Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7-15-2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB/ 20130326884, Harvey.
Regarding Claim 1, Harvey discloses a tool for cutting a longitudinal object (tool 210, fig 11, object 276), comprising:
a grip (218) extending between a first side and a second side in a first direction (See annotated fig 11 below, the designated grip portion can be held by a hand, and thus the pat 218 can be considered a grip portion),
a blade 250 arranged in a channel within the grip (See annotated fig 11 below),
wherein the channel and the blade are arranged such that the longitudinal object is receivable and guidable toward the blade by the channel (since the channel houses the blade and a user may use the edges of the channel to guide the workpiece toward the blade), wherein, in the first direction, the channel is arranged closer to the first side than to the second side of the grip (See annotated fig 11 below),
a guiding element 220, which is attached to the grip at an attachment point (the attachment at which the part 220 rotates relative to part 250, par 0042 and fig 11), wherein the attachment point is, in the first direction, located between a channel entrance and the first side (see 2nd annotated fig 11), wherein the guiding element is attached to the grip in a foldable manner relative to the blade such that if folded out the guiding element extends from the grip to guide the longitudinal object toward the channel entrance (par 0042), wherein the guiding element, the channel and the blade are arranged such that the longitudinal object, once received in the channel, can be forced onto the blade by the guiding element by folding in the guiding element such that the blade cuts the longitudinal object (fig 11); wherein the guiding element has a guiding surface that is in line with a part of a channel surface of the channel and that faces the second side of the grip if the guiding element is folded out, said part of the channel surface facing the second side of the grip (see fig 10 annotated below, the designated guiding surface will be in line with a part of the designated channel surface at least at some point during transition from position shown in fig 10 to fig 11, as shown representatively in the 3rd annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
686
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
572
805
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, in Harvey, the guiding element is tapered toward a tip of the guiding element (annotated fig 10 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
492
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, in Harvey, the guiding element has a rounded tip (See: figure 10 annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
492
730
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, in Harvey, an axis of the guiding element is oriented at an angle between 45 degrees and 90 degrees relative to the first direction (At least in certain positions between the position shown in fig 1 and fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11 in Harvey, the blade is oriented along the first direction (least in part, see fig. 10, and the annotated direction of annotated fig 10 related to the claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 12, in Harvey, the tool further comprising at least one foldable tool element 22.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20150328792, Huang.
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses a tool 10 for cutting a longitudinal object (tool 10, fig 1-5, film, see par 0004-0006), comprising:
a grip (combination of cover 33, 21 and 21) extending between a first side and a second side in a first direction (See annotated fig 1 below, the designated grip portion can be held by a hand, and thus these parts can be considered a grip portion),
a blade 65 arranged in a channel 112 within the grip (See fig. 2),
wherein the channel and the blade are arranged such that the longitudinal object is receivable and guidable toward the blade by the channel (since the channel houses the blade and a user may use the edges of the channel to guide the workpiece toward the blade), wherein, in the first direction, the channel is arranged closer to the first side than to the second side of the grip (See annotated fig 5 below),
a guiding element 41, which is attached to the grip at an attachment point (21), wherein the attachment point is, in the first direction, located between a channel entrance and the first side (see annotated fig 5 below), wherein the guiding element is attached to the grip in a foldable manner relative to the blade such that if folded out the guiding element extends from the grip to guide the longitudinal object toward the channel entrance (since an object placed between the part 41 when extended will be press toward the blade when the arm 41 is pivoted toward the blade),
wherein the guiding element, the channel and the blade are arranged such that the longitudinal object, once received in the channel, can be forced onto the blade by the guiding element by folding in the guiding element such that the blade cuts the longitudinal object (since an object placed between the part 41 when extended will be press toward the blade when the arm 41 is pivoted toward the blade);
wherein the guiding element has a guiding surface that is in line with a part of a channel surface of the channel and that faces the second side of the grip if the guiding element is folded out, said part of the channel surface facing the second side of the grip (annotated figure5).
PNG
media_image6.png
572
746
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, in Huang, the guiding element is tapered toward a tip of the guiding element (annotated fig 4 below).
Regarding Claim 4, in Huang, the guiding element has a rounded tip (annotated fig 4below).
PNG
media_image7.png
675
577
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, in Huang, the channel is tilted in such a way that, in the first direction, a portion of the blade is arranged closer to the first side than to a portion of the channel entrance (annotated fig 5 below).
PNG
media_image8.png
574
706
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, in Huang, an axis of the guiding element is oriented at an angle between 45 degrees and 90 degrees relative to the first direction (At least in certain positions between the position shown in fig 5 and fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11 in Huang, the blade is oriented along the first direction (at least in part, see fig. 5, and the annotated direction of annotated fig 5 related to the claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 12, in Huang, the tool further comprising at least one foldable tool element (35, See: fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 13, in Huang an extension of the guiding element from the attachment point to the tip is 30 to 65 % of an extension of the grip in the first direction from the first side to the second side (see annotated fig 6 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
758
759
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, in Huang, the blade comprises a cutting edge (since the blades cut work piece), wherein the longitudinal object can be forced onto the cutting edge by folding in the guiding element (since an object placed between the guide when extended will be pressed toward the blade when the arm is pivoted toward the blade).
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 of this title, 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of USPGPUB 20160059429 Mayes.
Harvey lacks in the first direction, a distance between the attachment point of the guiding element and the first side of the grip is between 0.5 and 3 cm.
Mayes discloses a channel body cutting tool in the same field of endeavor as the channel body handheld cutter tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the overall length of the tool be 84mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the size of the tool of Harvey in view of the teachings of Mayes since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Mayes discloses a known size of a tool similar to that of the present invention and of Castrati. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Mayes to determine a desired size of the Castrati body. In making the size of the body of Walker to be 8.3 cm, the distance of the attachment point to the first side in Castrati, as shown in annotated fig. 1 above, since this distance is approximately 10% of the body, which would be 8mm; e.g. 0.8 cm.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 6532669, Starrett.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Harvey lacks a use of a tool including cutting single-use handcuffs as the longitudinal object wherein the single-use handcuffs are configured in a cable tie manner.
Starrett discloses a slotted cutter tool, in the same field of endeavor as the slotted cutting tool of the present invention and of Castrati and discloses that such a tool includes a use of said tool including cutting single-use handcuffs as the longitudinal object wherein the single-use handcuffs are configured in a cable tie manner in order to cut such a workpiece while maintaining a user’s safety, col 1 lines 10-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harvey by including a use of the tool including cutting single-use handcuffs as the longitudinal object wherein the single-use handcuffs are configured in a cable tie manner. in order to cut such a workpiece while maintaining a user’s, taught by Starrett.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO 2005090012 A1, Castrati.
Regarding Claim 16, Harvey lacks the device thereof further comprising a tool element, wherein the tool element and the guiding element are configured to fold relative to each other in a pocketknife manner.
Castrati discloses a tool having a fixed blade 10 and guiding element 5, at one end thereof, the Tool, further comprising a folding tool element 2 at another end of the device, wherein the tool element 2 and the guiding element 5 are configured to fold relative to each other in a pocketknife manner (pg. 4 lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harvey by including the device thereof further comprising a tool element, wherein the tool element and the guiding element are configured to fold relative to each other in a pocketknife way as taught by Castrati, , in order to perform multiple functions with different type blades on the same device, where both blades may be alternately sheathed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of USPGPUB 20160059429 Mayes.
Huang lacks in the first direction, a distance between the attachment point of the guiding element and the first side of the grip is between 0.5 and 3 cm.
Mayes discloses a channel body cutting tool in the same field of endeavor as the channel body handheld cutter tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the overall length of the tool be 84mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the size of the tool of Huang 83mm in view of the teachings of Mayes since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Mayes discloses a known size of a tool similar to that of the present invention and of Castrati. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings of Mayes to determine a desired size of the Castrati body. In making the size of the body of Walker to be 8.3 cm, the distance of the attachment point to the first side in Castrati, as shown in annotated fig. 1 above, since this distance is approximately 10% of the body, which would be 8mm; e.g. 0.8 cm.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 6532669, Starrett.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Huang lacks a use of a tool including cutting single-use handcuffs as the longitudinal object wherein the single-use handcuffs are configured in a cable tie manner.
Starrett discloses a slotted cutter tool, in the same field of endeavor as the slotted cutting tool of the present invention and of Castrati and discloses that such a tool includes a use of said tool including cutting single-use handcuffs as the longitudinal object wherein the single-use handcuffs are configured in a cable tie manner in order to cut such a workpiece while maintaining a user’s safety, col 1 lines 10-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang by including a use of the tool including cutting single-use handcuffs as the longitudinal object wherein the single-use handcuffs are configured in a cable tie manner. in order to cut such a workpiece while maintaining a user’s, taught by Starrett.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO 2005090012 A1, Castrati.
Regarding Claim 16, Huang lacks the device thereof further comprising a tool element, wherein the tool element and the guiding element are configured to fold relative to each other in a pocketknife manner.
Castrati discloses a tool having a fixed blade 10 and guiding element 5, at one end thereof, the Tool, further comprising a folding tool element 2 at another end of the device, wherein the tool element 2 and the guiding element 5 are configured to fold relative to each other in a pocketknife manner (pg. 4 lines 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang by including the device thereof further comprising a tool element, wherein the tool element and the guiding element are configured to fold relative to each other in a pocketknife way as taught by Castrati, , in order to perform multiple functions with different type blades on the same device, where both blades may be alternately sheathed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7-15-2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102/103 (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Harvey and Huang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 3839788, D540647, D587552, 3673687, 66914161 4802279, 4525928, 4426779, 8322039, 4707920, 20130326884, and 1194486, disclose state of the art knife or cutters with slotted handles for blades, and guides for the slotted blades, and thus each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724