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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show Figures 29A-29C as described in paragraph, [0166] of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “a winding post”. The specification identifies the corresponding element as “posts” (page 1, [0104]; Fig. 1B, elem. 26) but does not describe “a winding post” which the respective fiber optic fiber is wound. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor possesses the claimed “winding post” at the time of filing.
Claim 12 also recites “the winding post” and depends from claim 11. Claim 13 depends from claim 12, claim 14 depends from claim 11, and claim 15 depends from claim 14. Claims 12-15 therefore include the unsupported “winding post” limitation and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 20150040409 A1) in view of Zykan et al. (US 6073352 A).
Regarding claim 1, Morrison discloses a targeting system for an archery bow (see Morrison Fig. 3, elem. 311; Abstract, “A multiple laser sight system for an archery bow…”), the targeting system comprising: a fixed-pin archery sight adapted to be secured to a frame of the archery bow (see Morrison below Fig. 1; see Morrison Abstract ,”…The laser sight is further configured to not interfere with the optional use of conventional sighting pins and the use of evening infrared systems…”; Morrison [0004],” Normal multi-pin sights simply have several brass aiming pins which stick out horizontally from a vertical frame mounted in front of the hand grip on the bow”); a detachable range-finding electronics module adapted to be attached to the fixed-pin archery sight (see Morrison [0041],” The archer can optionally have a rangefinder…”), wherein the detachable finding electronics module houses one or more electronic components (see Morrison [0041],” The system that is used with the novel method can include (i) a base member attachable to a bow, (ii) a sight array that has multiple electronically selectively tightly spaced displayable aim indicators, (iii) an inclinometer, (iv) a range finder, and (v) a processor that cooperates with the inclinometer, range finder, and (vi) a sight system wherein there are at least one visible laser sight that is automatically calibrated with another laser sight, such as an infrared laser sight”).
Morrison does not disclose a connect/disconnect system for securing the detachable range-finding electronics module to the fixed-pin archery sight.
Zykan discloses a connect/disconnect system for securing the detachable range-finding electronics module to the fixed-pin archery sight (see Zykan below Fig. 3, elem. 8 and 10; Col. 3, ll. 27-30,” The laser rangefinder 10 may be removably fastened to the bow sight 8 by any conventional means, such as one or more screws, bolts, hook and loop fastener fabrics, adhesives or spring clips”).
Morrison and Zykan are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both
are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison to include fasteners taught by Zykan to provide a versatile archery laser rangefinder (see Zykan Col. 2, ll. 6-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
501
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Morrison discloses wherein the detachable range-finding electronics module includes a plurality of illuminating elements (see Morrison Abstract,” A multiple laser sight system for an archery bow or the like configured so that the multiple laser systems …”), each of which is associated with a different actual distance ([0042,”… sights be calibrated to different targets or to different distances”).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 20150040409 A1) and Zykan et al. (US 6073352 A), and in further view of Kingsbury et al. (US 8776386 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Morrison and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison and Zykan do not disclose a mounting bracket adapted to be secured to the frame of the archery bow; a horizontal alignment bar for adjusting the fixed-pin archery sight along a first axis; a sliding mount arm secured to the horizontal alignment bar for adjusting the fixed-pin archery sight along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis; a vertical adjustment fixture for adjusting the fixed-pin archery sight along a third axis perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis; and an aiming pin housing secured to the vertical adjustment fixture in which a plurality of fiber optic aiming pins are held.
Kingsbury discloses wherein the fixed-pin archery sight comprises: a mounting bracket (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 16) adapted to be secured to the frame of the archery bow (see Kingsbury Abstract,” … a riser mount secured to the bow stock”); a horizontal alignment bar (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 26) for adjusting the fixed-pin archery sight along a first axis (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 20); a sliding mount arm (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 16) secured to the horizontal alignment bar (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 26) for adjusting the fixed-pin archery sight along a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 40); a vertical adjustment fixture (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 40) for adjusting the fixed-pin archery sight (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 20) along a third axis perpendicular to both the first axis and the second axis (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 1); and an aiming pin housing (see Fig.1, elem. 20) secured to the vertical adjustment fixture (see Kingsbury below annotated Fig. 2, elem. 40) in which a plurality of fiber optic aiming pins are held.
Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison and Zykan to include mounts and structures taught by Kingsbury to greatly improve the accuracy and stability of each sight pin (Kingsbury Col. 2, ll. 14-15)
PNG
media_image3.png
760
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
736
719
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Morrison and Kingsbury disclose a targeting system. Morrison and Kingsbury do not disclose wherein the detachable range-finding electronics module comprises an alignment pin, the fixed-pin archery sight comprises an alignment slot, and the alignment pin of the detachable range-finding electronics module is adapted to mate with the alignment slot of the fixed-pin archery sight when the detachable range-finding electronics module is attached to the fixed-pin archery sight.
Zykan discloses wherein the detachable range-finding electronics module comprises an alignment pin (see Zykan above Fig. 4A, elem. 6; Col. 3, ll. 27-30,” The laser rangefinder 10 may be removably fastened to the bow sight 8 by any conventional means), the fixed-pin archery sight comprises an alignment slot (see Zykan above Fig 4A, Col. 3, ll. 27-30,” The laser rangefinder 10 may be removably fastened to the bow sight 8 by any conventional means”), and the alignment pin of the detachable range-finding electronics module is adapted to mate with the alignment slot of the fixed-pin archery sight when the detachable range-finding electronics module is attached to the fixed-pin archery sight (see Zykan below Fig. 3, elem. 8 and 10; Col. 3, ll. 27-30,” The laser rangefinder 10 may be removably fastened to the bow sight 8 by any conventional means, such as one or more screws, bolts, hook and loop fastener fabrics, adhesives or spring clips”).
Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison and Kingsbury to include fasteners taught by Zykan to provide a versatile archery laser rangefinder (see Zykan Col. 2, ll. 6-7).
Claims 4-6, 8, 11-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 20150040409 A1) in view of Zykan et al. (US 6073352 A), and further in view of Kingsbury et al. (US 8776386 B2), and further in view of Larson (US 9103632 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan do not disclose wherein the fixed-pin archery sight further comprises: a plurality of fiber optic fibers, each of which is held in a respective one of the plurality of fiber optic aiming pins and is adapted to channel visible light to an end of the aiming pin; a plurality of fiber optic repositories, each of which is adapted to receive a respective one of the plurality of fiber optic fibers; and a plurality of fiber optic channels adapted to secure the fiber optic fibers to the aiming pin housing.
Larson discloses wherein the fixed-pin archery sight further comprises: a plurality of fiber optic fibers (see Larson Col. 8, ll. 57-58 ,”fiber optic cable 300 includes three fiber elements”), each of which is held in a respective one of the plurality of fiber optic aiming pins and is adapted to channel visible light to an end of the aiming pin (see Larson Col. 6, ll. 20-23,”Preferred embodiments include a light gathering element, such as a fiber end of a fiber optic cable, structured to accentuate a pin aim point”); a plurality of fiber optic repositories (see Larson Col. 9, 1-3, ”… a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart slots 302 provide a slot 302 at a convenient location for radial entrance of cable 300 into its stored position”), each of which is adapted to receive a respective one of the plurality of fiber optic fibers (see Larson below annotated Fig. 1, elem. 300 and 302); and a plurality of fiber optic channels adapted to secure the fiber optic fibers to the aiming pin housing (see Larson Col. 9, 1-3).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to include a lock mechanism taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
PNG
media_image5.png
361
687
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan do not disclose wherein the fiber optic channels are integrated into a surface of the aiming pin housing such that the fiber optic fibers sit below, or level with, the surface of the aiming pin housing.
Larson discloses wherein the fiber optic channels are integrated into a surface of the aiming pin housing such that the fiber optic fibers sit below, or level with, the surface of the aiming pin housing (see Larson above annotated Fig. 1, elem. 112 and 300).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to include a lock mechanism taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Morrison and Kingsbury disclose a targeting system. Morrison and Kingsbury do not disclose wherein the fiber optic repositories are integrated into a surface of the aiming pin housing.
Larson discloses wherein the fiber optic repositories are integrated into a surface of the aiming pin housing (see Larson Fig. 1, elem. 104).
Morrison, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison and Kingsbury to include a lock mechanism taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
The combination of Morison, Kingsbury and Larson do not teach the surface of the aiming pin housing is flush with a surface of the detachable range-finding electronics module when the detachable range-finding electronics module is attached to the fixed-pin archery sight.
Zykan discloses the surface of the aiming pin housing (see Zykan above Fig. 3, elem. 8) is flush with a surface of the detachable range-finding electronics module (see Zykan above Fig. 3, elem. 8) when the detachable range-finding electronics module is attached to the fixed-pin archery sight (see Zykan Col. 3, ll. 27-30,” The laser rangefinder 10 may be removably fastened to the bow sight 8 by any conventional means, such as one or more screws, bolts, hook and loop fastener fabrics, adhesives or spring clips”).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings Morrison, Kingsbury, and Larson to include a laser rangefinder bow sight taught by Zykan to accurately aim at a target (see Zykan Col. 2, l. 23).
Regarding claim 8, Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan do not disclose wherein each of the fiber optic fibers includes an opaque shielding adapted to shield the fiber optic fiber from ambient light.
Larson discloses wherein each of the fiber optic fibers includes an opaque shielding (see Larson Col. 9, ll. 22-23,” The shield…opaque face…”) adapted to shield the fiber optic fiber from ambient light (see Larson Col. 9, ll. 28-29,” …all light can be blocked…”).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to include a shield taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan do not disclose wherein each of the fiber optic repositories includes a winding post around which the respective fiber optic fiber is wound.
Larson discloses wherein each of the fiber optic repositories includes a winding post (see Larson Col. 8, lines 62-64,” see For example, a length of cable 300 may be coiled on, or in, a drum associated with the sight…”) around which the respective fiber optic fiber is wound.
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to include a drum taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan do not disclose wherein each of the plurality fiber optic repositories comprises: a securing clamp adapted to fit around the winding post; and a tightening screw adapted to exert a downward force on the securing clamp to tighten the securing clamp onto the fiber optic fiber.
Larson discloses wherein each of the plurality fiber optic repositories comprises: a securing clamp adapted to fit around the winding post (see Larson above Col. 8, ll. 64-65; see Larson Col. 5, ll. 7-8,” To accomplish that, the illustrated embodiment includes clamping mechanisms actuated by socket head cap screws…”); and a tightening screw adapted to exert a downward force on the securing clamp to tighten the securing clamp onto the fiber optic fiber (see Larson Col. 5, ll. 7-8,” To accomplish that, the illustrated embodiment includes clamping mechanisms actuated by socket head cap screws…”).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to include clamping mechanisms taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan do not disclose wherein the securing clamp is transparent such that ambient light passes through the securing clamp to illuminate the fiber optic fiber.
Larson discloses wherein the securing clamp is transparent such that ambient light passes through the securing clamp to illuminate the fiber optic fiber (see Larson Col. 6, ll. 19-21,” Preferred embodiments include a light gathering element…”).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to a light gathering element taught by Larson to enhance light-gathering capability for fiber optic sights (Larson Col. 9, l. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Kingsbury and Zykan do not disclose wherein each of the plurality fiber optic repositories comprises a securing post through which the fiber optic fiber is threaded.
Larson discloses wherein each of the plurality fiber optic repositories comprises a securing post through which the fiber optic fiber is threaded (see Larson Col. 6, ll. 1-3,” … can be affixed to each lead screw control interface, and that affixed color can coordinate with the color of a fiber optic cable…”).
Morrison, Kingsbury, Zykan and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to include a lead screw control interface taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Morrison, Zykan and Larson disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Zykan and Larson do not disclose wherein the securing post includes a through hole and a countersunk hole.
Kingsbury discloses wherein the securing post includes a through hole (see Kingsbury above annotated Fig. 2, elem. 1) and a countersunk hole (see Kingsbury annotated Fig. 2, elem. 2).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Larson to include holes taught by Kingsbury to provide secure retention (Kingsbury Col. 2 ll. 7-8)
Regarding claim 20, Morrison and Zykan disclose a targeting system. Morrison and Zykan do not disclose wherein the connect/disconnect system comprises: a slot and a catch hook.
Kingsbury discloses wherein the connect/disconnect system comprises: a slot (see Kingsbury Fig. 1, elem. 18. Same intended use for connecting accessories); a catch hook (see Kingsbury Fig. 1, elem. 34. Same intended use for securing accessories);
Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Larson to include connecting accessories taught by Kingsbury to provide secure retention (Kingsbury Col. 2 ll. 7-8)
The combination of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury do not teach a hinge; at least one snap-fit hinge; a snap lock; and a latch assembly.
Larson disclose a hinge (see Larson Fig.1 elem. 236. Same intended use as a hinge); at least one snap-fit hinge (see Larson Fig.1 elem. 120A. Same intended use as a hinge); a snap (see Larson Fig. 1, elem. 114. Same intended purpose of locking); and a latch assembly (see Larson annotated Fig. 7&9, elem. 208; see Col. 7, elem. 21-23," Close agreement between end 208 and dado 204 holds guard 104 effective to resist rotation of guard 104 about joint axis 212”. Same intended use of engaging the sight pin housing).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan and Kingsbury to include a lock mechanism taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
Claim 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 20150040409 A1) in view of Zykan et al. (US 6073352 A), and further in view of Kingsbury et al. (US 8776386 B2), and further in view of Larson (US 9103632 B1), and further in view of Benton et al. (US 12403645 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson do not disclose wherein the opaque shielding is a heat shrink material.
Benton discloses wherein the opaque shielding (see Benton Col. 17, ll. 37-40,” …the second sheath has opaque, transparent, translucent portions that expose portions…”) is a heat shrink material (see Benton Col. 3, ll. 15-16, “…apply heat-shrink sheaths onto athletic equipment shafts”).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury, Larson and Benton are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson to include an opaque heat-shrink sheath taught by Benton for improved operational benefits (Benton Col. 3, ll. 25-26).
Regarding claim 10, Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson disclose a targeting system. Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson do not disclose wherein the opaque shielding is an opaque coating.
Benton discloses wherein the opaque shielding is an opaque coating (see Benton Col. 18, ll. 36-38, “The sheath contemplated herein in an example is formed from a sheet (e.g., a film) that overlaps itself forming an envelope or tubular structure”. A film is a coating).
Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury, Larson and Benton are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison, Zykan, Kingsbury and Larson to include an opaque film taught by Benton for improved operational benefits (Benton Col. 3, ll. 25-26)
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 20150040409 A1) and Zykan et al. (US 6073352 A), and further in view of VanCamp et al. (US 20190101357 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Morrison and Zykan discloses a targeting system. Morrison and Zykan disclose a wherein the one or more electronic components housed within the detachable range-finding electronics module (see Morrison [0011],"The sight system further includes a wheel mount for quick connection and disconnection"; see Zykan Abstract,"...The laser rangefinder has a housing removably fastened to the bow sight frame"; see VanCamp above [0060] “FIG. 3 shows the targeting system 102 detached from the bow 100”) include one or more of a processor (see Morrison [0013],"...a processor...”; see Zykan Abstract,"...a central processing unit (CPU)..."; VanCamp Abstract,”…The processor may be configured to control…”), a rangefinder sensor (see Morrison [0013],"...such as a range finder..."; see Zykan Col. 3, l. 27,"...The laser rangefinder..."; VanCamp [0043],” … a ranging module …”), a power source (see Morrison [0004],"...which provide a self powered...". Has to have a power source to be self-powered; see Zykan Abstract,"...the power supply..."; VanCamp [0080],”The power source…”), a ranging trigger (see Morrison [0026],"...laser adjustment buttons...”; see Zykan Abstract,"...a remote trigger switch..."; VanCamp [0037],”…the targeting system may include a depressible trigger…”), an illuminating element (see Morrison [0014],"...illuminates such aim indicator..."; see Zykan Abstract, “...optical fibers to the sighting pins, thus illuminating..."; see VanCamp [0069],”…an illuminated reticule…”), and a visible calibration laser (see Morrison [0011],"...IR laser that is coordinated, or calibrated, with the visible laser..."; see Zykan Col. 6, ll.40-43,"...The rangefinder 10 is preferably programmed for range windows, range display time, and other calibration parameters by coded actuation of the trigger switch..."; see VanCamp [0041],”… (a laser sighting reticle)…used for calibration of targeting system…”).
Morrison and Zykan do not disclose an accelerometer and a global positioning system (GPS) sensor.
VanCamp discloses disclose an accelerometer (VanCamp [0043],” …an accelerometer…”), and a global positioning system (GPS) sensor (see VanCamp [0124],” …a GPS receiver…”).
Morrison, Zykan and VanCamp are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison and Zykan to include electronic components taught by VanCamp to provide improved visibility and compensate for other known variables (VanCamp [0077]).
Regarding claim 17, Morrison discloses wherein the detachable range-finding electronics module integrates a rangefinder sensor aiming calibration system adapted to allow a ranging beam of the rangefinder sensor to be adjusted in at least one direction (see Morrison Abstract,” A multiple laser sight system for an archery bow or the like configured so that the multiple laser systems can be calibrated together and having features such that the user can use one laser system during the day and one laser system during the light”; [0013],” Then, during use, the system can correct and compensate for factors such as distance…”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US 20150040409 A1) in view of Zykan et al. (US 6073352 A), and further in view of Larson (US 9103632 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Morrison, Zykan and Larson disclose a targeting system. Morrison and Zykan do not disclose an illuminating element gasket which surrounds each of the illuminating elements and is adapted to prevent radiant light from leaking over to one or more adjacent fiber optic repositories.
Larson discloses an illuminating element gasket which surrounds each of the illuminating elements and is adapted to prevent radiant light from leaking over to one or more adjacent fiber optic repositories (see Larson Col. 9, 15-18,”… a cover or shield may be provided to block a variable amount of light from impinging through an open side of wheel 115 and onto the length of fiber optic cable 300…”).
Morrison, Zykan and Larson are considered to be analogous to the claimed inventions because both are in the same field of archery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify teachings of Morrison and Zykan to include shield taught by Larson to resist damage to sight pins or other internal mechanisms (Larson Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for claims being objected to as being
allowable. Claims would be considered allowable if written to incorporate the limitations of the
base and any intervening claims:
Claim 7 is considered allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest
fiber optic repositories is oriented such that a corresponding illuminating element housed in the detachable range-finding electronics module is positioned directly above, and in-line with, the respective fiber optic fiber received in the fiber optic repository when the detachable range-finding electronics module is attached to the fixed-pin archery sight. Prior art teaches a rangefinder attached to a bow sight. Therefore, the Prior art does not teach an illuminating element housed in a detachable rangefinder corresponding with fiber optic repositories in a fixed-pin sight when both are attached or coupled together.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are considered relevant but fail to teach the combination as
Claimed:
Wassmer et al. (US 20150075016 A1) discloses a targeting system for an archery bow
Heaton et al. (US 20140144030 A1) discloses a targeting system for an archery bow and rangefinder
Holmberg et al. (US 8656629 B2) discloses a targeting system for an archery bow and rangefinder
Gorsuch et al. (US 20100115778 A1) discloses a targeting system for an archery bow and rangefinder, accelerometer and optical illuminates
Logsdon (US 8272137 B2) discloses a targeting system for an archery bow and optical illuminates
Samuels et al. (US 8919000 B2) discloses a targeting system for an archery bow and optical illuminates
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/LOUIS JAWAYNE WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
