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 the mounting block defining a picatinny rail and the linearly extendable member coupled to the picatinny rail as described in 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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 6, an 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adcock, U.S. Patent No. 6,957,648. As to Claim 1, Adcock teaches an archery bow (12) comprising a riser (14), a limb (19, 20) coupled to the riser, and a cam (32), coupled to the limb, Col. 2, ln. 52-53, and 62 – Col. 3, ln. 1 and see Figure 1. Adcock teaches a support (50, 55, 56), coupled to the archery bow, Col. 3, ln. 13-15 and 18-23. The support may comprise a mounting block (50) and a member (55, 56) having a proximal end coupled to the mounting block and a distal end configured to contact a support surface, Col. 3 ln. 24-27 and 48-49 and see Figure 2. The member may be linearly repositionable relative to the archery bow along a second axis that is nonparallel to the support surface when the archery bow is disposed upright on the support surface, Col. 3, ln. 24-30 and see Figure 7, noting capacity for variable degree of insertion of the member providing linear repositioning along and axis nonparallel to the support surface. As to Claim 2, Adcock teaches a second member (55,56) coupled to the mounting block, Col. 3, ln. 24-27 and see Figure 6, noting two members. Adcock is applied as above with regard to two members configured to contact the support surface and linearly repositionable and configured as claimed. As to Claim 3, Adcock teaches that the member is linearly repositionable from a first configuration (member inserted to maximum depth) to a second configuration (member inserted to a lesser extent), Col. 3 ln. 25-27 and see Figures 2 and 7. It is inherent that the riser would be in a second orientation relative to the support surface when the member is in the second orientation, see Figure 1, noting that extending the members would necessarily tilt the bow to a second configuration. As to Claim 6, Adcock is applied as in Claims 1 and 3. As to Claim 10, Adcock is applied as in Claim 1. As to Claim 11, Adcock is applied as in Claim 3. As to Claim 12, Adcock is applied as in Claim 3, noting that the mounting block may be coupled to the archery bow/riser and the mounting block may be coupled to the riser, Col. 3, ln. 19-23. As to Claim 13, Adcock is applied as in Claims 10 and 11, noting that linear repositioning inherently results in first and second positions associated with first and second configurations as well as linear offset. As to Claim 14, Adcock is applied as in Claim 13 and as in Claim 12 with regard to the mounting block being coupled to the archery bow/riser. As to Claim 15, Adcock is applied as in Claim 2.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adcock, in view of Leis et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0155038. Adcock substantially shows the claimed limitations, as disclosed above. As to Claims 4, 8, and 20, Adcock does not disclose a pocket coupled to the riser. Leis teaches a limb pocket (9) coupled to the riser (11) of an archery bow (6), paragraph 0041. A limb (7) may be coupled to the riser by engaging the pocket, paragraphs 0051, 0041, and see Figure 4, noting that the pocket is a limb cup. A mounting block (12) may be configured to clamp to the pocket to couple a support (20, 30, 40) to the archery bow, paragraphs 0032 and 0044, noting that a portion of an engagement cavity of the mounting block may be engaged with the pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Adcock with a pocket coupled to the riser, the limb engaging the pocket, and the mounting block configured to clamp to the pocket, as taught by Leis, to provide Adcock with a known substitute support mounting.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adcock, in view of Leis, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Evans, U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0178605. Adcock, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claims 5 and 9, Adcock, as modified, is silent as to the mounting block including a picatinny mounting. Evans teaches that an exemplary mounting bracket for supporting an accessory (sight) on an archery bow, may be a picatinny style mounting interface, paragraph 0018, suggesting a picatinny clamp interfacing with a picatinny rail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a picatinny style mounting interface to couple an accessory to the archery bow, as taught and suggested by Evans, to provide Adcock, as modified, with a known substitute mounting block coupling. Adcock, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifying that the picatinny clamp may be arranged on the mounting block with the picatinny rail arranged on the pocket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the clamp and rail as claimed since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adcock, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Stocks, U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0139525. Adcock, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 7 and 16, Adcock is silent as to an intermediate portion. Stocks teaches a support (30, 60) comprising a mounting block (30) and a member assembly (60), paragraph 0032. The member assembly may comprise first and second members (60), the first member being coupled to the second member by an intermediate portion, see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple the first and second members by an intermediate portion, as taught by Stocks, to provide Adcock with connected members to yield the predicable result of maintaining alignment between the members.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adcock, in view of Coalson et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0018628. Adcock substantially shows the claimed limitations, as disclosed above. As to Claim 18, Adcock teaches that the member may include a foot (64), Col. 3 ln. 48-49. The examiner finds that the portion of the member proximate the foot may be considered an extension. Adcock is silent as to a bushing including an aperture. Coalson teaches a support (10 for an archery bow comprising a member (28), paragraph 0027. The member may include a bushing (94) including an aperture (67), paragraph 0047. The bushing may include a first set of apertures (116, 118) arranged radially around the aperture, paragraph 0052. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Adcock with a bushing including an aperture and radial recess, as taught by Coalson, to provide Adcock with radial arrangement of detent receiving recesses to provide rotatably positionable members to yield the predictable result of facilitating movement of the member to a compact orientation. As to Claim 19, Coalson teaches a second recess (116) in a second member (other leg) corresponding to the first set of recesses and a threaded fastener (100) in an aperture (67), paragraphs 0049, 0052, and 0053, noting that the detent cooperates with the radially arranged apertures to secure the member in a selected orientation with respect to the other member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Adcock with a second recess and threaded fitting, as taught by Coalson, to provide Adcock with a member rotatably positionable with respect to a mounting block and secured in a selected position by a detent cooperating with radially arranged recesses to yield the predictable result of adding a feature of a rotatably positionable member. Adcock, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing duplicate second recesses to form a set of recesses and except for providing a threaded fastener in an aperture instead of a threaded aperture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide duplicate second recesses cooperating with the first set of recesses, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 US PQ 8. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute a threaded aperture in place of a threaded fastener in an aperture, since it was known in the art that a threaded aperture may be substituted as noted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 14 September 2026
Prosecution Insights