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 December 20, 2024, are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed October 3, 2025 has been considered. The cited references have been considered to the extent compliant with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
Priority
The application claims domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 to Application Nos. 17/879,631 and
16/593,747 and under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to Provisional Application No. 62/742, 105, filed October 5, 2018. The benefit claims are acknowledged. The applied references either predate October 5, 2018 or qualify based on an earlier effective filing date.
Continuity
The present application is a continuation of Application No. 17/879, 631, filed August 2, 2022, now US 12181262 B2. Application No. 17/879,631 is a division of Application No. 16/593,747, filed October 4, 2019, now US 11402183 B2. Application No. 16/593,747 claims benefit of Provisional Application No. 62/742, 105, filed October 5, 2018.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required:
The paragraph discussing Figure 1 uses both "weak deflection vector 82" and "weak bending vector 82" for the same reference numeral. Use one term consistently.
The paragraph discussing the cross-member 54 states both that the cross-member "defines the strong bending axis 60" and that it "is oriented orthogonally to the strong bending axis 60." Clarify the intended relationship.
The sentence introducing Figure 17 recites "an arrow 10 comprises an asymmetrical feature 18 is not visible." Revise to "comprises an asymmetrical feature 18 that is not visible," or equivalent language.
The phrase "comprises recess 45" should read "comprises a recess 45."
Insert a period at the end of the sentence concluding with "oriented weak deflection vector 82" in the discussion of the second fibers 88.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because the phrase "comprising a cross-section" is grammatically awkward because a theoretical "cross-section" is a physical property but not a physical attribute inherent to the intact part itself. The claim should be revised to clarify that a cross-section of the arrow has first and second halves, for example, "wherein a cross-section of the arrow comprises a first half shaped differently from a second half."
Double Patenting
The following rejections compare the instant claims with issued claims in the application family. The instant application and the reference patents identify the same assignee and substantially overlapping inventive entities.
The present application is expressly identified as a continuation, not a divisional application. Accordingly, the prohibition against certain nonstatutory double-patenting rejections under the third sentence of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply to this continuation. Statutory double patenting is not subject to the safe harbor. See MPEP §§ 804 and 804.01.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected on the ground of anticipation-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 11402183 (US 11402183 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons stated below. See MPEP § 804.
For instant claims 1-7 and 9-13, the mapped patent claims recite every limitation of the corresponding instant claims and add narrower structural limitations. The mapped patent claims therefore anticipate the broader instant claims in the claim-to-claim comparison above. Issuance of the broader instant claims after the narrower patented claims would improperly extend the right to exclude already granted by the patent. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2).
INSTANT CLAIMS
REFERENCES CLAIMS
1). An arrow comprising: a shaft; a nock; and a structural asymmetry orienting a weak bending axis of the arrow.
1). An arrow comprising: a tubular shaft comprising a sidewall and an inner cavity, an inner surface of the tubular shaft comprising a circular shape; a nock; and a structural asymmetry orienting a weak bending axis of the arrow along its length, the asymmetry comprising a groove, a depth of the groove being less than a thickness of the sidewall; the tubular shaft comprising a cross-section, a first half of the cross-section shaped differently from a second half of the cross-section.
2). The arrow of claim 1, comprising a cross-section, a first half of the cross-section shaped differently from a second half of the cross-section.
3). The arrow of claim 2, the first half comprising the asymmetry.
2). The arrow of claim 1, the first half comprising the asymmetry.
4). The arrow of claim 1, the asymmetry extending along a length of the arrow.
3). The arrow of claim 1, the asymmetry extending an entire length of the shaft.
5). The arrow of claim 1, the shaft comprising the asymmetry.
4). The arrow of claim 1, the shaft comprising the asymmetry.
6). The arrow of claim 5, the asymmetry formed in an outer surface of the shaft.
5). The arrow of claim 4, the asymmetry formed in an outer
7). The arrow of claim 5, the shaft comprising a tube, the asymmetry formed in an inner surface of the tube.
6). The arrow of claim 4, the shaft comprising a tube comprising an asymmetry formed in an inner surface of the tube.
9). The arrow of claim 5, the shaft comprising a plurality of cavities aligned in a lengthwise direction of the arrow.
8). The arrow of claim 4, the shaft comprising a plurality of cavities aligned in a lengthwise direction of the arrow.
10). The arrow of claim 5, the shaft comprising a groove.
11). An arrow comprising: a tubular shaft comprising a longitudinal axis and an inner cavity, an inner surface of the tubular shaft comprising a circular shape; a nock; and a structural asymmetry orienting a weak bending axis of the arrow, the shaft comprising the asymmetry, the asymmetry comprising a groove extending parallel to the longitudinal axis, the groove extending an entire length of the shaft.
11). The arrow of claim 10, an outer surface of the shaft comprising the groove.
12). The arrow of claim 11, an outer surface of the shaft comprising the groove.
12). The arrow of claim 10, an inner surface of the shaft comprising the groove.
13). The arrow of claim 11, an inner surface of the shaft comprising the groove.
13). The arrow of claim 5, the asymmetry hidden in a sidewall of the shaft.
9). The arrow of claim 4, the asymmetry hidden in a sidewall of the shaft.
For instant claim 14, patent claim 10 already claims first and second fibers in the shaft of the patented arrow whose inherited claim limitations require the shaft to comprise the structural asymmetry. The only difference is that instant claim 14 expressly states that the first and second fibers are "arranged to provide" that asymmetry. The patent specification may be used to interpret the patented claim and expressly describes first fibers 86 and second fibers 88 "arranged in an asymmetrical manner" and a "selective arrangement to create an asymmetrical feature 18" (col. 9, lines 10-27 and 40-44; Fig. 20). Thus, a person of ordinary skill, reading patent claim 10 in light of its supporting disclosure, would have recognized arranging the already-claimed first and second fibers to provide the already-claimed shaft asymmetry as an obvious variation of the patented claim, not a patentably distinct invention. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(3).
INSTANT CLAIM 14
REFERENCE CLAIM 10
The arrow of claim 5, the shaft comprising first fibers and second fibers arranged to provide the asymmetry.
The arrow of claim 4, the shaft comprising first fibers and second fibers.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 12181262 (US 12181262 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons stated below. See MPEP § 804.
[Should claim 8 be US 11402183 B2 in view of US 12181262 B2?]
INSTANT CLAIM 8
REFERENCE CLAIM 1
The arrow of claim 5, the shaft comprising a tube and a stiffener, the stiffener comprising the asymmetry.
An arrow comprising: a shaft comprising a cavity, the shaft comprising an asymmetry; a nock; and a stiffener orienting a weak bending axis of the arrow, the stiffener oriented in the cavity, the stiffener comprising a cross-member that spans a diameter of the shaft.
For instant claim 8, patent claim 1 claims a cavity-containing shaft having an asymmetry and an internal stiffener that orients the weak bending axis and includes a diameter-spanning cross-member. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the diameter-spanning internal stiffener is itself a structural stiffness asymmetry of the tube because it produces direction-dependent bending stiffness. Recasting that same internal reinforcing structure as "a tube and a stiffener, the stiffener comprising the asymmetry" would have been an obvious claim-level variation of the patented structure and does not define a patentably distinct invention. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(3).
Claims 8, 15, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the corresponding claims of U.S. Patent No. 12181262 (US 12181262 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct for the reasons stated below. See MPEP § 804.
For instant claims 15 and 18-20, the mapped patent claims include every limitation of the corresponding instant claims and add the nock-to-stiffener attachment inherited from patent claim 10. The patent claims therefore anticipate the broader instant claims in the claim-to-claim comparison above. The added limitation makes the patent claims narrower; it does not make the broader instant claims patentably distinct. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2).
INSTANT CLAIMS
REFERENCES CLAIMS
15). An arrow comprising: a shaft comprising a cavity; a stiffener oriented in the cavity, the stiffener comprising an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape; and a nock attached to the shaft
10). An arrow comprising: a shaft comprising a cavity; a stiffener oriented in the cavity, the stiffener comprising an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape; and a nock attached to the shaft, the nock attached to the stiffener.
18). The arrow of claim 15, the nock comprising a recess, a portion of the stiffener oriented in the recess.
12). The arrow of claim 10, the nock comprising a recess, a portion of the stiffener oriented in the recess.
19). The arrow of claim 18, the recess comprising a shape similar to a cross-sectional shape of the stiffener.
13). The arrow of claim 12, the recess comprising a shape similar to a cross-sectional shape of the stiffener.
20). The arrow of claim 15, the stiffener comprising a cross-member that spans a diameter of the shaft
14). The arrow of claim 10, the stiffener comprising a cross-member that spans a diameter of the shaft.
For instant claim 8, patent claim 1 claims a cavity-containing shaft having an asymmetry and an internal stiffener that orients the weak bending axis and includes a diameter-spanning cross-member. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the diameter-spanning internal stiffener is itself a structural stiffness asymmetry of the tube because it produces direction-dependent bending stiffness. Recasting that same internal reinforcing structure as "a tube and a stiffener, the stiffener comprising the asymmetry" would have been an obvious claim-level variation of the patented structure and does not define a patentably distinct invention. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(3).
INSTANT CLAIM 8
REFERENCE CLAIM 1
The arrow of claim 5, the shaft comprising a tube and a stiffener, the stiffener comprising the asymmetry.
An arrow comprising: a shaft comprising a cavity, the shaft comprising an asymmetry; a nock; and a stiffener orienting a weak bending axis of the arrow, the stiffener oriented in the cavity, the stiffener comprising a cross-member that spans a diameter of the shaft.
Claim Rejections-35 U.S.C. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Greenwood (US 20200223159 A1). Greenwood's effectively filed date for the relied-upon subject matter predates the October 5, 2018 effective filing date presently accorded to the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2152 and 2154.
Regarding claim 15, Greenwood teaches a complete arrow 10 including an arrow shaft with internal bracing 100 and a nock 300. The shaft is a cylindrical tube 102 with an inside diameter 109 and ribs 104 formed on its interior ([0044]; Figs. 1-2C) . Greenwood states that the ribs "provide maximum bending stiffness" and "increase the bending stiffness" of the cylindrical tube ([0044] and [0046]) . An integral rib that reinforces the tube is a stiffener under the broadest reasonable interpretation; claim 15 does not require the stiffener to be separate from the shaft. Greenwood further teaches that the rib shape is not limiting and may be triangular, circular, quadrilateral, crescent, or another shape ([0045]; Figs. 2-2C). The disclosed crescent rib has an asymmetrical cross-sectional shape about at least one transverse axis. Greenwood also teaches a nock 300 fitted into the shaft ([0047]-[0048]; Figs. 6-8). Greenwood therefore discloses every limitation of independent claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Greenwood teaches that the nock shaft 304 is "formed with grooves 306" and that the "nock shaft grooves 306 correspond with the ribs 104 of the arrow shaft 100," which allows the nock shaft 304 to be inserted into the ribbed shaft ([0047]; Figs. 6-7). Greenwood further describes the nock as an "internally fitted" component ([0048]). Because ribs 104 are integral stiffeners of the shaft, fitting the nock into the shaft with grooves keyed to those ribs connects the nock to the stiffeners, satisfying "the nock attached to the stiffener" under the broadest reasonable interpretation of "attached."
Regarding claim 18, Greenwood teaches nock shaft grooves 306 that correspond with ribs 104 and receive the ribs when the nock shaft is inserted into the arrow shaft ([0047]; Figs. 6-7). Each groove 306 is a recess in the nock shaft, and a portion of the corresponding rib/stiffener is oriented in that recess when assembled.
Regarding claim 19, Greenwood expressly states that the "nock shaft grooves 306 correspond with the ribs 104" ([0047]; Figs. 6-7). A recess profile corresponding to and receiving the rib has a shape similar to the rib cross-sectional shape under the broadest reasonable interpretation of "similar."
Claim Rejections-35 U.S.C. 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekavich (US 5273293 A) in view of Davis et al. (EP 1859838 A1, "Davis").
Regarding claim 1, Lekavich teaches an arrow 40 having a hollow cylindrical shaft 42 extending between an arrowhead and a nock, with fletching near the nock (col. 3, lines 8-15; Fig. 3). Lekavich further teaches longitudinal shaft features that strengthen or stiffen the shaft and states that "fewer or more protuberances can be used or differently positioned depending on the desired stiffness and weight of the arrow 40" (col. 3, lines 17-39; Figs. 3-4). These features are structural, but Lekavich does not expressly teach orienting the circumferential structural asymmetry to define a weak bending axis. Lekavich therefore supplies the base arrow because it expressly permits the number and position of stiffness-altering shaft features to be selected according to desired stiffness.
Davis teaches the known technique of angularly orienting internal shaft reinforcement to control directional bending. Davis states that ports oriented in one direction "provide a stiffer shaft" in one plane and "a more flexible shaft" in the perpendicular plane ([0041]), and further teaches that the internal wall may be positioned along the neutral axis for more bending flexibility or "like an I Beam at 90 degrees to the neutral axis to greatly improve the bending stiffness" ([0067]). Davis therefore supplies a known, applicable technique: angularly positioning shaft reinforcement to establish relatively stiff and flexible bending planes.
A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying Davis's orientation technique to Lekavich's selectable longitudinal shaft features would predictably establish a predetermined weak bending axis while preserving the features' known stiffening function. The scope and content of the references, their difference from claim 1, and the predictable mechanical effect of the proposed orientation therefore provide the required rational underpinning. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 2, Lekavich states that "fewer or more protuberances can be used or differently positioned depending on the desired stiffness and weight of the arrow 40" (col. 3, lines 31-39; Fig. 4). In plain language, an unequally positioned protuberance, groove, notch, rib, or flat changes the shape of one transverse half of the shaft relative to the opposing half. Thus, the modified Lekavich shaft described for claim 1 has a cross-section with a first half shaped differently from a second half.
Regarding claim 3, Lekavich does not expressly identify the claimed "first half" as containing the weak-axis-producing asymmetry. Lekavich nevertheless expressly permits its stiffness-altering protuberances to be "differently positioned" around the shaft (col. 3, lines 31-39; Fig. 4). Davis teaches that the orientation of shaft reinforcement determines which bending plane is stiffer or more flexible ([0041] and [0067]). In the modified shaft of claims 1-2, placing the selected stiffness-altering feature in the first half makes that first half comprise the structural asymmetry and, when oriented according to Davis, establishes the corresponding weak bending axis.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have placed the stiffness-altering feature in the selected first half as part of applying Davis's known orientation technique to Lekavich's expressly repositionable shaft features. The placement is the concrete implementation of the same known technique applied to the same base shaft for the same predictable purpose of controlling the direction of bending stiffness, and it does not alter the operating principle of either reference. The rearrangement-of-parts precedent supports the same conclusion because Lekavich expressly permits the stiffness-altering features to be differently positioned and the feature continues to perform the same stiffness-altering function after relocation. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), shifting the position of a starting switch was held obvious where the relocation did not modify the device's operation. Similarly, in In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), the particular placement of a known contact was an obvious design choice. Here, selecting the claimed first half rather than the opposing half likewise changes only the circumferential location of the known stiffness-altering feature while preserving its function, and Davis provides the reason for selecting the location: establishing the desired directional bending response. The precedent serves as supporting rationale rather than a per se rule. See KSR; MPEP §§ 2143(I)(D) and 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 4, Lekavich expressly states that although the flutes preferably extend the entire length of shaft 42, "they may extend only partially along the shaft 42 or may be interrupted by a smooth cylindrical section or sections" (col. 3, lines 17-25; Figs. 3, 5, and 7). The structural asymmetry therefore extends along a length of the arrow as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Lekavich states that "the shaft 42 has a wall 43" and that the wall has "longitudinally, outwardly extended arcuate protuberances 48" defining the flutes (col. 3, lines 24-39; Fig. 4). Thus, the stiffness-altering structural feature is formed as part of the shaft itself, so the shaft comprises the asymmetry.
Regarding claim 6, Lekavich describes shaft wall 43 as having a "generally cylindrical external surface 44" and "longitudinally, outwardly extended arcuate protuberances 48" (col. 3, lines 24-39; Fig. 4). The protuberances are therefore formed in the outer surface of the shaft and satisfy the added limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Lekavich teaches a hollow shaft wall 60 having an external surface 62 and an internal surface 64 and states that "the wall 60 includes inwardly projected rectangular notches 66 extending longitudinally therealong" (col. 4, lines 12-30; Fig. 8). Figure 8 shows the notches at the inner surface of the hollow tube. Thus, the shaft comprises a tube with the asymmetry formed in its inner surface.
Regarding claim 8, Lekavich teaches a hollow tube and stiffness-altering wall features, but it does not expressly teach a distinct internal reinforcing member that is reasonably characterized as a stiffener comprising the asymmetry.
Davis teaches that two or more hollow tubes are molded together to form a common internal wall and states that the common wall improves stiffness "by acting as a brace to resist twisting" ([0037]). Davis further states that the internal wall "provides structural reinforcement to resist deformations and buckling failures" ([0046]) and that its orientation can be selected to increase flexibility or stiffness ([0067]). The common internal wall is therefore a stiffener under the broadest reasonable interpretation and, when angularly oriented, supplies the claimed structural stiffness asymmetry.
A person of ordinary skill would have applied Davis's known internal reinforcing-wall technique to Lekavich's hollow arrow shaft because both references use longitudinal structural reinforcement to control stiffness in lightweight hollow sporting shafts. Davis expressly teaches the wall's reinforcing function and the predictable effect of its orientation. Incorporating that internal stiffener into Lekavich would retain the known reinforcement function while predictably providing the directional stiffness required by the claim. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 9, Lekavich does not expressly teach a plurality of discrete cavities aligned successively in the lengthwise direction. Davis teaches this missing feature. Davis describes ports 20 "oriented in line and with axes parallel" to the direction of travel ([0041]; Fig. 1) and teaches separating the hollow tubes "at selected axial locations along the shaft" to mold openings between them ([0068]-[0069]). Those in-line openings are a plurality of cavities aligned in the shaft's lengthwise direction.
A person of ordinary skill would have retained Davis's in-line ports when applying the multiple-tube reinforcing technique to Lekavich because Davis expressly teaches that varying the size, number, orientation, and spacing of the ports custom-tunes shaft stiffness and resiliency ([0062]). Forming the known ports at selected axial locations in the modified hollow arrow shaft would have been within ordinary skill and would predictably provide the tuning function Davis describes. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 10, Lekavich states that the hollow arrow shaft has wall 50 with external and internal surfaces 52 and 54 and that "[e]xtending longitudinally down the shaft 42 are arcuate grooves 56" (col. 3, lines 59-65; Fig. 6). The shaft therefore expressly comprises a groove.
Regarding claim 11, Lekavich directly teaches the outer-surface location. Claim 1 describes the flutes as "arcuate grooves on the outer surface of the shaft," consistent with the detailed description and Figure 6 (claim 1; col. 3, lines 59-65; Fig. 6). Thus, an outer surface of the shaft comprises the groove.
Regarding claim 12, Lekavich teaches a hollow shaft wall 60 having internal surface 64 and states that, to define the longitudinal flutes, "the wall 60 includes inwardly projected rectangular notches 66 extending longitudinally therealong" (col. 4, lines 12-30; Fig. 8). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the inwardly recessed longitudinal notch is a groove in the inner surface. Thus, the inner surface of the shaft comprises the groove.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekavich (US 5273293 A) in view of Davis et al. (EP 1859838 A1, "Davis"), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Song (US 9194671 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lekavich and Davis as applied to claim 5 above does not teach the additional limitation that the asymmetry is hidden in a sidewall of the shaft. Song teaches an arrow formed from wound carbon-fiber layers and unequal-strength spine sections. Song states that "the third carbon fiber sheet layer 230 is not in the outermost position" because the second carbon-fiber sheet layer is wound over it, and further states that one spine section "has a stronger spine" than the others (col. 12, lines 40-65; Figs. 15A-15B). The resulting unequal-strength feature is therefore buried or hidden in the shaft sidewall. Song does not expressly teach circumferentially orienting that buried asymmetry to establish the claimed weak bending axis. Davis, already applied to claim 5, teaches the applicable orientation technique: the shaft may be made stiffer in one plane and more flexible in a perpendicular plane by selecting reinforcement orientation ([0041] and [0067]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have incorporated Song's buried unequal-strength fiber region into the shaft of Lekavich as modified by Davis because Song teaches the buried fiber arrangement as a known way to control arrow-shaft spine. In contrast, Davis teaches that reinforcement orientation controls the stiff and flexible bending planes. Using Song's buried region as the shaft asymmetry would retain the known stiffness function of the reinforcement and, when positioned circumferentially under Davis, would predictably establish a repeatable weak bending axis without changing the shaft's principle of operation. The rearrangement-of-parts precedent also supports the circumferential placement. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), relocation of a known switch was held obvious where the relocation did not change operation. In In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), the particular placement of a known contact was obvious as a matter of design choice. Here, the buried unequal-strength region performs the same spine-control function regardless of its circumferential location; Davis supplies the reason to select the particular location by teaching that reinforcement orientation selects the resulting bending plane. The precedent serves only as supporting rationale, not as a per se rule. See KSR; MPEP §§ 2143(I)(C), 2143(I)(D), and 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 14, Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lekavich and Davis as applied to claim 5 above does not teach first fibers and second fibers arranged to provide the asymmetry. Song teaches multiple carbon-fiber sheet layers and spine sections formed from different sheet structures or strengths. Song states that one spine section "is formed so as to have a higher strength than any other of the spine sections" and that the elastic strength of one spine section can be larger than the others (col. 9, lines 34-50; col. 12, lines 50-65). Song also teaches carbon-fiber sheets arranged in different directions and overlapping sections (Figs. 4A-4B and 15A-15B). As incorporated into the Lekavich shaft and oriented according to Davis for the reasons stated for claim 13, Song's first and second fibers are arranged so that their unequal structural properties provide the shaft asymmetry that orients the weak bending axis.
A person of ordinary skill would have used Song's known unequal fiber arrangement in the shaft of Lekavich as modified by Davis because Song teaches fiber layup as a way to tailor arrow-shaft spine and Davis teaches how to orient anisotropic reinforcement to select the bending plane. The combination uses each known feature for its established function and predictably provides the fiber-based shaft asymmetry required by claim 14. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US 20200223159 A1) in view of Davis et al. (EP 1859838 A1, "Davis").
Regarding claim 17, Regarding claim 17, Greenwood teaches the inherited shaft, internal ribs/stiffeners, and fitted nock limitations as discussed for claims 15 and 16. Greenwood further teaches that nock shaft grooves 306 "correspond with the ribs 104" and thereby positively register the nock shaft relative to the ribs when inserted ([0047]; Figs. 6-7). Greenwood does not expressly teach that the strong bending axis of the stiffener is orthogonal to the nock-notch axis.
Davis teaches that reinforcement orientation is a known shaft-design variable: ports in one orientation produce a stiffer plane and a perpendicular more flexible plane ([0041], [0045]), and an internal wall may be positioned along the neutral axis for flexibility or at "90 degrees to the neutral axis" for greater bending stiffness ([0067]).
While Greenwood supplies a keyed nock-to-rib interface that fixes angular registration, Davis identifies a finite set of predictable orthogonal orientation choices, reinforced/stiff versus flexible bending planes separated by 90 degrees, and teaches the stiffness consequence of those choices. A person of ordinary skill could have selected the registered orientation in which the stiffener strong bending axis is orthogonal to the nock-notch axis with a reasonable expectation that the shaft would bend according to the known directional-stiffness relationship, because no new mechanism or unpredictable material interaction is introduced. The claimed orientation is therefore one of the identified, predictable solutions to the recognized directional-bending design need. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 20, Greenwood teaches the inherited hollow arrow shaft and internal stiffness-increasing ribs, but it does not expressly teach a single stiffener cross-member spanning the shaft diameter. Davis teaches the missing configuration. Davis states that the common internal wall 24 "extends across the diameter of the shaft, i.e., bisects the shaft interior" and that the wall "provides structural reinforcement to resist deformations and buckling failures" ([0046]; Fig. 2A).
Greenwood is the base hollow arrow shaft ready for improvement because it already uses internal ribs to increase bending stiffness without unnecessary mass ([0044]-[0046]). Davis supplies a known, applicable internal-reinforcement technique-a diameter-spanning wall-in a comparable lightweight hollow sporting shaft, and expressly teaches the wall's reinforcing result. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that substituting or configuring Greenwood's internal stiffener as Davis's diameter-spanning wall would predictably reinforce opposed shaft-wall regions and provide directional bending stiffness while preserving the same internal-reinforcement function. The modification therefore applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and yields the predictable result taught by Davis. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows:
Easton et al. (US 5290044 A, Stiffened Arrow Nock, fd 1993 Feb 23) teaches an arrow nock having a cavity that receives an elongated stiffening member extending into the shaft
DonTigny (US 6129642 A, Arrow Shaft With An Aerodynamic Groove, fd 1999 Jan 11) teaches a longitudinal groove formed in the exterior of an arrow shaft.
Wu et al. (US 6251036 B1, Carbon Fiber Arrow And Continuously Winding Method Thereof, fd 2000 Mar 01) discusses circumferentially nonuniform arrow-shaft stiffness and orientation-dependent bending behavior.
Androlia (US 6595868 B1, Filled Arrow Shaft And Method Of Making Same, fd 1997 May 14) teaches a filled arrow shaft having an internal reinforcing material.
Asherman (US 8915806 B2, Arrow Shaft, fd 2011 Dec 21) teaches arrow-shaft constructions pertinent to shaft stiffness and structure.
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