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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, filed 1/17/2025, are pending and are currently being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, a number of references are considered completely irrelevant or unnecessary to list in the references considered for the presented application and therefore have been struck through in the annotated IDS.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,215,961. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presented claims are anticipated by or are merely obvious/slight variations of the patented claims as mapped below.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-40 of co-pending Application No. 19/031,069 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presented claims are anticipated by or are mere obvious variations of the claims of the co-pending application as mapped below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Presented Claim 1
A matched arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow including:
a first shaft,
a first bushing coupled to the first shaft, and
a first nock received in the first bushing; and
a second arrow including:
a second shaft,
a second bushing coupled to the second shaft, and
a second nock received in the second bushing,
wherein the first shaft and the first bushing define a first weight,
wherein the second shaft and the second bushing define a second weight greater than the first weight, and
wherein a first arrow weight is substantially the same as a second arrow weight.
Presented Claim 2
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first nock is a lighted nock.
12,215,961 Claim 1 (identical language in bold)
A matched arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow including:
a first shaft,
a first bushing coupled to the first shaft, and
a first lighted nock received in the first bushing, the first lighted nock comprising a light assembly; and
a second arrow including:
a second shaft,
a second bushing coupled to the second shaft, and
a second non-lighted nock received in the second bushing, the second non-lighted nock excluding a light assembly;
wherein the first shaft and the first bushing define a first weight,
wherein the second shaft and the second bushing define a second weight greater than the first weight, and
wherein a first arrow weight is substantially the same as a second arrow weight.
Presented Claim 3
The matched arrow set of claim 2, wherein the lighted nock includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring, a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity, and a light assembly received in the cavity.
12,215,961 Claim 2 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first lighted nock includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring, a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity, the light assembly received in the cavity.
Presented Claim 2
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first nock is a lighted nock.
19/031,069 Claim 23 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 21, wherein the first nock is a lighted nock, and the first nock includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring; a shank formed with the head, the shank configured to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity; and the light assembly received in the cavity.
Presented Claim 4
The matched arrow set of claim 2, wherein the lighted nock moves within the first bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position.
12,215,961 Claim 3 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first lighted nock moves within the first bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position.
19/031,069 Claim 24 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 21, wherein the first nock is a lighted nock, and the lighted nock moves within the first bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position.
Presented Claim 5
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
12,215,961 Claim 4 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
19/031,069 Claim 25 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 21, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
Presented Claim 6
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first bushing weighs less than the second bushing.
12,215,961 Claim 5 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first bushing weighs less than the second bushing.
19/031,069 Claim 26 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 21, wherein a weight of the first bushing is less than a weight of the second bushing.
Presented Claim 7
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first shaft weighs less than the second shaft.
12,215,961 Claim 6 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first shaft weighs less than the second shaft.
19/031,069 Claim 27 (identical language in bold)
The matched arrow set of claim 21, wherein a weight of the first shaft is less than a weight of the second shaft.
Presented Claim 8
A matched weight arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow including a lighted nock assembly and defining a first weight; and
a second arrow including a non-lighted nock assembly and defining a second weight,
wherein the lighted nock assembly weighs more than the non-lighted nock assembly, and
wherein the first weight is within two percent of the second weight.
12,215,961 Claim 7 (identical language in bold)
A matched weight arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow including a lighted nock assembly and defining a first weight, the lighted nock assembly including a light assembly; and
a second arrow including a non-lighted nock assembly and defining a second weight, the non-lighted nock assembly excluding a light assembly;
wherein the lighted nock assembly weighs more than the non-lighted nock assembly, and
wherein the first weight is within two percent of the second weight.
19/031,069 Claim 28 (identical language in bold)
A matched weight arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow including a lighted nock assembly and defining a first weight, the lighted nock assembly including a light assembly; and
a second arrow including a non-lighted nock assembly and defining a second weight, the non-lighted nock assembly excluding a light assembly,
wherein the first weight is within two percent of the second weight.
Presented Claim 9
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow includes a first front insert, and wherein the second arrow includes a second front insert weighing more than the first front insert.
12,215,961 Claim 8 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 7, wherein the first arrow includes a first front insert, and wherein the second arrow includes a second front insert weighing more than the first front insert.
19/031,069 Claim 29 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 28, wherein the first arrow includes a first front insert, and wherein the second arrow includes a second front insert weighing more than the first front insert.
Presented Claim 10
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow includes a first bushing sized to receive the lighted nock assembly, and wherein the second arrow includes a second bushing sized to receive the non-lighted nock assembly and weighing more than the first bushing.
12,215,961 Claim 9 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 7, wherein the first arrow includes a first bushing sized to receive the lighted nock assembly, and wherein the second arrow includes a second bushing sized to receive the non-lighted nock assembly and weighing more than the first bushing.
19/031,069 Claim 30 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 28, wherein the first arrow includes a first bushing sized to receive the lighted nock assembly, and wherein the second arrow includes a second bushing sized to receive the non-lighted nock assembly and weighing more than the first bushing.
Presented Claim 11
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow includes a first shaft, and wherein the second arrow includes a second shaft weighing more than the first shaft.
12,215,961 Claim 10 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 7, wherein the first arrow includes a first shaft, and wherein the second arrow includes a second shaft weighing more than the first shaft.
19/031,069 Claim 31 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 28, wherein the first arrow includes a first shaft, and wherein the second arrow includes a second shaft weighing more than the first shaft.
Presented Claim 12
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the lighted nock assembly includes a light emitting device, and a battery, and wherein the light emitting device transitions from a deactivated state before the first arrow is fired to an activated state after the first arrow is fired.
12,215,961 Claim 11 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 7, wherein the light assembly includes a light emitting device, and a battery, and wherein the light emitting device transitions from a deactivated state before the first arrow is fired to an activated state after the first arrow is fired.
19/031,069 Claim 32 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 28, wherein the light assembly includes a light emitting device and a battery, and wherein the light emitting device transitions from a deactivated state before the first arrow is fired to an activated state after the first arrow is fired.
Presented Claim 13
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow includes a bushing, wherein the lighted nock assembly includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring, a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the bushing and defining a cavity, and a light assembly received in the cavity, and wherein the lighted nock assembly moves linearly within the bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position.
12,215,961 Claim 12 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 7, wherein the first arrow includes a bushing, wherein the lighted nock assembly includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring, a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the bushing and defining a cavity, the light assembly received in the cavity, and wherein the lighted nock assembly moves linearly within the bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position.
19/031,069 Claim 33 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 28, wherein the first arrow includes a bushing, wherein the lighted nock assembly includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring; a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the bushing and defining a cavity; and the light assembly received in the cavity; and wherein the lighted nock assembly moves linearly within the bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position.
Presented Claim 14
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
12,215,961 Claim 13 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 7, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
19/031,069 Claim 34 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 28, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
Presented Claim 15
A matched weight arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow defining a first arrow weight and including:
a first shaft,
a first bushing coupled to the first shaft, wherein the first shaft and the first bushing define a first base weight, and
a lighted nock received in the first bushing and including:
a head configured to engage a drawstring, a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity, and a light assembly received in the cavity; and
a second arrow defining a second arrow weight and including:
a second shaft,
a second bushing coupled to the second shaft,
wherein the second shaft and the second bushing define a second base weight, and
a non-lighted nock received in the second bushing,
wherein the first arrow weight is within five percent of the second arrow weight, and
wherein the first base weight is less than the second base weight.
12,215,961 Claim 14 (identical language in bold)
A matched weight arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow defining a first arrow weight and including:
a first shaft,
a first bushing coupled to the first shaft,
wherein the first shaft and the first bushing define a first base weight, and
a lighted nock received in the first bushing and including:
a head configured to engage a drawstring, a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity, and a light assembly received in the cavity; and
a second arrow defining a second arrow weight and including:
a second shaft, a second bushing coupled to the second shaft, wherein the second shaft and the second bushing define a second base weight, and a non-lighted nock received in the second bushing, the non-lighted nock excluding a light assembly;
wherein the first arrow weight is within five percent of the second arrow weight, and
wherein the first base weight is less than the second base weight.
19/031,069 Claim 35 (identical language in bold)
A matched weight arrow set, comprising:
a first arrow defining a first arrow weight and including:
a first shaft;
a first bushing coupled to the first shaft; and
a lighted nock received in the first bushing and including:
a head configured to engage a drawstring;
a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity; and
a light assembly received in the cavity; and
a second arrow defining a second arrow weight and including:
a second shaft;
a second bushing coupled to the second shaft; and
a non-lighted nock received in the second bushing, the non-lighted nock excluding a light assembly;
wherein the first arrow weight is within five percent of the second arrow weight.
Presented Claim 16
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the lighted nock defines a lighted nock weight, wherein the non-lighted nock defines a non-lighted nock weight, wherein a nock difference weight is defined by the lighted nock weight minus the non-lighted nock weight, and wherein the first base weight is less than the second base weight by the nock difference weight.
12,215,961 Claim 15 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 14, wherein the lighted nock defines a lighted nock weight, wherein the non-lighted nock defines a non-lighted nock weight, wherein a nock difference weight is defined by the lighted nock weight minus the non-lighted nock weight, and wherein the first base weight is less than the second base weight by the nock difference weight.
19/031,069 Claim 36 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 35, wherein: the lighted nock defines a lighted nock weight; the non-lighted nock defines a non-lighted nock weight; a nock difference weight is defined by the lighted nock weight minus the non-lighted nock weight; the first shaft and the first bushing define a first base weight; the second shaft and the second bushing define a second base weight; and the first base weight is less than the second base weight by the nock difference weight.
Presented Claim 17
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the first base weight includes a first front insert, and wherein the second base weight includes a second front insert.
12,215,961 Claim 16 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 14, wherein the first base weight includes a first front insert, and wherein the second base weight includes a second front insert.
Presented Claim 18
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
12,215,961 Claim 17 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 14, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
19/031,069 Claim 37 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 35, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow.
Presented Claim 19
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the first bushing weighs less than the second bushing.
12,215,961 Claim 18 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 14, wherein the first bushing weighs less than the second bushing.
19/031,069 Claim 38 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 35, wherein a weight of the first bushing is less than a weight of the second bushing.
Presented Claim 20
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the first shaft weighs less than the second shaft.
12,215,961 Claim 19 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 14, wherein the first shaft weighs less than the second shaft.
19/031,069 Claim 39 (identical language in bold)
The matched weight arrow set of claim 35, wherein a weight of the first shaft is less than a weight of the second shaft.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bay US Pat. No. 8,777,786.
In Reference to Claim 1
Bay teaches:
A matched arrow set (kit having nocks usable with different arrows and interchangeable bushings, Fig. 1-30), comprising:
a first arrow (an arrow 104 with multiple interchangeable bushing members 102a-c in a kit 106 for use with nock assembly 110) including:
a first shaft (first arrow shaft 104, Fig. 1),
a first bushing coupled to the first shaft (any bushing, ex. 102a, Fig. 1), and
a first nock received in the first bushing (nock 110 is insertable into any of the bushings 102, Fig. 1-6); and
a second arrow (an arrow 104 using the same sized shaft with another adapter 102a of the kit, Fig. 1-2 or a slightly different diameter shaft used with another of the multiple interchangeable bushing members 102b-c, Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23) including:
a second shaft (arrow shaft 104, which may be the same size or slightly different size, ex. having an ID of .233 to match adapter 102b, and used with a matching adapter 102a-c),
a second bushing coupled to the second shaft (any bushing 102, such as 102b, may be used with a matching sized arrow shaft 104 to mount the nock thereto), and
a second nock received in the second bushing (a second nock 110 (may also be the same as the first nock) is insertable into any of the bushings, such as 102b, Fig. 1-6),
wherein the first shaft and the first bushing define a first weight, wherein the second shaft and the second bushing define a second weight greater than the first weight (the first and second shafts and bushings 104/102a/b have inherent weights, wherein they would be unlikely to be identical and wherein one would likely be marginally heavier than the other and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that a slightly larger inner diameter shaft and bushing would have a marginally heavier weight as more surface/volume would likely require more material to produce the arrow, however the arrows should be similar in weight so as to not affect or change the flight of the arrows during use, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13), and
wherein a first arrow weight is substantially the same as a second arrow weight (a first assembled arrow with shaft 104 and first bushing 102a would weight substantially the same as a second assembled arrow with shaft 104 and second bushing 102c where the bushings have different outer diameters to match with different sized/shaped arrow shafts (Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23), further wherein it is desired to keep the weights substantially the same weight when used as lighted or unlighted nocks for practice, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two assembled arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking (102 interpretation).
Further or alternatively (103 interpretation), though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each arrow shaft and each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two assembled arrows (bushings and shafts) as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 2
Bay teaches:
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first nock is a lighted nock (nock 110 has LED assembly 112 to allow the nock to be lighted, Fig. 1-6, Col. 5 lines 28-35, Col. 6 lines 26-67, Fig. 27, 29 show the nock in activated or on mode, Col. 9 lines 29-31).
In Reference to Claim 3
Bay teaches:
The matched arrow set of claim 2, wherein the lighted nock includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring (nock 110 has a head end with gap 136 to receive a bowstring therein, Fig. 6), a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity, and a light assembly received in the cavity (shank 130 has an opening and recess extending to the head end to receive a light assembly 112 with LED light 126 therein and received within bushing 102, Fig. 1-5, 25).
In Reference to Claim 4
Bay teaches:
The matched arrow set of claim 2, wherein the lighted nock moves within the first bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position (Fig. 25-30 shows activated (Fig. 27, 29) and deactivated positions (Fig. 25, 28) of the nock within the bushing, Col. 8 line 51 – Col. 9 line 31).
In Reference to Claim 5
Bay teaches:
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow (the arrow shaft 104 may be the same in the first arrow as the second arrow but with a different bushing 102a, further, another diameter arrow shaft would be the same length as arrows are generally the same length in the art (unless used in specialty cases)).
In Reference to Claim 6
Bay teaches:
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first bushing weighs less than the second bushing (a first bushing 102a may have a smaller outer diameter to match a smaller inner diameter of a first arrow shaft, which would require slightly less material than a larger diameter matching bushing, ex. 102b or c, which would allow the first bushing to weight marginally less than the other bushings. Further, first bushing 102a would weight substantially the same as a second bushing 102c where the bushings have different outer diameters to match with different sized/shaped arrow shafts (Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23), further wherein it is desired to keep the weights substantially the same weight when used as lighted or unlighted nocks for practice, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two assembled arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier, slightly larger outer diameter to match different inner diameters of shafts) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking.
Further, though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two bushings as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 7
Bay teaches:
The matched arrow set of claim 1, wherein the first shaft weighs less than the second shaft (arrow shaft 104, which may be the same size or slightly different size, ex. having a larger ID of .233 to match adapter 102b, and used with a matching adapter 102a-c, the first and second shafts and bushings 104/102a/b have inherent weights, wherein they would be unlikely to be identical and wherein one would likely be marginally heavier than the other and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that a slightly larger inner diameter shaft and bushing (second shaft and bushing as described above) would have a marginally heavier weight as more surface/volume would likely require more material to produce the arrow, however the arrows should be similar in weight so as to not affect or change the flight of the arrows during use, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13)).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking.
Further, though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each arrow shaft and each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two assembled arrows (bushings and shafts) as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 8
Bay teaches:
A matched weight arrow set (kit having nocks usable with different arrows and interchangeable bushings, Fig. 1-30), comprising:
a first arrow including a lighted nock assembly and defining a first weight (nock 110 usable with a first arrow shaft 104 and matching bushing (one of 102a-c that when assembled to form a first arrow has a first inherent weight, ex. 102c with a larger diameter shaft), the nock 110 has LED assembly 112 to allow the nock to be lighted, Fig. 1-6, Col. 5 lines 28-35, Col. 6 lines 26-67, Fig. 27, 29 show the nock in activated or on mode, Col. 9 lines 29-31); and
a second arrow including a non-lighted nock assembly and defining a second weight (an arrow 104 using the same sized shaft with another adapter 102c of the kit, Fig. 1-2 or a slightly different diameter shaft used with another of the multiple interchangeable bushing members 102a-c, Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23 may formed a second arrow with the nock, nock 110 may be used in a non-lighted mode for practice (non-lighted nock), Fig. 25, 28, Col. 8 line 51 – Col. 9 line 13),
wherein the lighted nock assembly weighs more than the non-lighted nock assembly (the first and second shafts, bushings, and nocks 104/102a-c/110 have inherent weights, wherein they would be unlikely to be identical and wherein one would likely be marginally heavier than the other and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that a slightly larger inner diameter shaft (used with 102c) and bushing would have a marginally heavier weight as more surface/volume would likely require more material to produce the arrow, however the arrows should be similar in weight so as to not affect or change the flight of the arrows during use, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13), and
wherein the first weight is within two percent of the second weight (a first assembled arrow with shaft 104 and first bushing 102c would weight substantially the same as a second assembled arrow with shaft 104 and second bushing 102b where the bushings have different outer diameters to match with different sized/shaped arrow shafts (Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23), further wherein it is desired to keep the weights substantially the same weight when used as lighted or unlighted nocks for practice, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two assembled arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking (102 interpretation).
Further or alternatively (103 interpretation), though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each arrow shaft and each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two assembled arrows (bushings and shafts) as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight (within 2%) as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 10
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow includes a first bushing sized to receive the lighted nock assembly, and wherein the second arrow includes a second bushing sized to receive the non-lighted nock assembly and weighing more than the first bushing (a first bushing 102a may have a smaller outer diameter to match a smaller inner diameter of a first arrow shaft, which would require slightly less material than a larger diameter matching second bushing, ex. 102b or c, which would allow the first bushing to weight marginally less than the other bushings. Further, first bushing 102a would weight substantially the same as a second bushing 102c where the bushings each receive the nock in the lighted or unlighted configuration and have different outer diameters to match with different sized/shaped arrow shafts (Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23), further wherein it is desired to keep the weights substantially the same weight when used as lighted or unlighted nocks for practice, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two assembled arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier, slightly larger outer diameter to match different inner diameters of shafts) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking.
Further, though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two bushings as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 11
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow includes a first shaft, and wherein the second arrow includes a second shaft weighing more than the first shaft (arrow shaft 104, which may be the same size or slightly different size, ex. having a larger ID of .233 to match adapter 102b, and used with a matching adapter 102a-c, the first and second shafts and bushings 104/102a/b have inherent weights, wherein they would be unlikely to be identical and wherein one would likely be marginally heavier than the other and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that a slightly larger inner diameter shaft and bushing (second shaft and bushing as described above) would have a marginally heavier weight as more surface/volume would likely require more material to produce the arrow, however the arrows should be similar in weight so as to not affect or change the flight of the arrows during use, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13)).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking.
Further, though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each arrow shaft and each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two assembled arrows (bushings and shafts) as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 12
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the lighted nock assembly includes a light emitting device (light device 112 with LED light 126), and a battery (128), and wherein the light emitting device transitions from a deactivated state before the first arrow is fired to an activated state after the first arrow is fired (the light device may be activated when fired and deactivated before firing, Col. 9 lines 14-31).
In Reference to Claim 13
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow includes a bushing (each arrow receives a bushing 102 therein to attach nock 110 to the arrow shaft 104), wherein the lighted nock assembly includes: a head configured to engage a drawstring (nock 110 has a head end with gap 136 to receive a bowstring therein, Fig. 6), a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the bushing and defining a cavity, and a light assembly received in the cavity (shank 130 has an opening and recess extending to the head end to receive a light assembly 112 with LED light 126 therein and received within bushing 102, Fig. 1-5, 25), and wherein the lighted nock assembly moves linearly within the bushing between an activated position and a deactivated position (Fig. 25-30 shows the nock movable linearly between activated and deactivated positions).
In Reference to Claim 14
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow (the arrow shaft 104 may be the same in the first arrow as the second arrow but with a different bushing 102a, further, another diameter arrow shaft would be the same length as arrows are generally the same length in the art (unless used in specialty cases)).
In Reference to Claim 15
Bay teaches:
A matched weight arrow set (kit having nocks usable with different arrows and interchangeable bushings, Fig. 1-30), comprising:
a first arrow defining a first arrow weight (an arrow 104 with multiple interchangeable bushing members 102a-c in a kit 106 for use with nock assembly 110 having an inherent first weight) and including:
a first shaft (first arrow shaft 104, Fig. 1),
a first bushing coupled to the first shaft (any bushing, ex. 102a, Fig. 1), and
wherein the first shaft and the first bushing define a first base weight (a coupled first shaft 103 and first bushing 102a have an inherent first base weight), and
a lighted nock received in the first bushing (light capable nock 110 is insertable into any of the bushings 102, Fig. 1-6) and including:
a head configured to engage a drawstring (nock 110 has a head end with gap 136 to receive a bowstring therein, Fig. 6),
a shank formed with the head and sized to be received within the first bushing and defining a cavity (shank 130 has an opening and recess extending to the head end to receive a light assembly 112 therein), and
a light assembly received in the cavity (shank 130 has an opening and recess extending to the head end to receive a light assembly 112 with LED light 126 therein and received within bushing 102, Fig. 1-5, 25); and
a second arrow defining a second arrow weight (an arrow 104 using the same sized shaft with another adapter 102a of the kit, Fig. 1-2 or a slightly different diameter shaft used with another of the multiple interchangeable bushing members 102b-c, Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23) and including:
a second shaft, (arrow shaft 104, which may be the same size or slightly different size, ex. having an ID of .233 to match adapter 102b, and used with a matching adapter 102a-c),
a second bushing coupled to the second shaft (any bushing 102, such as 102b, may be used with a matching sized arrow shaft 104 to mount the nock thereto),
wherein the second shaft and the second bushing define a second base weight, and
a non-lighted nock received in the second bushing (an arrow 104 using the same sized shaft with another adapter 102c of the kit, Fig. 1-2 or a slightly different diameter shaft used with another of the multiple interchangeable bushing members 102a-c, Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23 may formed a second arrow with the nock, nock 110 may be used in a non-lighted mode for practice (non-lighted nock), Fig. 25, 28, Col. 8 line 51 – Col. 9 line 13),
wherein the first arrow weight is within five percent of the second arrow weight (a first assembled arrow with shaft 104 and first bushing 102a would weight substantially the same as a second assembled arrow with shaft 104 and second bushing 102b/c where the bushings have different outer diameters to match with different sized/shaped arrow shafts (Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23), further wherein it is desired to keep the weights substantially the same weight when used as lighted or unlighted nocks for practice, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13), and
wherein the first base weight is less than the second base weight (the first and second shafts and bushings 104/102a/b have inherent weights, wherein they would be unlikely to be identical and wherein one would likely be marginally heavier than the other and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that a slightly larger inner diameter shaft and bushing would have a marginally heavier weight as more surface/volume would likely require more material to produce the arrow, however the arrows should be similar in weight so as to not affect or change the flight of the arrows during use, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two assembled arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking (102 interpretation).
Further or alternatively (103 interpretation), though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each arrow shaft and each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two assembled arrows (bushings and shafts) as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight (within 2/5%) as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 16
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the lighted nock defines a lighted nock weight, wherein the non-lighted nock defines a non-lighted nock weight, wherein a nock difference weight is defined by the lighted nock weight minus the non-lighted nock weight, and wherein the first base weight is less than the second base weight by the nock difference weight (the non-lighted nock may weigh more than the lighted nock by using a different screw 124 having a different weight to alter the arrow weight, weight distribution, or flight characteristics as needed, Col. 9 lines 49-59).
In Reference to Claim 18
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the first arrow defines substantially the same length as the second arrow (the arrow shaft 104 may be the same in the first arrow as the second arrow but with a different bushing 102a, further, another diameter arrow shaft would be the same length as arrows are generally the same length in the art (unless used in specialty cases)).
In Reference to Claim 19
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the first bushing weighs less than the second bushing (a first bushing 102a may have a smaller outer diameter to match a smaller inner diameter of a first arrow shaft, which would require slightly less material than a larger diameter matching bushing, ex. 102b or c) which would allow the first bushing to weight marginally less than the other bushings. Further, first bushing 102a would weight substantially the same as a second bushing 102c where the bushings have different outer diameters to match with different sized/shaped arrow shafts (Col. 4 line 45 – Col. 5 line 23), further wherein it is desired to keep the weights substantially the same weight when used as lighted or unlighted nocks for practice, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two assembled arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier, slightly larger outer diameter to match different inner diameters of shafts) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking.
Further, though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two bushings as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
In Reference to Claim 20
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 15, wherein the first shaft weighs less than the second shaft (arrow shaft 104, which may be the same size or slightly different size, ex. having a larger ID of .233 to match adapter 102b, and used with a matching adapter 102a-c, the first and second shafts and bushings 104/102a/b have inherent weights, wherein they would be unlikely to be identical and wherein one would likely be marginally heavier than the other and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would assume that a slightly larger inner diameter shaft and bushing (second shaft and bushing as described above) would have a marginally heavier weight as more surface/volume would likely require more material to produce the arrow, however the arrows should be similar in weight so as to not affect or change the flight of the arrows during use, Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 13)).
Though Bay does not specifically recite the exact weights of the arrows, shafts, bushings, nocks, or other components, the claim is presented as significantly broad and does not provide any substantive criticality to the difference in weights (differential value or range (in grams or the like)) and therefore any infinitesimal or minute differences between two arrows would teach that one is at least minimally different (heavier) from the next as manufacturing tolerances allow for marginal differences between individual components and arrows as well as batches of those components. Further no two components would be technically identical in construction as it is not realistic to form molecularly identical components let alone identical shafts and bushings and each component would at least minimally have a different weight (no matter how minimal would still meet the claim language) though all would be substantially the same in a broad manner of speaking.
Further, though Bay does not specifically teach the exact weights of each arrow shaft and each bushing member relatively one another, Bay teaches that the weights of the components are desired to be substantially similar so the arrows fly similarly and to not negatively affect the performance of the arrow (Col. 8 line 65 – Col. 9 line 13) and Bay teaches that the exact materials used, and weights of the nock may be modified (Col. 9 lines 49-59). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed two assembled arrows (bushings and shafts) as slightly different (one manufactured marginally heavier than the other) but substantially similar in weight as assembled arrows are desired to have similar weights when exchanging components so that the arrows are not negatively affected by the changing or substitution of components and further as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result affective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bay as applied to claims 8/15 above, and further in view of Adams, Jr. US Pat. No. 5,902,199.
In Reference to Claims 9 and 17
Bay teaches:
The matched weight arrow set of claim 8/15 as rejected above.
Bay fails to teach:
Wherein the first arrow/base weight includes a first front insert, and wherein the second arrow/base weight includes a second front insert weighing more than the first front insert.
Further, Adams teaches:
An arrow (Fig. 2-11) having tuning capabilities including an arow shaft (20) and an arrowhead (26) coupled to a front end of the arrow shaft by a threaded insert (threaded portion 31 of insert 32 couples the selected arrowhead to the shaft 20, Fig. 5-10), wherein the threaded insert may be adjusted in weight to fine tune the balance point of the arrow during use (insert may include collar weights 40 and/or point weights 50-52 to adjust the weight and balance point of the arrow).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Bay to have further included front inserts to the arrow shafts as front inserts are well-known and commonly used in the art to allow for interchangeable arrow heads to be attached to the shaft and to allow the weight of the shaft to be modified as need/desired by the user as taught by Adams (Col. 4 lines 40-55, Col. 8 line 14 – Col. 9 line 66, Col. 11 line 60 – Col. 12 line 14).
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Ferguson (2020/0263964, 10,969,210), Addleman (9,097,500), Palomaki (2005/0075202), and Troncoso (4,050,696) teach arrows with adjustable weights therein and Bay (10,203,187) teaches the use of a lighted nock (other figures) interchangeably used with a similarly weighted non-lighted practice nock (Fig. 48-49).
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights