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 Status
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending. Claims 5-6 and 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 7 is canceled. Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claims 2-3 are original. Claim 21 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, FURUI (Pub. No.: US 2014/0159920 A1) is no longer relied upon in the rejection of claim 1, as claim 1 as amended is currently rejected under 35 USC 103 over previously cited references MUNDHRA and LU as described below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNDHRA (Pub. No.: US 2018/0099423 A1; cited in IDS with date 10/26/2023) in view of LU (CN106113096A; cited on IDS with date 10/26/2023; English machine translation is included with office action).
Regarding claim 1, MUNDHRA discloses a handheld tool (knife 100 as shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
a handle (104, Fig. 1) comprising a first end and a second opposite end (108, 110, Fig. 1; ¶ 0021: With reference to FIGS. 1-4, and 8-9 the handle 104 comprises a housing 106 having a proximal end 108 and a distal end 110), wherein the handle is assembled from a first half defining a first cavity and a second half defining a second cavity (120, 122, Fig. 1; ¶ 0022: housing 106 comprises a first housing section 120 defining the first lateral side 116 and a second housing section 122 defining the second lateral side 118), wherein the first cavity and the second cavity are spaced by a channel defined between the first half and the second half of the handle (128, Fig. 1; ¶ 0022: first housing section 120 and the second housing section 122 mate with each at their respective interior sides 124, 126 to define a cavity 128. In folding knives, when the blade 300 is folded into the handle 104, a substantial portion of the blade 300, resides in the cavity 128 with the cutting edge 302 hidden and the spine 304 exposed), wherein the channel is located along a longitudinal axis defined through the first end and the second opposite end of the handle (as shown in Fig. 1);
an electrical system housed within the handle (comprising elements 150 and 146 as shown in Fig. 4, and 102 as shown in Fig. 8) and comprising a charge component (150, Fig. 4) for receiving power and transferring power to a power storage device (146, Fig. 4; ¶ 0025: battery housing 148 may comprise a charging port 150 so that the battery 146 can be recharged), a control unit (144, Fig. 4; ¶ 0024: first set of LEDs 132 may be operatively connected to a first printed circuit board 144 configured to control the lighting features of the first set of LEDs 132…the first printed circuit board 144 can be used to control the color of the light being emitted, whether the lights are constantly on or flashing on and off, how bright or dim the lights are), and an activation device (102, Fig. 8) operably connected to said power storage device (¶ 0039: lights can be turned on and off by activating a switch 102 on the handle 104; it is implied that the switch 102 is “operably connected” to battery 146 in order to allow the lights to be turned on by the power of the battery), wherein the electrical system at least partially surrounds the channel (as shown in Figs. 4 and 8, elements 150, 146, 102, and 144 are all located within the handle 104).
MUNDHRA fails to disclose the handheld tool wirelessly receives power.
LU discloses the handheld tool wirelessly receives power (¶ 0033: charging device 13 is a wireless charging device. When the knife is put back into the knife holder 4, the charging device 13 on the knife holder 4 and the charging device 13 in the handle 2 will automatically charge the rechargeable battery 12 in the handle 2 through wireless charging).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wirelessly receiving power in order to improve user convenience by eliminating charging cables and/or eliminating charging port wear and tear due to charging cable plugging and unplugging.
MUNDHRA fails to disclose a device housed within the handle and comprising at least one of a transmitter or a receiver, said device operably connected to said control unit, wherein said device is configured to transmit output data from said control unit, receive input data, and/or provide said input data to said control unit.
LU further discloses a device housed within the handle and comprising at least one of a transmitter or a receiver (¶ 0006: a Bluetooth module, and a WIFI module inside the handle; ¶ 0021: 8-Bluetooth module, 9-WIFI module), said device operably connected to said control unit (¶ 0025: gravity sensor 6, acceleration sensor 7, Bluetooth module 8, Wi-Fi module 9, LED indicator light 10, speaker 11, rechargeable battery 12, and charging device 13 are connected to the main control board 5), wherein said device is configured to transmit output data from said control unit, receive input data, and/or provide said input data to said control unit (¶ 0027: main control board 5 then begins recording the data from the gravity sensor 6 and acceleration sensor 7 and transmits the data in real time to other connected smart devices via the Bluetooth module 8 or WIFI module 9 to save the data transmitted from the knife. The user can also receive the knife's operation data from other connected smart devices via the Bluetooth module 8 or WIFI module 9. The main control board 5 will compare this data with the real-time data collected by the gravity sensor 6 and acceleration sensor 7 on the knife. If the data is incorrect, the main control board 5 will prompt the user through the LED indicator light 10 and speaker 11 until the user uses the knife correctly, thus guiding the user to use the knife correctly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the device comprising at least one of a transmitter or a receiver as recited in order to guide the user to use the tool correctly and/or record the data of the user when using the knife and transmit it to other smart devices (LU, ¶ 0011).
Regarding claim 2, MUNDHRA as modified by LU teaches said device comprising at least one of said transmitter or said receiver is configured to communicate with at least one of a computer system, personal electronic device, or intermediate server (LU, ¶ 0027) configured to execute one or more program instructions for a program or application including a user portal or dashboard configured for a user to view said transmitted output data, and further configured for services related to ownership, registration, and support of the handheld tool (these recitations describe the functions of “at least one of a computer system, personal electronic device, or intermediate server”, not the claimed handheld tool, and therefore do not further limit the claim).
Regarding claim 4, MUNDHRA as modified by LU teaches said device comprising at least one of said transmitter or said receiver is configured for Bluetooth®, wherein said control unit is configured to transmit said output data and receive said input data via Bluetooth® (LU, ¶ 0011, 0021, 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 21, MUNDHRA discloses the channel substantially bisects the first half and the second half of the handle along the longitudinal axis defined through the first end and the second opposite end of the handle (as shown in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNDHRA in view of LU as applied to claims 1-2, 4, and 21 above, and further in view of FURUI (Pub. No.: US 2014/0159920 A1; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 3, MUNDHRA as modified by LU teaches the handheld tool as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose said device comprising at least one of said transmitter or said receiver is configured to communicate data related to operational information of the handheld tool including power storage device level, power storage device charge rate and/or discharge rate, or a cycle count of components installed within the handheld tool.
FURUI discloses said device comprising at least one of said transmitter or said receiver is configured to communicate data related to operational information of the handheld tool including power storage device level, power storage device charge rate and/or discharge rate, or a cycle count of components installed within the handheld tool (¶ 0129-0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include communicating data related to operational information as recited in order to facilitate maintenance of the handheld tool (FURUI, abstract, ¶ 0012).
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 MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 6/28/2026
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights