wraps halfway around the spool or fully around the spool does not change the stored energy or anything else about the state of the bow in the undrawn state and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have increased the spool size such that it received less than a full wind of a respective power cable portion as Walthert teaches that these features may be modified as described above and further as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (cable wrap/unwrap length and/or spool size/diameter) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 35
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 29, wherein each of the first power cable and second power cable respectively wrap around the smaller diameter portion of the first cam and the smaller diameter portion of the second cam less than one full rotation with the drawstring in the undrawn position and more than one full rotation with the drawstring in the drawn position (Walthert: power cables 84-94 are wound into small diameter portions 86/96 between undrawn (mostly fed out and most likely less than one rotation) and drawn (mostly taken up and may be more than one rotation depending on the shape (helix)) positions, the cables wrapping around the small diameter portions which may be formed in a helical shape therefore allowing for wrapping of the power cables to be more than one full rotation, Col. 4 lines 44-56, Col. 6 lines 30-45, Col. 7 line 53 – Col. 8 line 11, Col. 9 line 15-36, Col. 10 lines 1-15).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the small diameter portion size and respective cable end portion wrapped about the spool to have been less than one full wrap, as in the undrawn state, the cable length simply needs to reach the spool and the number of wraps or amount of cable wound around the spool in this first at rest state does not change the function of the cable and spool. Whether the cable wraps halfway around the spool or fully around the spool does not change the stored energy or anything else about the state of the bow in the undrawn state and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have increased the spool size such that it received less than a full wind of a respective power cable portion as Walthert teaches that these features may be modified as described above and further as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (cable wrap/unwrap length and/or spool size/diameter) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 44
Walthert teaches:
A crossbow (10/20, Fig. 1-21) comprising:
a frame including a riser and a front end, the frame defining a projectile axis (barrel/frame 30 with a mount/riser 70 and limb riser 60 at a front end, the barrel/frame extending along a projectile 120 axis, ex. Fig. 1-2. 17);
a first cam and a second cam each coupled to the riser (first cam assembly 80 and second cam assembly 90 are coupled to the barrel/frame at mount 70), each of the first cam and the second cam having a larger diameter portion (82/92, ex. Fig. 5) and a smaller diameter portion (small diameter portions 86/96, ex. Fig. 5), the first cam positioned to a first side of the projectile axis and rotatable about a first axis (first cam 80 rotates about axle 88 on the first/left side of the frame), the second cam positioned to a second side of the projectile axis and rotatable about a second axis spaced apart from the first axis (second cam 90 rotates about axle 98 on the second/right side of the frame), the first axis fixed relative to the riser, the second axis fixed relative to the riser (both axles 88/98 are fixed in mount supports 74/78 of the mount 70, Fig. 1, 11);
a first flexible limb and a second flexible limb (42/52), each of the first flexible limb and the second flexible limb having a first end coupled to the frame and a second end (limbs 42/52 have first ends coupled to the frame at riser 60 and second distal ends);
a first power cable having a first end coupled to the smaller diameter portion of the first cam and a second end positioned to the first side of the projectile axis, the first power cable operatively engaged with the second end of the first flexible limb (first power cable 84 extends from the second end of the limb 42 at one end to the small diameter portion 86 on the first side of the frame, Fig. 1/5/11);
a second power cable having a first end coupled to the smaller diameter portion of the second cam and a second end positioned to the second side of the projectile axis, the second power cable operatively engaged with the second end of the second flexible limb (second power cable 94 coupled to the distal end of limb 52 at one end and coupled to the small diameter portion 96 at another end on the second side of the frame, Fig. 1/5/11);
a drawstring having a first and a second end, the first end of the drawstring coupled to the larger diameter portion of the first cam, the second end of the drawstring coupled to the larger diameter portion of the second cam, the drawstring extending from the first cam to the second cam across the projectile axis and axially between the first axis and the front end of the frame, the drawstring movable from an undrawn position to a drawn position (drawstring 100 is coupled at ends to the large diameter portions 82/92 extending axially across the frame between the axles 88/98 and the front of the frame, Fig. 1-2, 17, between undrawn (ex. Fig. 1) and drawn (ex. Fig. 7/10) positions).
Further, Walthert fails to teach:
A drawstring carrier slidably engaged with the frame and configured to move the drawstring from the undrawn position to the drawn position.
Further, Nizov teaches:
A similar crossbow (Fig. 1a-c) having a frame (5), limbs (2), cams (3), power cables, and a drawstring movable between undrawn and drawn configurations (4), wherein the drawstring is drawn from the undrawn to the drawn position by a carriage (7) slidably engaged with the frame (in guide 8 groove) and movable along the projectile axis of the frame from the undrawn to the drawn position (Fig. 1a-c).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Walthert to have further included a drawstring carrier on the frame to allow a user to more easily move the drawstring between the undrawn and drawn configurations which is widely known and common in the art and as taught by Nizov (Col. 2 line 50 – Col. 3 line 10).
In Reference to Claim 45
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 44, wherein the larger diameter portion of first cam and the larger diameter portion of the second cam respectively include a helical groove to wind the drawstring more at least two full rotations with the drawstring in the undrawn position, wherein the first axis and the second axis are substantially perpendicular to the projectile axis (Walthert: large diameter string winders 82/92 rotate about axes that are perpendicular to the projectile axis and may be formed as a helix to allow for additional wrapping of the drawstring thereabout, Col. 4 lines 33-39, Col. 6 lines 18-25, Col. 8 lines 12-67).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the large diameter portion size and respective drawstring end portion wrapped about the cams to have been less than one full wrap, as in the undrawn state, the string length simply needs to reach the winding member and the number of wraps or amount of string wound around the cam in this first at rest state does not change the function of the string and winding member. Whether the string wraps halfway around the cam or fully around the cam does not change the stored energy or anything else about the state of the bow in the undrawn state and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have increased the winding member size such that it received less than a full wind of a respective drawstring portion as Walthert teaches that these features may be modified as described above and further as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (cable wrap/unwrap length and/or spool size/diameter) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 46
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 44, further comprising a first pulley and a second pulley, the first pulley coupled to the frame and positioned to the first side of the projectile axis, the second pulley coupled to the frame and positioned to the second side of the projectile axis (Walthert: the bow may include pairs of pulleys 14/15 each coupled to each side of the frame, Fig. 17-18), wherein the first power cable is routed from the smaller diameter portion of the first cam to the first pulley, wherein the second power cable is routed from the smaller diameter portion of the second cam to the second pulley (Walthert: power cables 84/94 are routed from respective small diameter portions 86/96 to respective pulleys 14/15 to limbs 42/52 on respective first and second sides of the frame, Fig. 17-18).
In Reference to Claim 47
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 44, wherein each of the first power cable and second power cable respectively wrap around the smaller diameter portion of the first cam and the smaller diameter portion of the second cam less than one full rotation with the drawstring in the undrawn position and more than one full rotation with the drawstring in the drawn position (Walthert: power cables 84-94 are wound into small diameter portions 86/96 between undrawn (mostly fed out and most likely less than one rotation) and drawn (mostly taken up and may be more than one rotation depending on the shape (helix)) positions, the cables wrapping around the small diameter portions which may be formed in a helical shape therefore allowing for wrapping of the power cables to be more than one full rotation, Col. 4 lines 44-56, Col. 6 lines 30-45, Col. 7 line 53 – Col. 8 line 11, Col. 9 line 15-36, Col. 10 lines 1-15).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the small diameter portion size and respective cable end portion wrapped about the spool to have been less than one full wrap, as in the undrawn state, the cable length simply needs to reach the spool and the number of wraps or amount of cable wound around the spool in this first at rest state does not change the function of the cable and spool. Whether the cable wraps halfway around the spool or fully around the spool does not change the stored energy or anything else about the state of the bow in the undrawn state and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have increased the spool size such that it received less than a full wind of a respective power cable portion as Walthert teaches that these features may be modified as described above and further as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (cable wrap/unwrap length and/or spool size/diameter) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 48
Walthert as modified by Nizov teaches:
The crossbow of claim 47, wherein first power cable and the second power cable are at least partially vertically displaced from the drawstring (Walthert: power cables 84/94 are vertically below drawstring 100, ex. Fig. 5).
Claims 36-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walthert US Pub. No. 11,098,973 in view of Kronengold et al. US Pat. No. 8,240,299.
In Reference to Claim 36
Walthert teaches:
A crossbow (10/20, Fig. 1-21) comprising:
a frame defining a projectile axis (barrel/frame 30 extending along a projectile 120 axis);
a first cam and a second cam each coupled to the frame (first cam assembly 80 and second cam assembly 90 are coupled to the barrel/frame at mount 70), each of the first cam and the second cam having a larger diameter portion (82/92, ex. Fig. 5) and a smaller diameter portion (small diameter portions 86/96, ex. Fig. 5), the first cam configured to rotate about a first axis that is fixed relative to the frame (first cam 80 rotates about axle 88 on the first/left side of the frame), the second cam configured to rotate about a second axis that is fixed relative to the frame (second cam 90 rotates about axle 98 on the second/right side of the frame), the first cam being coplanar with the second cam (both cam assemblies 70/80 are coplanar, ex. Fig. 1/11);
a first flexible limb and a second flexible limb, each of the first flexible limb and the second flexible limb having a first end coupled to the frame and a second end (limbs 42/52 have first ends coupled to the frame at riser 60 and second distal ends);
a first power cable operatively engaged with the second end of the first flexible limb and having a first end coupled to the smaller diameter portion of the first cam (first power cable 84 extends from the second end of the limb 42 at one end to the small diameter portion 86, Fig. 1/5/11);
a second power cable operatively engaged with the second end of the second flexible limb and having a first end coupled to the smaller diameter portion of the second cam (second power cable 94 coupled to the distal end of limb 52 at one end and coupled to the small diameter portion 96 at another end, Fig. 1/5/11);
a drawstring having a first and a second end, the first end of the drawstring coupled to the larger diameter portion of the first cam, the second end of the drawstring coupled to the larger diameter portion of the second cam, the drawstring movable from an undrawn position to a drawn position (drawstring 100 is coupled at ends to the large diameter portions 82/92 extending axially across the frame between the axles 88/98 and the front of the frame, Fig. 1-2, 17, between undrawn (ex. Fig. 1) and drawn (ex. Fig. 7/10) positions); and
a trigger control unit configured to selectively release the drawstring upon actuation of a trigger assembly (trigger control assembly 32 holds and releases the drawn bowstring during use).
Further, Walthert fails to teach:
A drawstring carrier slidably engaged with the frame and configured to move the drawstring from the undrawn position to the drawn position and a cocking mechanism operatively coupled to the drawstring carrier and configured to move the drawstring carrier along the frame.
Further, Kronengold teaches:
A similar crossbow (20, Fig. 1-18a) having a frame (24), limbs (50/52), cams (62/64), power cables (68/70), and a drawstring (66) movable between undrawn and drawn configurations (Fig. 2a-b) and to release the drawn bowstring, wherein the drawstring is drawn from the undrawn to the drawn position by a carriage (86) slidably engaged with the frame (in guide groove 87) and movable along the projectile axis of the frame from the undrawn to the drawn position (Fig. 2a-b) using a cocking mechanism that operates the carriage between the undrawn and drawn positions (crank 84 moves the carriage 86 from the bowstring undrawn to the drawn positions and release the drawn bowstring for firing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Walthert to have further included a drawstring carrier on the frame to allow a user to more easily move the drawstring between the undrawn and drawn configurations which is widely known and common in the art and as taught by Kronengold (Col. 3 line 61 – Col. 6 line 4).
In Reference to Claim 37
Walthert as modified by Kronengold teaches:
The crossbow of claim 36, wherein the first power cable is operatively engaged with the first flexible limb (first power cable 84 extends from the second end of the limb 42 at one end to the small diameter portion 86, Fig. 1/5/11), wherein the second power cable is operatively engaged with the second flexible limb (second power cable 94 coupled to the distal end of limb 52 at one end and coupled to the small diameter portion 96 at another end, Fig. 1/5/11).
In Reference to Claim 38
Walthert as modified by Kronengold teaches:
The crossbow of claim 37, wherein a second end of the first power cable is coupled to a first side of the frame, wherein a second end of the second power cable is coupled to a second side of the frame (Walthert: the second ends of the power cables are coupled indirectly to the respective sides of the frame via the pulleys and/or limbs).
In Reference to Claim 39
Walthert as modified by Kronengold teaches:
The crossbow of claim 36, further comprising a first pulley and a second pulley, the first pulley coupled to the frame and positioned to a first side of the projectile axis, the second pulley coupled to the frame and positioned to a second side of the projectile axis (Walthert: the bow may include pairs of pulleys 14/15 each coupled to each side of the frame, Fig. 17-18), wherein the first power cable is routed from the smaller diameter portion of the first cam to the first pulley, wherein the second power cable is routed from the smaller diameter portion of the second cam to the second pulley (Walthert: power cables 84/94 are routed from respective small diameter portions 86/96 to respective pulleys 14/15 to limbs 42/52 on respective first and second sides of the frame, Fig. 17-18).
In Reference to Claim 40
Walthert as modified by Kronengold teaches:
The crossbow of claim 39, wherein a second end of the first power cable is coupled to the first side of the frame, wherein a second end of the second power cable is coupled to the second side of the frame (Walthert: the second ends of the power cables are coupled indirectly to the respective sides of the frame via the pulleys and/or limbs).
In Reference to Claim 41
Walthert as modified by Kronengold teaches:
The crossbow of claim 39, the frame defining a front end and a rear end, wherein the first pulley is positioned between the first cam and the rear end, wherein the second pulley is positioned between the second cam and the rear end (Walthert: pulleys 14/15 are positioned between the cams and the read end of the frame, Fig. 17).
In Reference to Claim 42
Walthert as modified by Kronengold teaches:
The crossbow of claim 36, wherein first power cable and the second power cable are at least partially vertically displaced from the drawstring (Walthert: power cables 84/94 are vertically below drawstring 100, ex. Fig. 5).
In Reference to Claim 43
Walthert as modified by Kronengold teaches:
The crossbow of claim 36, wherein, during operation with the drawstring in the drawn position, the first power cable and the second power cable respectively wrap at least one complete rotation around each the smaller diameter portion of the first cam and the smaller diameter portion of the second cam. (Walthert: power cables 84-94 are wound into small diameter portions 86/96 between undrawn (mostly fed out and most likely less than one rotation) and drawn (mostly taken up and may be more than one rotation depending on the shape (helix)) positions, the cables wrapping around the small diameter portions which may be formed in a helical shape therefore allowing for wrapping of the power cables to be more than one full rotation, Col. 4 lines 44-56, Col. 6 lines 30-45, Col. 7 line 53 – Col. 8 line 11, Col. 9 line 15-36, Col. 10 lines 1-15).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the small diameter portion size and respective cable end portion wrapped about the spool to have been less than one full wrap, as in the undrawn state, the cable length simply needs to reach the spool and the number of wraps or amount of cable wound around the spool in this first at rest state does not change the function of the cable and spool. Whether the cable wraps halfway around the spool or fully around the spool does not change the stored energy or anything else about the state of the bow in the undrawn state and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have increased the spool size such that it received less than a full wind of a respective power cable portion as Walthert teaches that these features may be modified as described above and further as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)) and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (cable wrap/unwrap length and/or spool size/diameter) involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 29-48 under 102/103 (Langley) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Walthert in view of Nizov or Kronengold.
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, Trpkovski (11,635,274, 11,549,777, 11,408,703), Langley (2020/0355458), Kempf (11,022,398, 10,989,492), Popov (10,767,956, 10,533,822, 10,393,470, 8,997,728), Rinker (10,267,590), Prior (9,719,749), Sidebottom (9,297,604), Colley (7,891,348) teach similar bows, crossbows, and cam assemblies.
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