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 .
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11808543, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12259211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claim limitations claimed by claims 21-40 of instant application are being disclosed by 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11808543, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12259211.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the claim limitation “the first lower power cable and the second lower power cable positioned vertically above the firing plane” and claim 32 recites the claim limitation “a pair of lower power cables positioned above the firing plane.” A thorough search of the specification fails to support these claimed limitations. [0014] of the spec discloses “The first lower power cable extends vertically below the firing plane… The second lower power cable extends vertically below the firing plane.” [0016] of the spec discloses “the first lower power cable extending vertically below the firing plane… the second lower power cable extending vertically below the firing plane.”
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 21-37 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.
Claim 21 recites the claim limitation “the first lower power cable and the second lower power cable positioned vertically above the firing plane” and claim 32 recites the claim limitation “a pair of lower power cables positioned above the firing plane.” As being illustrated above, these claim limitations are not being supported by the specification, rendering these claim limitations indefinite.
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) 21-23, 26-28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rob [The Modern Crossbow: A Beginners Guide, https://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/modern-crossbow-beginners-guide/, published on August 2, 2012, evidenced by The Modern Crossbow_ A Beginners Guide - The Shooter's Log.pdf], in view of Kempf et al. [US9759509], hereinafter Kempf.
Regarding claim 21, Rob discloses a crossbow (Figure on p. 1), comprising:
a center rail defining a firing plane; a riser mounted to the center rail; a first upper flexible limb coupled to the riser and positioned to a first side of the center rail; a first lower flexible limb coupled to the riser and positioned to the first side of the center rail, the first lower flexible limb positioned vertically below the first upper flexible limb; a second upper flexible limb coupled to the riser and positioned to a second side of the center rail; a second lower flexible limb coupled to the riser and positioned to the second side of the center rail, the second lower flexible limb positioned vertically below the second upper flexible limb; a first cam assembly rotatably coupled to the first upper flexible limb and the first lower flexible limb; a second cam assembly rotatably coupled to the second upper flexible limb and the second lower flexible limb; a draw string movable between a released configuration and a drawn configuration, the draw string coupled to the first cam assembly and the second cam assembly (All as labeled in the figure).
However, Rob does not explicitly disclose a pair of upper power cables including a first upper power cable coupled to the first cam assembly and a second upper power cable coupled to the second cam assembly, the first upper power cable and the second upper power cable positioned vertically above the firing plane; and a pair of lower power cables including a first lower power cable coupled to the first cam assembly and a second lower power cable coupled to the second cam assembly, the first lower power cable and the second lower power cable positioned vertically below the firing plane.
Nevertheless, Kempf teaches in a like invention, a pair of upper power cables including a first upper power cable coupled to the first cam assembly and a second upper power cable coupled to the second cam assembly, the first upper power cable and the second upper power cable positioned vertically above the firing plane; and a pair of lower power cables including a first lower power cable coupled to the first cam assembly and a second lower power cable coupled to the second cam assembly, the first lower power cable and the second lower power cable positioned vertically below the firing plane (claim 4, “a first upper cable post extends from a first side of the rail, above a plane of said first and second cams, a first lower cable post extends from the first side of the rail below said plane of said first and second cams”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crossbow disclosed by Rob, to have the pair of upper power cables and the pair of lower power cables, as taught by Kempf, in order to make it more stable to have the projectile in between when aiming at the target.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the combination of Rob and Kempf discloses the crossbow of claim 21, wherein the first upper flexible limb and the first lower flexible limb include a fixed end coupled to the riser and a free end, wherein the first cam assembly is coupled to the free end of the first upper flexible limb and the free end of the first lower flexible limb (Rob, the figure).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Rob and Kempf discloses the crossbow of claim 21, wherein the first cam assembly includes a first upper string guide defining an upper path and a first lower string guide defining a lower path; wherein, during operation of the crossbow as the draw string moves from the released configuration to the drawn configuration, the first upper power cable winds about the first upper string guide along the upper path; and wherein, during operation of the crossbow as the draw string moves from the released configuration to the drawn configuration, the first lower power cable winds about the first lower string guide along the lower path (Kempf, col. 5, lines 11-18, “With reference to FIGS. 6-9, when the launch string 22 is drawn from an at rest position to a ready to fire position, the first cam 18 rotates in a first direction, and the second cam 20 rotates in a second direction. As the cams 18 and 20 rotate, the launch string 22 is unwound from the first and second launch string tracks 19 and 21. Simultaneously, the cables 44 and 46 wind into the upper 40 and 42 and lower 41 and 43 cable tracks of the first 18 and second 20 cams.”).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, the combination of Rob and Kempf discloses the crossbow of claim 21, wherein the first upper power cable is coupled to the second upper flexible limb, wherein the second upper power cable is coupled to the first upper flexible limb, wherein the first lower power cable is coupled to the second lower flexible limb, wherein the second lower power cable is coupled to the first lower flexible limb (Kempf, col. 4, lines 40-54, “The first cam 18 includes a first launch string track 19, a first cam upper cable track 40, a first cam launch string post 61, a first cam boss 34, and a first cam lower cable track 41. The second cam 20 includes a second launch string track 21, a second cam upper cable track 42, a second cam launch string post 63, a second cam boss 35, and a second cam lower cable track 43. The first and second cam bosses 34, 35 preferably have a round diameter. A first end of the launch string 22 is retained by the first cam launch string post 61, a portion of the span of the launch string 22 at least partially wraps the first cam 18 in the first cam launch string track 19, a portion of the span of the launch string 22 at least partially wraps the second cam 20 in the second cam launch string track 21, and a second end of the bowstring 22 is retained by the second cam launch string post 63”).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Rob and Kempf discloses the crossbow of claim 21. However, the combination of Rob and Kempf does not explicitly disclose wherein the first cam assembly and the second cam assembly are configured such that when the draw string is in the drawn configuration, an included angle of the draw string to a respective tangent point of the first cam assembly and the second cam assembly is about 3 degrees to about 7 degrees.
Kempf discloses a preferred condition of an included angle of the draw string and also discloses that lunching device can also function without the preferred condition (col. 5, lines 40-43, “It is also preferable that the cables 44, 45, 46 be parallel to the launch string 22. However, the projectile launching device 1 will function satisfactory without the parallel conditions”). It appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the crossbow of combination of Rob and Kempf to have an included angle of the draw string as claimed in claim 31, as it involves only adjusting the variable disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the crossbow of combination of Rob and Kempf by making the included angle of the draw string as claimed in claim 31 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 24, 25, 29, 30 and 32-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rob, in view of Kempf, further in view of Yehle [US20180321011].
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the combination of Rob and Kempf discloses the crossbow of claim 21. However, the combination of Rob and Kempf does not disclose the crossbow further comprising: a string carrier slidably engaged with the center rail and movable between a first position and a second position, wherein: in the first position, the string carrier is configured to selectively engage the draw string with the draw string in the released configuration, and in the second position, the string carrier is configured to selectively retain the draw string in the drawn configuration, wherein the string carrier is positioned underneath the first upper power cable and the second upper power cable with the string carrier in the first position.
Nevertheless, Yehle teaches in a like invention, a string carrier slidably engaged with the center rail and movable between a first position and a second position, wherein: in the first position, the string carrier is configured to selectively engage the draw string with the draw string in the released configuration, and in the second position, the string carrier is configured to selectively retain the draw string in the drawn configuration, wherein the string carrier is positioned underneath the first upper power cable and the second upper power cable with the string carrier in the first position ([0089], “As will be discussed herein, the string carrier 480 slides along the center rail 402 toward the riser 404 to engage the draw string 501 while it is in a released configuration (see e.g., FIG. 21A)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the crossbow disclosed by the combination of Rob and Kempf, to have the string carrier, as taught by Yehle, in order to control the movement of the string along the center rail to increase the accuracy of the shooting.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 24 and 25.
Regarding claims 32-34, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 21, and 24-28.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Rob, Kempf and Yehle discloses the crossbow of claim 34, wherein the upper path includes a helical path (Yehle, [0064], “As the first attachment points 106 rotate in direction 120, the power cables 102 are wrapped or wound onto cams 126A, 126B (“126”) with helical journals 122A, 122B (“122”), preferably located at the respective axles 110. The helical journals 122 take up excess slack in the power cables 102 resulting from the string guides 104 moving toward each other in direction 124 as the axles 110 move toward each other”).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Rob, Kempf and Yehle discloses the crossbow of claim 34, further comprising: a scope mount defining an opening, wherein the first upper power cable extends through the opening (Yehle, Figs. 13A and 13B).
Regarding claims 37, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 31.
Regarding claims 38-40, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 21, 24-28 and 36.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights