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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/14/2025 in which claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending, and claims 1 and 7 are currently amended.
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, 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (U.S. Patent 2,736,960) in view of Fraga et al. (U.S. Patent D580,241), herein referred to as Fraga. In regards to claim 1, Armstrong discloses a multi-orientation razor, comprising: a substantially flat metal blade member (blade 7) being frangible about having a blade length and a central axis (“a razor blade knife in which halves of a double edged razor blade are employed as the cutting elements “col. 1, lines 21-23), a cutout opening (see Fig. 4) having a cutout length defined along the central axis, the cutout length being longer than a cutout width but less than the blade length to define a predetermined region of frangibility at a portion of the central axis, the substantially flat metal blade member (7) having on a first peripheral edge thereof a first straight sharp edge, the first straight sharp edge being parallel to the central axis,
the first peripheral edge further comprising a first concavely curved sharp edge; and the substantially flat metal blade member having on a second peripheral edge thereof a second straight sharp edge, the second straight sharp edge being parallel to the central axis, the second peripheral edge further comprising a second concavely curved sharp edge.
Armstrong discloses that the cutting tool is useful in “useful and practical for biological dissecting, art and paper work, softwood carving, dress- making, scribing metals and plastics, photography, and many other purposes” col. 1, lines 15-20, but does not disclose wherein the first and second peripheral edges have first and second concavely curved sharp edges. Attention is further directed to the Fraga razor blade. Fraga discloses the use of both a sharp straight blade and a sharp concave hook on the same peripheral edge. Therefore, both a piercing cutting action and a slicing cutting action can be imparted with the same blade. As Armstrong indicates that the cutting tool can be utilized for multiple cutting purposes and as demonstrated by Fraga to be known to combine cutting functions on the same cutting edge, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blade profile of Armstrong to have incorporated both a straight and concave blade portion on both sides of the Armstrong peripheral edge to improve the versatility and usefulness of the Armstrong razor blade as demonstrated by Fraga while employed in one of the many practical cutting applications previously identified.
In regard to claim 2, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein the first straight sharp edge and the first concavely curved sharp edge comprise a continuous razor edge (as modified, the blade of Yang would be continuous into the concave edge portion)
In regard to claim 3, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein the substantially flat metal blade member has a blade length dimension measured parallel to the central axis and the first straight sharp edge extends a distance equal to from 50% to 90% of the blade length dimension (as modified by Fraga, the concave portion would be less than 50% of the blade length dimension).
In regard to claim 4, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein the first concavely curved sharp edge defines a first notch (opening in the blade edge) in the first peripheral edge and the second concavely curved sharp edge defines a second notch (second opening in the blade edge) in the second peripheral edge.
In regard to claim 5, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein the first concavely curved sharp edge defines a first tab extending from the first peripheral edge and the second concavely curved sharp edge defines a second tab extending from the second peripheral edge (as modified by Fraga, the concave edge(s) define a hook).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (U.S. Patent 2,736,960) in view of Crum (U.S. Patent 1,748,638)
In regards to claim 7, Armstrong discloses a multi-orientation razor, comprising: a substantially flat metal blade member (blade 7) being frangible about having a blade length and a central axis (“a razor blade knife in which halves of a double edged razor blade are employed as the cutting elements “col. 1, lines 21-23), a cutout opening (see Fig. 4) having a cutout length defined along the central axis, the cutout length being longer than a cutout width but less than the blade length to define a predetermined region of frangibility at a portion of the central axis, the substantially flat metal blade member (7) having on a first peripheral edge thereof a first straight sharp edge, the first straight sharp edge being parallel to the central axis,
the flexible metal blade member having on a first peripheral edge thereof a first straight sharp edge (fig. 4), the first straight sharp edge being non-parallel to the central axis, the first peripheral edge further comprising a first concavely curved sharp edge; and the flexible metal blade member having on a second peripheral edge thereof a second straight sharp edge (fig. 4), the second straight sharp edge being non-parallel to the central axis, the second peripheral edge further comprising a second concavely curved sharp edge.
Armstrong discloses that the cutting tool is useful in “useful and practical for biological dissecting, art and paper work, softwood carving, dress- making, scribing metals and plastics, photography, and many other purposes” col. 1, lines 15-20, but does not disclose wherein the first and second straight edges are non-parallel to the central axis, nor does Armstrong disclose that peripheral edges have first and second concavely curved sharp edges.
Attention is further directed to the Crum razor blades. Crum discloses an alternative blade hook configuration, where the cutting edge possesses both a concave bottom and a straight edge at 17. Crum discloses that this blade edge allows the knife to be used for peeling insulated electrical conductors.
Armstrong therefore indicates that many cutting applications are encompassed by the utility knife of the present invention and Crum sets forth that the use of utility knives for peeling insulated conductors is well established in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the straight cutting edge of Armstrong for the hooked edge of Crum by known methods, thereby allowing the use of the Armstrong blade in a different capacity of peeling insulation. The result of such a substitution would have been predictable in that the device would then be capable of additional cutting applications, thereby increasing the versatility of the cutting tool as demonstrated by Crum.
PNG
media_image1.png
252
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein the first straight sharp edge and the first concavely curved sharp edge comprise a continuous razor edge (as modified by Crum 17).
In regard to claim 10, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein the first concavely curved sharp edge defines a first tab (end of Crum blade near 17) extending from the first peripheral edge and the second concavely curved sharp edge defines a second tab extending from the second peripheral edge (symmetric blade).
In regard to claim 11, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein one of the first tab and the second tab define a shark tooth shape (pointed tab of Crum).
In regard to claim 12, the modified device of Armstrong discloses wherein an imaginary line aligned with one of the first straight sharp edge and the second straight sharp edge intersects with an imaginary line aligned with the central axis at an angle of between about 10 degrees and about 40 degrees (see Crum Figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 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.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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 at 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724