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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 3 line 5 and claim 12 line 2, “drawn though” should be “drawn through”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8 it is unclear how the upper mount wall and lower mount wall relate to the claimed invention. It appears that the upper mount wall and lower mount wall are meant to be a part of the sight mount or the tube, as this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the invention.
In claim 13 it is unclear how the mounting rail base is to be structured and arranged. The claim recites that the base of the mounting rail includes a height that increases as the base extends further away from the buttstock. However the specification as filed, such as in figure 3 and para[0034], details the base decreasing in height as the base extends further away from the buttstock. As such it is unclear if the claim is meant to define an embodiment that is not shown in the figures, or if the claim is meant to recite that the base of the mounting rail includes a height that decreases as the base extends further away from the buttstock, as is shown in the figures. For the purposes of examination it was assumed that the claims meant to recite that the height decreases as it extends further away from the buttstock, as this is what was meant to be claimed per the examiner’s best understanding of the claimed invention.
In claim 14 there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first distance”. It is unclear what distance is being referenced. It appears claim 14 may be meant to depend from claim 9 which introduces a first distance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3,6-12,14,16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett(US20250290725) in view of Tiller et al.(US20230392902).
[claim 1] Barnett teaches a crossbow comprising: a barrel(A in annotated figure 5 below) having an upper barrel surface adjacent which a bolt can be movably disposed, a lower barrel surface opposite the upper surface and facing a ground surface when the crossbow is readied for firing, a first lateral barrel surface and an opposing second lateral barrel surface extending between the upper barrel surface and the lower barrel surface(as seen in figure 5); a bowstring(102) configured to move the bolt adjacent the upper barrel surface when the crossbow is shot; and a sight mount(B in annotated figure 5 below) comprising a mounting rail(upper rail of sight mount seen in figure 5) joined with an upper mount wall(upper portion of the mount wall below the rail), a first lateral mount wall(first side of sight mount seen in figure 5) and an opposing second lateral mount wall(opposite side of the sight mount, hidden in figure 5) extending between the upper mount wall and the lower end of the mount, wherein the upper mount wall and mounting rail are disposed above the upper barrel surface adjacent which the bolt can be movably positioned(fig 5), wherein the first lateral mount wall and the second lateral mount wall are spaced a lateral width from one another so that the bowstring is drawn between the first lateral mount wall and the second lateral mount wall during a draw cycle of the bowstring(as seen in figure 5). Barnett however may not teach that the sight mount has a lower mount wall opposite the upper surface and facing a ground surface when the crossbow is readied for firing, and wherein the first lateral mount wall is separated from the first lateral barrel surface by a first lateral gap, whereby vibration is impaired from transmission directly from the first lateral barrel surface to the first lateral mount wall, wherein the second lateral mount wall is separated from the second lateral barrel surface by a second lateral gap, whereby vibration is impaired from transmission directly from the second lateral barrel surface to the second lateral mount wall.
Tiller teaches a similar weapon mounted sight mount(100) that has an upper mount wall(as seen in fig 3) a lower mount wall opposite the upper surface and facing a ground surface when the weapon is readied for firing(lower wall of 100 in figure 3), a first lateral mount wall(left side mount wall in figure 3) separated from the lateral barrel surface by a first lateral gap(shown in figure 3), such that vibrations would be impaired from transmission directly from the lateral barrel surface to the first lateral mount wall, and a second lateral mount wall(right side mount wall in figure 3) separated from the lateral barrel surface by a second lateral gap(shown in figure 3), such that vibrations would be impaired from transmission directly from the lateral barrel surface to the second lateral mount wall, the sight mount attaching to a lower mounting surface of the barrel(fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the teachings of Tiller and attach the sight mount of Barnett to the bottom of the barrel of the crossbow, as this could allow the sight mount to be attached to weapons with lower attachment rails, as taught by Tiller.
[claim 2] when arranged as above, wherein the upper mount wall, the lower mount wall, the first lateral mount wall and the second lateral mount wall cooperatively form a tube that surrounds the barrel(fig 3 of Tiller).
[claim 3] when arranged as above, wherein the tube extends completely around the barrel(fig 3 Tiller), wherein the sight mount is secured to the barrel only via the lower mount wall being joined with the lower barrel surface(fig 3 of Tiller), and wherein the bowstring is drawn through the tube during the draw cycle of the bowstring(fig 5 Barnett).
[claim 6] when arranged as above, wherein the mounting rail is disposed atop the upper mount wall(fig 5 Barnett), and wherein another mounting rail(Tiller fig 4, para[0023]) is joined with the lower mount wall and faces downward away from the mounting rail disposed atop the upper mount wall.
[claim 7] when arranged as above, wherein the upper mount wall is disposed a first height above the upper barrel surface(as seen in figure 3 of Tiller), wherein the first lateral gap spans a first distance, wherein the second lateral gap spans a second distance(fig 3), wherein the first height is greater than the sum of the first distance and the second distance(as seen in figure 3 of Tiller).
[claim 8] Barnett teaches a crossbow comprising: a barrel(A in annotated figure 5 below) having an upper barrel surface adjacent which a bolt can be movably disposed, a lower barrel surface opposite the upper surface and facing a ground surface when the crossbow is drawn during a draw cycle of the bowstring, a first lateral barrel surface and an opposing second lateral barrel surface extending between the upper barrel surface and the lower barrel surface(fig 5); a bowstring(102) configured to move the bolt adjacent the upper barrel surface; and a sight mount(B in annotated figure 5 below) comprising a mounting rail(upper rail of sight mount in figure 5), the sight mount secured to the barrel such that an upper mount wall extends above the upper barrel surface, the sight mount includes a first lateral mount wall(first side wall of sight mount seen in fig 5) and an opposing second lateral mount wall(opposite side wall, hidden in figure 5), wherein the first lateral mount wall and the second lateral mount wall are spaced a first lateral width from one another so that the bowstring is drawn between the first lateral mount wall and the second lateral mount wall within the first lateral width during the draw cycle of the bowstring(fig 5). Barnett however does not teach that the sight might comprises a tube, with the tube surrounding the barrel such that a lower mount extends below the lower barrel surface.
Tiller teaches a similar weapon mounted sight mount(100) forming a tube(fig 3) that surrounds a barrel such that an upper mount wall(as seen in fig 3) extends above the barrel and a lower mount wall(lower wall of 100 in fig 3) extends below the barrel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the teachings of Tiller to have the sight mount be formed as a tube to surround the barrel and attach the sight mount of Barnett to the bottom of the barrel of the crossbow, as this could allow the sight mount to be attached to weapons with lower attachment rails, as taught by Tiller.
[claim 9] When arranged as above, wherein the first lateral mount wall is separated laterally and outwardly from the first lateral barrel surface by a first distance(as seen in figure 3 of Tiller), wherein the second lateral mount wall is separated laterally and outwardly from the second lateral barrel surface by a second distance(fig 3 of Tiller), wherein the upper mount wall and mounting rail are disposed above the upper barrel surface adjacent which the bolt can be movably positioned(Fig 5 of Barnett).
[claim 10] when arranged as above, wherein the upper wall mount is disposed a first height above the upper barrel surface(fig 3 of Tiller), wherein the first height is greater than the sum of the first distance and the second distance(as shown in figure 3 of Tiller).
[claim 11] when arranged as above, wherein the upper mount wall comprises a mounting wall cavity(cavity under upper rail seen in figure 3 of Tiller) extending longitudinally along and under the mounting rail, wherein the mounting rail includes a base(lower portion of mounting rail) that extends above an upper surface of the upper mount wall(fig 3 of Tiller).
[claim 12] wherein the tube extends completely around the barrel(fig 3 Tiller), wherein the bowstring is drawn through the tube during the draw cycle of the bowstring(fig 5 Barnett).
[claim 14] when arranged as above, wherein the upper mount wall is disposed a first height above the upper barrel surface, wherein the first distance is less than the first height(fig 3 Tiller).
[claim 16] when arranged as above, wherein the first lateral barrel surface and the second lateral barrel surface are spaced a second lateral width from one another(width of barrel shown in figure 5), wherein the first lateral width is greater than the second lateral width such that a section of the bowstring extends beyond the second lateral width but within the first lateral width when the bowstring is drawn during a draw cycle(fig 5 of Barnett).
[claim 17] Barnett teaches a crossbow comprising: a barrel(A in annotated figure 5 below) adjacent which a bolt can be movably disposed; a bowstring(102) configured to move the bolt adjacent the barrel; and a sight mount(B in annotated figure 5 below) comprising a mounting rail(top rail of sight mount in figure 5) secured to the barrel, the sight mount attached to the barrel, wherein the bowstring is drawn through the sight mount during a draw cycle of the bowstring(fig 5). Barnett however does not teach that the sight mount surrounds the barrel.
Tiller teaches a similar weapon mounted sight mount(100) forming a tube(fig 3) that surrounds a barrel such that an upper mount wall(as seen in fig 3) extends above the barrel and a lower mount wall(lower wall of 100 in fig 3) extends below the barrel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the teachings of Tiller to have the sight mount surround the barrel and attach the sight mount of Barnett to the bottom of the barrel of the crossbow, as this could allow the sight mount to be attached to weapons with lower attachment rails, as taught by Tiller.
[claim 18] when arranged as above, wherein the sight mount includes a first lateral mount wall(first side wall of the sight mount seen in figure 5) and a second lateral mount wall(opposite side wall, hidden in figure 5) spaced a first lateral width from one another so that the bowstring is drawn between the first lateral mount wall and the second lateral mount wall within the first lateral width during the draw cycle of the bowstring(fig 5), wherein the barrel includes a first lateral barrel surface and a second lateral barrel surface spaced a second lateral width from one another, wherein the first lateral width is greater than the second lateral width such that a section of the bowstring extends beyond the second lateral width but within the first lateral width when the bowstring is drawn during the draw cycle(fig 5).
[claim 19] when arranged as above, wherein the sight mount forms a tube(fig 3 Tiller) that completely surrounds the barrel.
[claim 20] when arranged as above wherein the tube includes a lower mount wall(lower wall in figure 3 of Tiller), wherein the barrel includes a lower barrel surface, wherein the tube is joined with the barrel via a connection between only the lower mount wall and the lower barrel surface(fig 3 Tiller).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,5,13 and 15 are 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, as well as being amended to overcome the above 112 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regards to claims 4,5 and 15, the prior art teaches a crossbow as recited in claims 2,3 and 8 as detailed above, however the prior art does not teach that the lower mount wall receives a fastener to be joined to barrel, as recited in each of claims 4,5 and 15.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art teaches a crossbow as recited in claim 8, however the prior art does not teach a mounting rail that has a base with a height that decreases(see claim interpretation in above 112 rejection) as the base extends away from the buttstock of the crossbow as recited in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20260098709, US12487057, US20250257972, US12140405, US12130113, US20200248986, US9194643, US8701641, US20120325077, US7506643, US4418487.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights