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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a crossbow, classified in F41B5/12.
II. Claims 10-17, drawn to a cam assembly, classified in F41B5/123.
III. Claims 18-20, drawn to a method of manufacturing a drawstring, classified in F41B5/1411.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related product inventions. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed in Group II (for example) has a materially different design in that Group II does not require a crossbow. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions (I and II) and III are directed to related product and process inventions. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed in Group III (for example) is not required to be used with a crossbow. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Separate classification thereof. MPEP 808.02(A).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with A. Salamone on 7-8-26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haas et al. (US 11,573,062), hereinafter (“Haas”). Haas (Fig 1) discloses a crossbow comprising: a frame; a limb assembly coupled to the frame and including: a first upper limb (16); a first lower limb (16); a second upper limb (18); and a second lower limb (18); a drawstring (Fig 9) including a left loop portion (66; loop defined broadly to mean “a curving or doubling of a line so as to form a closed or partly open curve within itself through which another line can be passed or into which a hook may be hooked”; www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loop), a right loop portion (68), and a center portion (64) extending between the left loop portion and the right loop portion; and a cam (Fig 5) assembly rotatably coupled with the limb assembly and including: a first cam rotatable about a first cam axis and including an upper drawstring journal (40) and a lower drawstring journal (42) configured to receive the right loop portion of the drawstring, wherein the upper drawstring journal of the first cam and the lower drawstring journal of the first cam are vertically offset from each other (Fig 5); and a second cam rotatable about a second cam axis and including an upper drawstring journal and a lower drawstring journal configured to receive the left loop portion of the drawstring, wherein the upper drawstring journal of the second cam and the lower drawstring journal of the second cam are vertically offset from each other.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 9,255,756), hereinafter (“Wu”). Wu (Fig 2) discloses a crossbow comprising: a frame; a limb assembly (330 and 340) coupled to the frame and including: a first upper limb; a first lower limb; a second upper limb; and a second lower limb; a drawstring (Fig 4A) including a left loop portion (370; loop defined broadly to mean “a curving or doubling of a line so as to form a closed or partly open curve within itself through which another line can be passed or into which a hook may be hooked”; www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loop), a right loop portion (360), and a center portion (380) extending between the left loop portion and the right loop portion; and a cam assembly (Fig 3, 350) rotatably coupled with the limb assembly and including: a first cam rotatable about a first cam axis and including an upper drawstring journal and a lower drawstring journal configured to receive the right loop portion of the drawstring, wherein the upper drawstring journal of the first cam and the lower drawstring journal of the first cam are vertically offset from each other (see Fig 1); and a second cam rotatable about a second cam axis and including an upper drawstring journal and a lower drawstring journal configured to receive the left loop portion of the drawstring, wherein the upper drawstring journal of the second cam and the lower drawstring journal of the second cam are vertically offset from each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 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 REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights