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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 59-62 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 59-62, the phrase “a least in part” should be replaced with “at least in part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 59-68 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 “handle pivot angle” is unclear. It is unclear what structures define this angle. Without any structures defining this angle, the hand tool has an infinite number of angles that can be defined as a handle pivot angle. Without any structural definition, the hand pivot angle can be measured differently each time. It is assumed that the angle associated with this limitation is labeled as 4800 in Figure 12A. Using Figure 12A, the handles do not appear to define the angle but an unlabeled line connecting the center of two circles. These are the structures that define the angle 4800 and the claim needed to utilize these structures so it is clear what angle is being referenced.
With regards to claim 36, the phrase “handle pivot angle” is unclear. Paragraph [168] discloses three different handle pivot angles 4800, 4900, and 4910. Without any structures defining this angle, it is unclear which of the three is being referenced.
With regards to claim 60, the disclosure that “the blade washer is a front washer surrounded by the front blade” is unclear in that this limitation does not prevent the blade washer from also being surrounded by the back blade as disclosed in claim 59. As written, the washer can be surrounded by the back blade and the front blade at the same time which is not supported. Claim 60 needs a disclosure that eliminates the possibility of the blade washer being surrounded by the back blade. Renaming the washer as a front washer does not remove the possibility of being surround by the back blade. Claims 61 and 62 have the same issue.
With regards to claims 63, 64, and 65, the phrases “a purlicue grip”, “a finger set”, and “a purlicue projection” are unclear. What structures define these limitations? As written, the purlicue grip, the finger set, and the projection are parts of the hand tool where they are in addition to the handles which does not appear to be supported. The purlicue grip, set, and projection appear to be on one of the handles and the claims need to disclose this relationship because this is the only way there appears to be support.
With regards to claims 63, 64, 65, and 66, the phrase “purlicue arc centerpoint” is unclear. It is unclear what structure defines the arc center point as the purlicue grip has an infinite number of arcs with an infinite number of points capable of being a center. Without definition of which arc and which centerpoint, these limitations can be different each time. Further definition is needed so that it is clear which arc and which centerpoint are being referenced.
With regards to claims 63, 64, 65, and 66, the phrase “handle longitudinal plane” is unclear. What structure defines this plane? As written, neither of the handles define the plane which does not appear to be supported. Any plane that travels through any point that can be considered a centerpoint of the handle can be the handle longitudinal plane. Further definition is needed so it is clear which plane is being referenced.
Claims 63, 64, and 65 recite the limitation "the metal snips". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
With regards to claims 63, 65, and 66, the phrase “an open configuration” is unclear. What structures define this configuration? As written, the blades and handles do not define the open configuration which is not supported. Also, which open configuration is being referenced. The tool appears to have many different levels of open and it is unclear which of these open configurations are being referenced in the claims.
With regards to claims 64 and 65, the phrase “a closed configuration” is unclear. What structures define this configuration? As written, the blades and handles do not define the closed configuration which is not supported.
With regards to claim 66, the phrases “a purlicue grip”, “a finger set”, “a purlicue projection”, “the finger trough”, and “the low point” are unclear. What structures define these limitations? As written, these limitations are parts of the hand tool where they are in addition to the handles which does not appear to be supported. These limitations appear to be on one of the handles and the claims need to disclose this relationship because this is the only way there appears to be support.
Claim 66 recite the limitations “the finger trough”, “the low point”, "the metal snips". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
With regards to claim 66, the phrase “low point” is unclear. The tool is handheld and is capable of being used in an infinite number of orientations including ones where this point would not be considered low but high. Terms that are true regardless of orientation must be used when an orientation is not positively defined.
With regards to claim 67, what structures produce the cutting force? As written, the blades are not involved in the cutting force which is not supported.
With regards to claim 67, the gripping force disclosure is unclear. It is unclear how the gripping force is applied to the handles. All directions of the force may not allow for the claimed cutting force to be produced.
With regards to claim 68, what structures define the leverage ratio? What structures define the span angle?
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 36 and 47-49 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (4,569,132) or, in the alternative, over Hill (4,569,132) in view of Grosick et al. (2017/0082133).
With regards to claim 36, 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 handle pivot angle (38, Fig. 1), a 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 blade washer is adjacent to the relief washer (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76”. The term “adjacent” is interpreted as meaning “near” and all parts of the tool are “near” all of the remaining parts of the tool), the 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).
With regards to claims 47-49, Hill discloses the tool is a metal cutter, snips, and aviation snips (column 1 lines 20-22).
However, with regards to claim 36, Hill fails to disclose the handle pivot angle in a range of 65°to 84°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the handle pivot angle in any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Hill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 36. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
However, with regards to claim 36 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.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (4,569,132) or Hill (4,569,132) in view of Grosick et al. (2017/0082133).
With regards to claim 37, Hill discloses the invention including a handle pivot centerline (24A) and a blade pivot centerline (38), and the centerlines have an extended centerlines distance between them (Fig. 1).
However, Hill fails to disclose the distance is 10mm to 50mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the distance any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Hill to obtain the invention as specified in claim 37. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (4,569,132) or Hill (4,569,132) in view of Grosick et al. (2017/0082133), in view of Nelson et al. (2006/0067787).
With regards to claim 40, Hill discloses the blade washer is a front blade washer having a front 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), the relief washer is a front relief washer and the relief washer opening is a front 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), and the blade pivot passes through the front openings (Fig. 3).
However, Hill fails to disclose a back blade washer having a back blade washer opening, a back relief washer having a back relief washer opening, and the blade pivot passes through the back openings.
Nelson et al. teach it is known in the art of shear pivots to incorporate a washer (56) on each side of the blade pivot (38). In light of Nelson et al. teaching washers on each side and Hill’s teaching of two washers in frictional contact on one side, it would have been within one’s technical skill to have included two washers in frictional contact on each side that all receive the blade pivot. 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 additional washers, as taught by Nelson 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.
However, with regards to claim 40 and to the degree it can be argued that the back blade and back relief washers (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76”) of Modified 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 Modified Hill with the frictional contact between the back 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 43, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (4,569,132) or Hill (4,569,132) in view of Grosick et al. (2017/0082133) in view of Teramae et al. (4,074,011).
With regards to claims 44 and 45, Hill discloses the blade washer (which can be a front or back washer) and the relief washer (which can be a front or back washer) (see rejection of claim 36 above) and at least one of the front/back washers has a first material (76).
However, with regards to claims 43-45, Hill fails to disclose the relief washer has a polymer and at least one of the front/back washers has the first material having a coating having a second material different than the first material.
Teramae et al. teach it is known in the art of washers (column 2 lines 4-6) to incorporate a polymer (column 2 line 18) and for washers to have first material having a coating having a second material different than the first material (abstract). Such a modification improves corrosion resisting (abstract line 7). 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 material and coating, as taught by Teramae 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.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill (4,569,132) or Hill (4,569,132) in view of Grosick et al. (2017/0082133) in view of Nelson et al. (2006/0067787) further in view of Teramae et al. (4,074,011). See rejections of claims 40, 44, and 45 above.
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). See claim 36 above for the Grosick et al. portion of the rejection.
With regards to claim 59, 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 blade washer is adjacent to the relief washer (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76”. The term “adjacent” is interpreted as meaning “near” and all parts of the tool are “near” all of the remaining parts of the tool), the 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 washer is surrounded at least in part by a portion of the front blade and a back blade washer surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade.
Schneider teaches it is known in the art of pivoted handheld cutting tools to incorporate 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 a back blade washer (44) being surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade (34 surrounds 44 in 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.
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 36 above for the Grosick et al. portion of the rejection.
With regards to claim 59, 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 blade washer is adjacent to the relief washer (Column 4 lines 44-52 discloses “two washers 76”. The term “adjacent” is interpreted as meaning “near” and all parts of the tool are “near” all of the remaining parts of the tool), the 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 washer is surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade.
Schneider teaches it is known in the art of pivoted handheld cutting tools to incorporate the back blade washer (46) being surrounded at least in part by a portion of the back blade (36 surrounds 46 in 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 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: 7:30 am-3:30 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, Adam J 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.
29 September 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724