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 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 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9-15, 20-26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nottingham et al. (2006/0005402), hereinafter Nottingham, in view of, Zeng et al. (2014,01755914), and Patel (2008/0244910).
Regarding claim 1, Nottingham teaches an electric knife substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a handle 110 having a forward end and rearward end;
a blade 242 ;
a blade connector 240 supported by the handle and configured to connect to the blade; and
a motor unit 246 in the handle and connected to the blade connector, the motor unit configured to oscillate the blade when the blade is connected to the blade connector, the motor unit including a motor, a motor fan, a motor housing, and a motor housing vent, the motor having a motor shaft 250, the motor being inside the motor housing, the vent motor housing being inside the handle the motor fan arranged to force air out of the motor housing through the motor housing vent, the motor housing vent having a first vent flow area, the motor shaft being rearward of the blade connector and extending forwardly from the motor housing; and wherein the handle comprises a handle vent arranged to permit flow of air out of the handle from the motor housing vent, the handle vent having a second vent flow area greater than the first vent flow area of the motor housing vent.
See Figs. 1-3.
A- Nottingham does not teach the motor unit having a motor fan and a motor housing vent.
Zeng teaches a motor unit including a motor, a motor fan 7, a motor housing, and a motor housing vent (61, 140 and holes on section 5) for cooling the motor unit. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the motor unit in Nottingham a motor fan and a motor housing vent as taught by Zeng for cooling the motor unit and the knife.
B- Nottingham does not teach the handle having a handle vent. The handle vent having a second vent flow area greater than a first vent flow area of the motor housing vent.
Patel teaches a saw comprising a handle having a handle vent (126, 128). See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the electric knife of Nottingham a handle vent as taught by Patel for cooling the motor and the handle.
Patel does not teach the handle vent having a greater vent flow than the motor vent. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by make the handle vent having a greater vent flow than the motor vent, 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.
Regarding claims 4-6, the modified electric knife of Nottingham teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the flow area of the handle vent being 20%, 100%, or 300% greater the flow area of the motor vent. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to make the flow area of the handle vent being 20%, 100%, or 300% greater the flow area of the motor vent 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Patel teaches the handle vent 126 being at a rear location.
Regarding claim 2, Nottingham teaches an electric knife substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a handle 110 including a forward end and a rearward end, the handle including a grip configured to be grasped by a hand of a user;
a blade 242 configured to be supported by the handle and to extend forward from the forward end of the handle when the blade is supported by the handle; and
a motor unit 246 in the handle and configured to oscillate the blade when the blade is supported by the handle, the motor unit including a motor, a motor fan, a motor housing, and a motor housing vent, the motor being inside of the motor housing, the motor housing vent being inside the handle, the motor fan arranged to force air tangentially with respect to the motor fan out of the motor housing vent;
the handle comprising a handle vent arranged to permit direct flow of air out of the handle from the motor housing vent, the handle vent being arranged to receive direct flow of air tangentially from the motor fan; and
the handle vent and the motor housing vent being disposed rearward of the grip.
See Figs. 1-2.
A- Nottingham does not teach the motor unit having a motor fan and a motor housing vent.
Zeng teaches a motor unit including a motor, a motor fan 7, a motor housing, and a motor housing vent (61, 140 and holes on section 5) for cooling the motor unit. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the motor unit in Nottingham a motor fan and a motor housing vent as taught by Zeng for cooling the motor unit and the knife.
B- Nottingham does not teach the handle having a handle vent. The handle vent having a second vent flow area greater than a first vent flow area of the motor housing vent.
Patel teaches a saw comprising a handle having a handle vent (126, 128). See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the electric knife of Nottingham a handle vent as taught by Patel for cooling the motor and the handle.
Patel does not teach the handle vent having a greater vent flow than the motor vent. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by make the handle vent having a greater vent flow than the motor vent, 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.
The modified handle vent and the modified motor housing vent are disposed rearward of the grip.
Regarding claims 10-12, Nottingham teaches the blade oriented in a vertical direction is best seen in Fig. 2. Patel does not show both sides of the tool. However, to provide each motor vent 128 on each half of the housing 112 is known in the art for increasing air flow area. Regarding the limitation of the center of the motor vent located below or above a horizontal plane intersecting an axis of rotation of the motor, to shift the motor vent such that its center below or above the horizontal plane intersecting the axis of rotation of the motor is rearranged location of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 13, Patel does not show both sides of the tool. However, to provide each handle vent 126 on each half of the housing 112 is known in the art for increasing air flow area.
Regarding claim 14, Nottingham teaches the blade oriented in a vertical direction is best seen in Fig. 2. Patel does not show both sides of the tool. However, to provide each motor vent 128 on each half of the housing 112 is known in the art for increasing air flow area. Regarding the limitation of the centers of the motor vents located below and above a horizontal plane intersecting an axis of rotation of the motor, to shift the motor vents such that one of its center above and the other below the horizontal plane intersecting the axis of rotation of the motor is rearranged location of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 15, Patel does not teach the handle vent having a greater vent flow than the motor vent. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by make the handle vent having a greater vent flow than the motor vent, 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.
Regarding claims 20-23, the motor fan being inside of the motor housing and the motor housing vent being a part of the motor housing are best seen in Figs. 1-2 in Zeng.
Regarding claim 24, Nottingham, Patel and Zeng teach an electric motor. Zeng teaches the electric motor and the motor fan are inside of the motor interior. See Figs. 1-2 in Zeng.
Regarding claim 25, Zeng teaches the fan being on an opposite end of the shaft. See Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 26, Nottingham and Zeng teach the motor unit being separately from the handle.
Regarding claim 31, the modified handle vent and the modified motor housing vent are adjacent to the rearward end of the handle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nottingham et al. (2006/0005402), hereinafter Nottingham, in view of, Zeng et al. (2014,01755914), and Patel (2008/0244910) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooper et al. (2004/0011544).
Regarding claim 7, the modified electric knife of Nottingham teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the housing vent being a screen.
Cooper teaches an electric tool comprising a vent having screen 15. See Fig. 1.
The vent area in form of slots as taught by Patel and the vent area in form of a mesh as taught by Cooper are art equivalents known in the art since both types of vent area conducting fluid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the vent area in form a mesh in the modified electric knife of Nottingham since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 112 rejections and Drawing objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes Wong reference. Nottingham reference replaces Wong reference to teach the motor shaft and the blade connector being positioned closer to the forward end of the handle in the same manner as the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724