Games using tangible projectile – Projectile – per se; part thereof or accessory therefor – Arrow – dart – or shuttlecock; part thereof
Reexamination Certificate
2000-11-22
2003-04-29
Ricci, John A. (Department: 3712)
Games using tangible projectile
Projectile, per se; part thereof or accessory therefor
Arrow, dart, or shuttlecock; part thereof
Reexamination Certificate
active
06554725
ABSTRACT:
II. PRIOR ART REFERENCES
2/1975
Groner
3,868,114
9/1977
Troncoso, Jr.
4,050,696
5/1980
Simo
4,203,601
7/1980
Kosbab
4,210,330
8/1985
Schaar
4,533,146
11/1987
Schaar
4,706,965
III. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The general background of the invention up until about 1984 was well described in prior art reference U.S. Pat. No. 4,533,146. This patent application incorporates that background section by reference. To that background reference, I now add the prior art reflected in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,965, and the additional background which follows.
References U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,965 sought to define a combination of arrow sub-components that could be assembled in a manner which, when combined, provided additional reinforcements in the area near each end of the arrow shaft, and near the center of the arrow shaft, and which could be configured, by trimming prescribed amounts of material from excessively long point inserts, nock inserts, points, and nocks, so as to achieve proper front-to-back balance in the finished arrow.
It was found to be the case that, in 1984, a single very stiff arrow shaft could indeed be used with virtually all bow types, and draw lengths, and bow draw weights, especially bows suitable for use as hunting bows, by using the compliment of components as defined in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,965.
However, it has also proven to be the case that as compound bows continued to evolve after 1985, they often incorporated pulley systems that resulted in very high levels of draw force reduction at full draw. At the time U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,965 were applied for, the average compound bow incorporated a reduction of draw force at full draw in the 30-50% range. Compound bows having this level of letoff generally called for arrows having about 9 grains of arrow weight for each pound of bow draw weight. By 1994, the average compound bow incorporated a draw force reduction percentage in the 60-90% range. Some compound bows having higher levels of letoff built into their pulley systems were found to require only about 4-5 grains of arrow weight for each pound of bow draw weight, when the bow's limbs were constructed of lighter-weight laminates or pultruded materials than had been in use prior to 1985.
The requirements for longbows and recurves remain essentially unchanged from those described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,533,146, being about 6.5 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight for longbows, and 7.5 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight for recurve bows.
Additionally, a resurgence since 1985 in the use of overdraw accessories which allow a given bow to effectively use arrows that are 4-5″ shorter than usual, also served to increase the relative stiffness of any given size shaft when it was cut off to a shorter length, providing a potential for even further reducing the total arrow weight of the arrows for bows equipped with overdraw arrow rest attachments.
Thus, prior to 1985, the total spread of arrow weight ranges for a given draw weight bow, regardless of whether the bow was of longbow, recurve, or compound bow design, would generally range between 6.5 grains of arrow weight for each pound of bow draw weight (for longbows with no letoff), to 9 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight (for compound bows with 30% letoff). Thus a 60# draw weight bow of any type could have it's matching arrow-weight requirements met by producing arrows whose total weight ranged from 390 grains to 540 grains, using the component mix defined by U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,965, with a variance of 150 grains in overall arrow weight. The variance of 150 grains in this instance represents a 52% increase of the heavier arrow's weight compared to the lighter arrow's weight.
By 1990, it had become the case that a compound bow of a given draw weight might require arrows with weight characteristics varying from 4.5 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight (for a short draw length compound bow having light mass weight limbs and having a reduction in draw force in the 80% range, coupled with use of an overdraw arrow rest attachment and very short arrows), up to 9 or more grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw weight (for a compound bow having heavy mass weight limbs, and using full length arrows, and having a 25-30% letoff in draw force at full draw). The overall weight requirements for a given compound bow in the 60# draw weight range after 1990, might therefore vary from 270 grains up to 540 grains. The 270 grain variance in overall arrow weights in this instance represents a 100% increase of the heavier arrow's weight, when compared to the lighter arrow's weight.
The current greater spread of arrow weight requirements for a given draw weight of bows, of all bow types, effectively requires that between two different compound bows of equal draw weight, because of differences in limb mass and letoff characteristics, one bow might require an overall arrow weight that is two or more times as great as the other bow. Variances of this magnitude cannot be optimally accommodated by the prior art approaches described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,965, especially for hunting bows with relatively light draw weights.
Evolution in compound bows since 1985 has served to effectively negate much of the advantage relating to U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,965 which called for a single size arrow to be constructed for all different bow draw weights and draw lengths. Since 1985, evolutionary changes in compound bows have introduced an increased need for more than one size arrow to be produced so that every bow, regardless of type, limb mass, draw weight, draw length, and percentage of pulley system reduction in draw force at full draw, can achieve an optimum match of arrow mass (weight) to bow peak weight, and bow letoff.
From a practical standpoint, the changes to compound bows, especially since 1989, relating to increasing the level of draw force reduction at full draw by a significant amount, coupled with a resurgence in the use of overdraw attachments to the bow risers, and use of lighter mass materials in the bow's limbs, have again introduced such a significant difference between how stiff and heavy a shaft might need to be to be optimally fitted to a given bow, for the broader range of bow draw weight, draw length, limb mass, and draw force reduction (letoff) ranges now possible, that attempting to meet the needs of all bows with a single size shaft column became much more difficult, and increasingly less practical than had been the case earlier.
Given the evolutionary changes in bow configurations (overdraws) and increased letoff percentages built into many current-day compound bows, a single size shaft that would be stiff enough for all draw weights and draw lengths would often be heavier than necessary or desirable, even with the lightest of end-mounted components, when it comes to achieving an optimum arrow (weight) ratio for a given draw weight bow, especially low draw weight bows, having limbs constructed of light mass materials, and having pulley systems with high letoff percentages.
Conversely, an given size arrow that was light enough to be optimal when used from a very light draw weight bow, with a very high percentage of draw force reduction at full draw, and with short draw length, with the draw length possibly made even shorter by use of an overdraw, would often either be too limber for heavier draw-weight bows equipped with heavy mass limbs, and having a low letoff percentage, or not weigh enough to properly load the limbs sufficiently to preclude a dry-fire effect in the heavier draw weight bow.
At the time U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,533,146 and 4,706,195 were applied for, the single arrow for all sizes of bows, especially hunting bows, was a sound and practical concept. However, by 1990, continuing evolution in the compound bow area had significantly offset the usefulness of this aspect of these prior art references.
LandOfFree
Weight-forward composite arrow shaft does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Weight-forward composite arrow shaft, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Weight-forward composite arrow shaft will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3069128