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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
The first origin point and the second origin point, of claim 36
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 36, 37, 40, 43-49, and 63-68 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.
With regards to claim 36, the phrase “a portion of the purlicue grip having a curved surface formed equidistant from a first origin point at a purlicue curve radius from said first origin point” is unclear. It is unclear what can and cannot be considered “a portion” of the grip since all of this grip appears to be curved. The curved surface is unclear in that it is not clear where the curved surface begins and ends. Since it is unclear where the curved surface begins and ends, it is unclear what structure allows for the curved surface to be “equidistant” from the first origin point. What structure defines the first origin point? What structure defines the purlicue curve radius? Just because the radius shares a name with the purlicue grip does not automatically mean the two are related. The first origin point is disclosed as being “at” the curve radius. A driver stops “at” a stop sign but never engages the stop sign. Does the first origin point play a role in the definition of the radius?
With regards to claim 36, the phrase “a first origin point at a purlicue curve radius from said first origin point” is confusing.
With regards to claim 36, “a finger set” is unclear. The term “finger set” is unclear. Does this limitation require more than one structure to make up a “set” (810 and 850)? Also claim 66 discloses the trough is part of the set. It is unclear how the trough can be part of the set. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 36, “a finger set having a portion of the finger set having a curved surface formed equidistant from a second origin point at a finger set radius from said second origin point” is unclear. It is unclear what can and cannot be considered “a portion” of the set since all of this set appears to be curved. The curved surface is unclear in that it is not clear where the curved surface begins and ends. Since it is unclear where the curved surface begins and ends, it is unclear what structure allows for the curved surface to be “equidistant” from the second origin point. What structure defines the second origin point? What structure defines the finger set radius? Just because the radius shares a name with the set does not automatically mean the two are related. The second origin point is disclosed as being “at” the finger set radius. A driver stops “at” a stop sign but never engages the stop sign. Does the second origin point play a role in the definition of the radius?
With regards to claims 63-66, the phrase “a purlicue projection” is unclear. What structure defines the projection? It is noted that all structures are 3-dimensional and project in all directions. Using the specification, this projection is an imaginary dashed line 5159. How can the tool comprise an imaginary line? As written, the tool requires a structural “projection” which does not appear to be the intent.
With regards to claims 63-66, the phrase “purlicue grip which has a purlicue concave arc” is unclear. Claim 36 discloses the purlicue grip has a curved surface. It is unclear if the concave arc represents the same or a different portion of the grip than the curved surface. As written, the grip has a concave arc and a separate curved surface which does not appear to be supported.
With regards to claims 63-66, the phrase “purlicue concave arc having a purlicue arc centerpoint” is unclear. It is unclear what centerpoint is being referenced. There are many different points that can be considered a centerpoint of the arc and the claim needs to define this centerpoint so it is clear which one is being claimed.
With regards to claims 63-66, the phrases “palm handle centerline” and “finger handle centerline” are indefinite. Any line that can extend through either handle can be a centerline that will extend along a portion of the respective handle making the limitations indefinite. 1500 is a longitudinal palm handle centerline 1700 is a longitudinal finger handle centerline. Use of the term “longitudinal” makes it clear which centerlines are being disclosed.
With regards to claims 63-66, the phrase “a handle longitudinal centerline plane” is indefinite. What structure defines the plane? Without definition, the tool can define an infinite number of centerline planes. For example, disclosure that the plane extends through the blade pivot and the handle pivot is one way to properly define the plane.
With regards to claims 63, 65, and 66, the “fully open configuration” is unclear. Earlier the claim discloses centerline span angle of 60°. The 60° option needs to define the “fully open configuration” because the angle cannot be 15° when in the fully open configuration.
With regards to claims 63, 65, and 66, the “fully open configuration” is unclear. Earlier the claim discloses centerline span angle of 60°. The 60° option needs to define the “fully open configuration” because the angle cannot be 15° when in the fully open configuration.
With regards to claims 64 and 65, the “closed configuration” is unclear. Earlier the claim discloses centerline span angle of 15°. The 15° option needs to define the “closed configuration” because the angle cannot be 60° when in the closed configuration.
With regards to claim 66, the phrase “finger trough low point” is unclear. Using Figure 2, trough 880 appears to be a high point in this orientation. The tool is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations that do not allow for 880 to be a “low” point. 880 appears to be an innermost point of the set and would be the innermost regardless of the orientation of the tool.
With regards to claim 66, the range “1mm to 20mm” is not understood. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 67, The tool cannot comprise a cutting force or a leverage ratio. These need to be disclosed in a way where the forces and ratios are created in cooperation with the user. Without the user, the tool does not have a cutting force or the ratio. Also, as written, the cutting force does not incorporate the front or back blades in its disclosure. How can there be a cutting force without the blades playing a role?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 59, 60, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (4,569,132) in view of Schneider (2014/0360024) or, in the alternative, over Hill (4,569,132) in view of Schneider (2014/0360024) and Grosick et al. (2017/0082133).
With regards to claims 59, 60, and 61, Hill discloses the invention including a hand tool (10A) having a front blade (18) connected to a palm handle (48), a back blade (16) connected to a finger handle (46), a blade pivot (24A) pivotally connecting the blades (Fig. 3), a handle pivot (38), a front blade washer having a blade washer opening (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76” and the blade washer is a first one of these two washers labeled 76) through which the blade pivot passes (Fig. 3), a relief washer having a relief washer opening (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76” and the relief washer is a second one of these two washers labeled 76) through which the blade pivot passes (Fig. 3), the front blade washer is in frictional contact with the relief washer (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76”), and the palm handle and the finger handle are pivotally connected by the handle pivot (Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claims 59, 60, and 62, Hill fails to disclose the front blade has a front opening face, the front blade washer is surrounded at least in part by a portion of the front blade and in frictional contact with the front opening face, a back blade washer, the back blade has a back opening face and the back blade washer is surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade and in frictional contact with the back opening face.
Schneider teaches it is known in the art of pivoted handheld cutting tools to incorporate the front blade has a front opening face (Fig. 4), the front blade washer (46) being surrounded at least in part by a portion of the front blade (36 surrounds 46 in Fig. 4) and in frictional contact with the front opening face (Fig. 4), a back blade washer (44) the back blade has a back opening face (Fig. 4) and the back blade washer is surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade (34 surrounds 44 in Fig. 4) and in frictional contact with the back opening face (Fig. 4). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have countersunk the washers of Hill and to have added another countersunk washer on the other side of the pivot in light of Schneider. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Hill with the surrounded front and back washers, as taught by Schneider, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claim 59 and to the degree it can be argued that the blade and relief washers (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76”) of Hill are not in frictional contact with one another.
Grosick et al. (2017/0082133) teach that it is known in the art of connections utilizing a nut (20) cooperating with washers to incorporate two frictionally engaged washers (25, 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Hill with the frictional contact between the washers, as taught by Grosick et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 59 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (4,569,132) in view of Schneider (2014/0360024) or, in the alternative, over Hill (4,569,132) in view of Schneider (2014/0360024) and Grosick et al. (2017/0082133). See claim 59 above for the Grosick et al. portion of the rejection.
With regards to claims 59 and 61, Hill discloses the invention including a hand tool (10A) having a front blade (16) connected to a palm handle (46), a back blade (18) connected to a finger handle (48), a blade pivot (24A) pivotally connecting the blades (Fig. 3), a handle pivot (38), a back blade washer having a blade washer opening (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76” and the blade washer is a first one of these two washers labeled 76) through which the blade pivot passes (Fig. 3), a relief washer having a relief washer opening (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76” and the relief washer is a second one of these two washers labeled 76) through which the blade pivot passes (Fig. 3), the back blade washer is in frictional contact with the relief washer (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76”), and the palm handle and the finger handle are pivotally connected by the handle pivot (Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claims 59 and 61, Hill fails to disclose the back blade has a back opening face and the back blade washer is surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade and in frictional contact with the back opening face.
Schneider teaches it is known in the art of pivoted handheld cutting tools to incorporate the back blade has a back opening face (Fig. 4) and the back blade washer (46) being surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade (36 surrounds 46 in Fig. 4) and in frictional contact with the back opening face (Fig. 4). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have countersunk the washers of Hill in light of Schneider. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Hill with the surrounded back washer, as taught by Schneider, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 36, 37, 40, 43-49, and 63-68 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (571)272-4502. 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.
13 October 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
