Returned07/31/2026 07:11:53 AM
EKIM to AELLIOTT
See annotations as you did not address some of the claims in your prior art rejection. Regarding your ODP rejection, you seem to understand that the rejection is based on a claim by claim analysis. You are referring to the disclosure of the reference patent to interpret the claims. Although this is fine, examiners rely on case law (in re Van Geuns) pointing out that the spec is not read into the claims for interpretation of claims for prior art rejections. Just pointing this out.
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
Claims 1-20, filed November 8, 2024, are pending and under examination.
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/597,420, filed November 9, 2023. The benefit claim is acknowledged. Entitlement to the claimed benefit date is subject to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78, including support for the claimed subject matter in the provisional application.
Continuity
The application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/597,420, filed November 9, 2023. Continuity data also identifies Application No. 19/283,508, filed July 29, 2025, as a continuation-in-part that issued as US 12498205 B2; Application No. 19/378,184, filed November 3, 2025, as a continuation of Application No. 19/283,508 and published as US 20260055999 A1; and Application No. 19/715,704, filed June 22, 2026, as a continuation-in-part. The issued patent and published pending application are addressed in the double patenting section below. Application No. 19/715,704 is not relied upon in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed September 17, 2025, and October 1, 2025, have been considered by the examiner. Consideration of the cited of 13 information is not an admission that any cited document is prior art or material to patentability. See 37 CFR 1.97(h) and MPEP § 609.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following minor informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0003] recites that the spring-loaded retaining member "is bias to translate." The phrase should read "is biased to translate."
Paragraph [0004] recites that the plunger "is bias by a spring." The phrase should read "is biased by a spring." The phrase "by a pin that is fixedly coupled with the body being received through a slot" should also be revised to clarify that the pin is both fixedly coupled with the body and received through the blade slot.
Paragraph [0006] introduces "The plunger" without first introducing a plunger in that embodiment and states that the plunger "is bias by a resilient member." The paragraph should first introduce "a plunger" and should recite that the plunger "is biased by a resilient member." The pin-and-slot phrase should be clarified as noted for paragraph [0004].
Paragraph [0040] recites that the plunger "may then be bias back" into the notches. The phrase should read "may then be biased back" into the notches.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites that the plunger "is bias by a spring." The phrase should read "is biased by a spring." The phrase "by a pin that is fixedly coupled with the body being received through a slot" should also be revised to clarify that the pin is fixedly coupled with the body and received through the blade slot. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following minor informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 introduces a second blade member having a slot, but then recites that the pin is received within "the slot of the blade member." The phrase should identify the slot of the second blade member.
Claims 8 and 16 recite "a plunger bias by" a spring or resilient member. The phrase should read "a plunger biased by" the recited biasing member.
Claims 8 and 16 recite that the blade member is configured to rotate and translate "by a pin that is fixedly coupled with the body being received through a slot." The phrase should be revised to clarify that the pin is fixedly coupled with the body and is received through the blade slot.
Claim 12 recites "the notch," whereas claim 8 introduces "a recess." Applicant should use consistent terminology or expressly introduce the notch.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The instant application, US 12498205 B2, and Application No. 19/378,184 name Matt Haas as inventor and identify TrikaUSA Inc. as applicant or assignee. US 12498205 B2 issued from a continuation-in-part of the instant application. Application No. 19/378,184 is a continuation of that continuation-in-part. The references therefore have the required common-inventor and common-ownership relationship. The 35 U.S.C. § 121 safe harbor does not apply because the reference applications are not divisional filed as a result of a restriction requirement.
The claims of the instant application and the reference patent or application are construed according to their ordinary and customary meaning. The reference disclosure may be consulted to understand the scope of a reference claim, but it is not treated as prior art and no unclaimed limitation is imported into the reference claim. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP §§ 804 and 2145.
The one-way test is applied. The record does not establish that applicant could not have presented the conflicting claims in a single application or that the Office was solely responsible for the order of issuance. The reference patent and pending application are not applied as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. Their disclosures are consulted only to construe terms used in the reference claims. See MPEP § 804.
Claim 8-14 and 16-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, and 10-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,498,205 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the reasons below.
Instant Claims 8-10: Reference patent claim 10 recites a broadhead body, a blade member positioned partly within an inner volume, a body-fixed pin received through a blade slot, rotation and translation of the blade relative to the body, a spring-biased retainer, and a recess receiving the retainer in the retracted position (col. 14, lines 5-18). Reference patent claims 11 and 12 further recite the rear retaining member, bore, spring retention, external threads, and communicating bore and inner-volume space recited in instant claims 9 and 10 (col. 14, lines 19-28).
Instant claim 8 recites a "plunger" where reference patent claim 10 recites a "retainer." The claim language itself places the two elements in the same position, applies the same longitudinal spring bias, and requires each element to be received within the blade recess in the retracted position. A plunger is therefore a narrower species of the retainer recited in reference patent claim 10. Selecting that species for the same retaining function would have been an obvious variation. Instant claims 9 and 10 add the same retaining-member, bore, spring-retention, external-thread, and communicating-space limitations recited by reference patent claims 11 and 12. Instant claims 8-10 are therefore not patentably distinct from reference patent claims 10-12.
Instant Claims 11-14: Reference patent claim 1 recites first and second blade members positioned partly within the body and guided by a body-fixed pin through respective blade slots, together with a spring-biased member received in blade recesses in the retracted positions (col. 12, lines 56-67 through col. 13, lines 1-6). Reference patent claim 4 recites opposite-side body slots through which the blades protrude; claim 5 recites blade recesses defined on blade shoulders; claim 6 recites external blade edges protruding from the body; and claim 7 recites the blades protruding from respective sides (col. 13, lines 17-34). These limitations are the same as, or narrower than, the limitations of instant claims 11-14. The plunger recited by instant claim 8 is a narrower species of the spring-biased member recited by reference patent claim 1 because both elements are received within the blade recesses to retain the blades in the retracted positions. Instant claims 11-14 are therefore not patentably distinct.
Instant Claims 16-18: Instant claims 16-18 correspond to instant claims 8-10 but recite a resilient member instead of a spring. Reference patent claims 10-12 expressly recite a spring (col. 14, lines 5-28). A spring is a species of resilient member. The broader resilient-member terminology and the use of the narrower plunger species for the retainer do not patentably distinguish instant claims 16-18 from reference patent claims 10-12.
Instant Claims 19-20: Reference patent claim 13 recites a first opening on a first side, a second opening on a second side, a bladed edge protruding from the first opening, and a contact surface protruding from the second opening when the blade is in the retracted position (col. 14, lines 29-36). Reference patent claim 14 further recites a second blade having the reversed arrangement, with its bladed edge protruding from the second opening and its contact surface protruding from the first opening when the second blade is in the retracted position (col. 14, lines 37-43). Instant claims 19 and 20 recite the same opening and blade relationships without requiring the relationships to occur in the retracted position. The entire scope of reference patent claims 13 and 14 therefore falls within the broader scope of instant claims 19 and 20. Instant claims 19 and 20 are not patentably distinct from reference patent claims 13 and 14.
Instant Claim 15: Instant claim 15 is not included in this rejection. Instant claim 15 requires the locking surface to abut the plunger. Reference patent claim 8 instead requires its locking surfaces to abut a portion of the body proximate the member (col. 13, lines 35-43). Contact with the body near the member does not necessarily require direct contact with the member.
Claim 8-14 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, and 10-14 of copending Application No. 19/378,184 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons below.
Instant Claims 8-10: Copending claim 10 recites the body, body-fixed pin received through a blade slot, blade rotation and translation, spring-biased retainer, and blade recess of instant claim 8. Copending claims 11 and 12 recite the rear retaining member, bore, spring retention, external threads, and communicating internal space of instant claims 9 and 10. The plunger recited by instant claim 8 is a narrower species of the retainer recited by copending claim 10 because the claim language gives both elements the same spring bias, position, and blade-retaining relationship. Instant claims 8-10 are therefore not patentably distinct from copending claims 10-12.
Instant Claims 11-14: Copending claim 1 and copending claims 4-7 recite the corresponding two-blade, opposite-slot, shoulder-recess, external-edge, and opposite-side limitations of instant claims 11-14. The claimed relationships are the same as, or narrower than, those recited by instant claims 11-14. Instant claims 11-14 are therefore not patentably distinct.
Instant Claims 16-18: Copending claims 10-12 expressly recite a spring, which is a species of the resilient member recited by instant claims 16-18. The broader resilient-member terminology and the narrower plunger species do not patentably distinguish instant claims 16-18 from copending claims 10-12.
Instant Claims 19-20: Copending claims 13 and 14 recite the same opposite-opening arrangements as instant claims 19 and 20 and additionally require those arrangements in the retracted position. The copending claims therefore fall within the broader scope of instant claims 19 and 20. Instant claims 19 and 20 are not patentably distinct from copending claims 13 and 14.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young (US 20140155202 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Young teaches a mechanical broadhead having main body 110, pointed tip 112 at the forward end, and a connected internal space formed by axial bore 115 and counterbores 117 and 142. Young states that the body has "an axial bore adjacent a forward end of the main body, a first counterbore adjacent the axial bore, and a second counterbore adjacent the first counterbore" and that a cam follower is slidably received in the counterbore ([0028]; Figs. 1-3). Young further states that pointed tip 112 is disposed exteriorly at the forward end ([0029]; Figs. 1-3). The pointed tip is the target-penetrating end, and the communicating bore regions are the claimed inner volume and longitudinal rear bore under BRI.
Young teaches opposite body slots and a blade member positioned partly within the inner volume. Young states that "[e]ach cutting blade extends through a longitudinal slot in the main body," with inward cam portions extending into the counterbores ([0029]; Figs. 1-3). Young further states that the embodiment has "two blades 114 mounted 180 degrees opposed to each other" ([0087]; Figs, 1-2) . The corresponding longitudinal slots are therefore formed on opposite sides and provide access to the internal space.
Young teaches the spring-loaded retaining member and blade notch. Young states that a spring acts on a second cam follower and that, in the closed position, "the second cam follower exerts a force against the sear notch to secure the cutting blades in the closed position" ([0029]). Young further states that "the compressed spring 116 exerts a force between the large cam follower 126 and the sear notch surface 138 of each blade 114, thereby holding the blades 114 in the closed or retracted position" ([0087]; Figs. 1-2). Follower 126 moves longitudinally in counterbore 142 and is biased forward by spring 116. Under BRI, spring 116 and follower 126 form the spring-loaded retaining member, and sear notch 138 receives the follower in the retracted position.
Young also teaches a pin extending through the inner volume and received within a blade slot. Young recites an elongate slot in each blade and a stop member running in the slot, with the stop member selected from a pin or circumferential ring traversing the blade slots (claims 3-4; Figs. 1-3). Upon target contact, Young states that the tip moves the sear notch from its locked position and spring 116 then "forces the blades 114 to open to the maximum amount allowed by the slot 136 and the stop pin 128" ([0089]; Figs. 1-2). Thus, the blade is driven by target contact from the retracted position to its maximum, fully deployed position. Claim 1 does not require direct target contact with the blade, a body-fixed pin, or blade translation.
Regarding claim 3, Young teaches spring 116 and longitudinally sliding follower 126, which is a plunger under the stated BRI. Spring 116 biases follower 126 into sear notch 138 to retain each blade in the closed position ([0029], [0087]; Figs. 1-3). Figures 1-3 show the sear notch on the rearward-facing cam region of each blade.
Regarding claim 4, Young teaches two blades 114 mounted 180 degrees apart, each having a sear notch, elongate slot, and the same stop-pin relationship ([0087], [0089]; claims 3-4; Figs. 1-3). Spring force acts against the sear notch surface of each blade and opens both blades to the maximum position allowed by their slots and stop member ([0087], [0089]). This teaches the second blade and its corresponding retention and deployment structure.
Regarding claim 5, Young teaches first and second blades 114 mounted 180 degrees opposed to each other, such that the first blade protrudes from one side of the broadhead and the second blade protrudes from the opposite side ([0087]; Figs. 1- 2). Young further explains that the arrow flies until pointed tip 112 contacts the target, plunger tip 112 then moves within body 110 to release sear notches 138, and spring 116 forces both opposed blades 114 outward to the maximum position allowed by slots 136 and stop pin 128 ([0088]-[0089]; Figs. 1-2). Because the blades are mounted on opposite sides, their outward deployment moves them in opposite directions from body 110 as pointed tip 112 penetrates the target. Young therefore teaches every additional limitation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Young teaches threaded fastener or coupler 130 removably attached to the rearward end of body 110 during normal operation ([0086]; Figs. 1-3). Young further recites spring 116 having a second end bearing against the closed end of the threaded coupler (claim 5). Spring 116 is therefore positioned between follower 126 and the retaining coupler, and the retaining coupler is fixed to the body in the assembled operating condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 20140155202 A1) in view of Pedersen (WO 2015094976 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Young teaches the broadhead of claim 1 as discussed above. Young initiates deployment by target contact with separate plunger tip 112 and does not expressly teach a contact surface on the blade itself that is driven by the target so that the blade moves and rotates along its slot.
Pedersen teaches a deployable blade having a forward impact shoulder and a longitudinal slot cooperating with a fixed pin. Pedersen recites that the blade includes "a forward impact shoulder and a longitudinally running slot" and that target impact causes the blade to translate aft so that it "rotates and translates on said fixed pin and moves outwardly to an extended position" (claims 31-32; Abstract; Figs, 1, 2a-2f). Pedersen therefore teaches the limitation not expressly taught by Young.
Young is the base broadhead, and Pedersen is a comparable deployable broadhead improved by using an integral blade impact shoulder and pin-slot guidance. A person of ordinary skill could have applied that known technique to Young by forming the shoulder and guiding slot in the blade and locating the pin through the slot using ordinary broadhead machining and assembly methods. The shoulder would continue receiving target force, the pin and slot would continue guiding rotation and translation, and Young's spring mechanism would continue supplying deployment energy. Pedersen demonstrates the same technique in the same device class, so the resulting directly actuated and controlled blade movement would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 7, Young teaches the broadhead of claim 1 but does not clearly position blade slot 136 proximate the blade front end at which the blade is coupled to the body. Pedersen positions the longitudinal blade slot directly behind the forward impact shoulder, and fixed pin 20 passes through the slot to couple the blade to the fixed broadhead structure (claim 31; Figs. 1, 2a-2f). Under the stated BRI, the slot is in the forward region of the blade relative to the blade as a whole and is proximate the blade front end.
Pedersen's forward slot placement is part of the same known impact-shoulder and pin-slot deployment technique applied for claim 2. A person of ordinary skill could have used that placement in Young by locating the guiding slot in the forward blade region. The slot and pin would retain their guiding function, and the forward location would predictably provide the moment arm and rearward travel path demonstrated by Pedersen. The result would therefore have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. 5 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (WO 2015094976 A1) in view of Young (US 20140155202 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Pedersen teaches an expandable broadhead having deployable blade 16, longitudinal blade slot 18, and fixed retaining pin 20. Pedersen states that the deployable blade is "rotatably and translatably mounted" and that a forward blade shoulder striking a target moves the blade aft, with the blade slot "translating and rotating on the fixed retaining pin" ([0016]; Abstract; Figs. 1, 2a-2f). Pedersen further recites rear-deploying blades that rotate and translate on a fixed retaining pin carried by the fixed blades, with the pin extending through the longitudinal slot (claims 29-32). Thus, Pedersen teaches the body, partly housed blade, body-fixed pin received through the blade slot, blade rotation and translation, and retracted and deployed positions.
Pedersen also teaches notch 34 receiving frangible tab 32 to retain the blade during flight (Description of Figs. 3, 7, and 12; Figs. 1, 12). Pedersen therefore differs from claim 8 by using a breakaway tab instead of a longitudinally spring-biased plunger received in the recess.
Young teaches the missing spring-biased plunger and recess relationship. Young states that "the compressed spring 116 exerts a force between the large cam follower 126 and the sear notch surface 138 of each blade 114, thereby holding the blades 114 in the closed or retracted position" ([0087]). Follower 126 slides longitudinally in counterbore 142 and engages the blade during release and deployment ([0029], [0089]-[0091]; Figs. 1-3). Under the stated BRI, follower 126 is a plunger and sear notch 138 is a recess receiving the plunger.
Pedersen is a base broadhead that differs from claim 8 by using frangible tab 32 where the claim uses Young's spring-biased follower 126. Both retention elements and their functions were known: each engages a blade notch to retain the blade before impact and permits release during deployment. A person of ordinary skill could have substituted Young's follower and spring for Pedersen's tab by supporting the follower for longitudinal movement in alignment with Pedersen's existing notch, while leaving Pedersen's fixed pin and blade slot unchanged. The follower would continue retaining and releasing the blade, and the pin-slot arrangement would continue guiding rotation and translation. Young demonstrates operation of the substituted follower with deployable broadhead blades, so the result of a resettable spring-biased detent would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Young teaches threaded fastener 130 having first threaded end 132 for coupling to the arrow shaft and opposite threaded end 134 for attachment to the rearward end of body 110 ([0086]; Figs. 1-3). Young also teaches spring 116 retained in the rear body space against the threaded coupler (claim 5; [0087]; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Young teaches axial bore 115, first counterbore 117 adjacent axial bore 115, and second counterbore 142 adjacent first counterbore 117. Followers 120 and 126 are slidably received in the communicating bore regions, and spring 116 is positioned between the followers ([0028]-[0029], [0088]-[0091]; Figs. 1-3). These communicating bore regions cooperatively form a continuous internal space containing follower 126, which is the claimed plunger under the stated BRI, and spring 116. Young therefore teaches the additional space and component-positioning limitations of claim 10.
Pedersen is the base broadhead, and Young teaches the known supporting technique used with the spring-follower mechanism: a rear bore, a spring-retaining threaded coupler, and communicating internal bore regions. A person of ordinary skill incorporating Young's spring-follower retention into Pedersen could have applied those associated support structures using conventional threaded and bored broadhead construction. The bore and inner volume would continue housing the plunger and spring, and the coupler would continue retaining the spring and connecting the broadhead to the arrow shaft. Young demonstrates the complete arrangement, so the resulting housing and coupling would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 11, Young teaches corresponding longitudinal slots in opposite sides of body 110, with each blade extending through a body slot ([0029], [0087]; Figs. 1-3). Pedersen independently teaches deployable blades partly housed in fixed-blade channels (claims 28-33; Figs. 1, 2a-2f).
The prior art therefore contains each claimed element, with the difference being their use together in the modified Pedersen broadhead. A person of ordinary skill could have formed Young's known opposite body openings around the Pedersen blades using ordinary ferrule machining, and the openings would continue providing access for blade movement while the blades and retention mechanism retain their separate functions. Young demonstrates that this housing arrangement works with spring-biased broadhead blades, so the combined arrangement would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Pedersen teaches notch 34 in a projecting aft region of blade 16, where the notch receives tab 32 in the retracted condition (Description of Figs. 3, 7, and 12; Figs. 1, 12). The illustrated stepped or projecting region defining the notch is a shoulder under the stated BRI. Young likewise teaches sear notch 138 at a stepped transition between blade cam surfaces and receives follower 126 in that notch ([0029], [0087]; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Pedersen recites deployable blades having outwardly facing cutting edges (claim 33). Young likewise teaches each blade having "an outward facing cutting edge" and shows the edge protruding beyond the body ([0029], [0087]; Figs. 1-2). The applied references therefore teach a blade along an external edge that protrudes from the body.
Regarding claim 14, Pedersen teaches multiple rear-deploying auxiliary blades mounted around the broadhead (claims 28-33; Figs. 1, 3-4), and Young teaches two blades mounted 180 degrees apart ([0087]; Figs. 1-2). The references therefore expressly teach first and second blades protruding from respective sides. Claim 14 does not require the second blade to duplicate every unrecited feature of the first blade.
Regarding claim 15, Young states that after spring 116 opens the blades, "the blades 114 are locked in place by the side of the large cam follower 126" ([0089]; Fig. 2). The contacted blade cam surface is a locking surface because it directly abuts the plunger and limits movement out of the deployed position. Pedersen further teaches the deployed blade seating against camming surface 36 to prevent inward return (Description of Figs. 2f and 8).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (WO 2015094976 A1) in view of Young (US 20140155202 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Pedersen and Young teach the body, partly housed blade, body- fixed pin received through a blade slot, blade rotation and translation, retracted and deployed positions, longitudinally movable plunger, and blade recess for the reasons stated regarding claim 8. Claim 16 recites the broader term "resilient member" instead of a spring. Young teaches stressed compression spring 116 that stores potential energy and exerts a restoring bias on follower 126 ([0031], [0087]-[0089]). A spring is a resilient member. The same substitution described for claim 8 therefore teaches every limitation of claim 16 and would have produced the same predictable result. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 17, Young teaches the rear retaining coupler, bore, spring retention, and external threads for attachment to the arrow shaft ([0086]-[0087]; claim 5; Figs. 1-3). Spring 116 is the resilient member of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Young teaches axial bore 115 and adjacent counterbores 117 and 142 forming communicating internal regions that contain follower 126 and spring 116 ([0028]-[0029], [0088]-[0091]; Figs. 1-3). The communicating bore regions cooperatively form the claimed space, follower 126 is the plunger under the stated BRI, and spring 116 is the resilient member. Young therefore teaches the additional space and component-positioning limitations of claim 18.
Applying Young's rear bore, communicating internal space, retaining coupler, and resilient spring together with Young's spring-follower mechanism to Pedersen would have been predictable for the same reasons stated regarding claims 9 and 10. Each component would continue performing its known housing, retention, biasing, and coupling function, and Young demonstrates that the components operate together in a deployable broadhead. A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (WO 2015094976 A1) in view of Young (US 20140155202 A1), and further in view of Grace (US 20170191808 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Pedersen and Young teach the broadhead of claim 16 for the reasons stated above. The combination does not expressly arrange the cutting edge of one blade through one side opening and its target-contact surface through the opposite side opening.
Grace teaches ferrule 40 having longitudinal slot 60 extending through the ferrule from first side R to second side L, with exterior surfaces 41 and 42 on opposite sides ([0090]-[0091]; Figs. 1, 5, 7). Grace further states that each blade lever arm extends from the opposite side of the ferrule from its cutting edge. Specifically, "the first lever arm 25 of the first cutting blade 20 extends outward adjacent the second exterior surface 42" while cutting edge 21 extends from first exterior surface 41 ([0096]; Figs. 1, 5, 7). Forward-facing surface 25F is the target-contact surface because target penetration uses lever arms 25 and 35 to rotate the blades outward ([0093], [0103]).
The modified Pedersen-Young broadhead is the base device, and Grace is a comparable broadhead improved by using an opposite-side lever arm and cutting- edge geometry. A person of ordinary skill could have applied Grace's known blade profile to the base device by shaping the blade so the lever and cutting edge extend through opposite sides while retaining Pedersen's pin-slot guidance and Young's spring-biased retainer. The lever would continue receiving target force, the cutting edge would continue cutting, and the pin-slot and retainer would continue their existing functions. Grace demonstrates the geometry in a broadhead, so the resulting opposite-opening arrangement would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 20, Grace teaches first and second blades that are "identical and/or mirror constructs" ([0093]). Grace further states that the cutting edge of the first blade and lever arm of the second blade extend from one side, while the cutting edge of the second blade and lever arm of the first blade extend from the opposite side ([0011]). Grace therefore expressly teaches the reversed second- blade opening arrangement. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pulkrabek (US 7771298 B2) teaches rear-deploying blades having elongated slots cooperating with body-mounted pivot features to permit rearward and outward blade movement.
Barrie et al. (US 6910979 B2) teaches rearward blade translation and outward camming along a track to a deployed condition.
Ulmer (US 20120040787 Al) teaches mirror-oriented, target-actuated L -shaped blades having cutting and lever portions extending on opposite sides of a ferrule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights