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
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 of this title, 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 7-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20120073152, McGahan in view of USPN 8,091,250, Jinks.
Regarding Claim 7, McGahan discloses a method of using a utility knife (method of using box cutter BC combined with Clip assembly 22, which together are herein defined as a utility knife assembly) comprising:
grasping a utility knife (combination of box cutter BC combined with Clip 22) having a blade aperture (opening at bottom of clip assembly 22, defined by walls 60 and 58 of housing 22 fig 3, and through which blade CB extends, see fig 6) and a knife blade CB with a cutting edge extending from the blade aperture in the knife handle (see figs 2 and 6), the cutting edge positioned adjacent to a recess (u-shaped opening defined by walls 58 through which the tape hook enters when the jaws 70 are moved, see par 0057, fig 3); the cutting edge positioned between the recess and another wall of the part 22, which has no recess (fig 3 combines with fig 4);
subsequently, coupling a tape measure hook (MT) attached to a tape blade (T) of a tape measure (TM, par 0048) to the first recess of the utility knife (par 0057)
extending the tape blade of the tape measure from a housing 30 of the tape measure along a workpiece P to a desired measurement of the workpiece while the tape measure hook is coupled to the recess of the utility knife (par. 0058),
sliding the cutting edge the cutting edge of the knife blade CB of the utility knife along a longitudinal axis of the knife handle (combination of 22, 24, and long handle part of BC) through the front end of the handle of the utility knife (fig 6) and
cutting the workpiece P with the cutting edge of the knife blade CB (fig 6) of the utility knife at the desired measurement while the tape measure hook is coupled to the first recess of the utility knife (par0059).
McGahan lacks the cutting edge being positioned between the first recess and a second recess.
Jinks discloses a tape measure end-securing device in the same field of endeavor as the tape measure end-securing device assembly of McGahan and discloses that such an assembly includes tape measure hook receiving openings/slots 40 and 42 on both a left and right hand side of such a device, see figure 2, in order to accomplish measurements relative to the device and to a workpiece on any desired location on the work from either a left or right hand side of the device, col 11, 35-43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McGahan by including a recess on the opposite side of the device similar to the already included first tape hook receiving recess, in order to have tape hook holding portions on both sides of the device in order to accomplish measurements relative to the device and to a workpiece on any desired location on the work from either a left or right hand side of the device as taught by Jinks.
Regarding Claim 8, in McGahan the method of use there of further comprises locking the tape measure in place via a locking mechanism (62 and 70) of the tape measure (par. 0057).
Regarding Claim 17, in McGahan as modified above to include tape hook receiving recesses on both sides of the device, this would include the sliding of the cutting edge further comprising extending the knife blade between the first recess and the second recess of the front end of the handle, since the aperture as discussed above is adjacent the first recess and would be adjacent to the second added recess on the opposite wall of McGahan, and thus extend between the recesses.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 5511261, Collins in view of the teachings of USPGPUB 20050193566, Brown.
Regarding Claim 1 Collins discloses a:
utility knife (abstract, since the tool is a utility tool including a knife blade), comprising:
a body (12) comprising: a front end (See annotated fig 2 below);
a rear end opposite the front end (See annotated fig 2 below);
a first body portion (See annotated fig 2 below); and
a second body portion coupled to the first body portion (See annotated fig 2 below where the body portions are shown coupled integrally, which is a coupling under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in view of the present specification, see par. 0033, where it is noted that: “0033 Unless specified or limited otherwise, the terms “mounted,” “connected,”, “supported,” and “coupled” and variations thereof are used broadly and encompass both direct and indirect mountings, connections, supports, and couplings.”), the first body portion and the second body portion each extend between the front end and the rear end (see annotated fig 2 below) and together define an interior portion of the body (portion which slidably encloses the blade 54);
a blade holder (body portion of member 34 carried by screw shaft 28) supported by the body (12) within the interior portion of the body (fig’s. 6-7), the blade holder moveable relative to the body to move a blade between an extended position and a retracted position (col. 4, lines 1-20), wherein the blade has a thickness (fig 7), wherein the first body portion surrounds a first side of the blade holder and the second body portion surrounds a second side of the blade holder such that the blade holder is enclosed within the body (compare annotated fig 2 below with figs 6-7); and
a blade aperture (See annotated fig 2 below) positioned at the front end of the body (See annotated fig 2 below), the blade aperture defined and enclosed between the first body portion and the second body portion (See annotated fig 2 below), through which the blade extends out of the body when in the extended position (fig 2 and 7), the blade aperture comprising a first end section having a width (See annotated fig 7 below), a central section having a width (See annotated fig 7 below), and a second end section having a width (See annotated fig 7 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the central section of the blade aperture has a height greater than the respective heights of both the first end section and the second end section of the blade aperture (See annotated fig 7 below), and wherein the first end section and the second end section are each positioned along the major axis of the blade aperture (since the sections are all aligned on a single plane, e.g. through the center of each respective section).
PNG
media_image3.png
554
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Collins lacks wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section is from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (claim 1), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (claim 2).
In Collins the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section appears to be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, and the width of the central section appears to be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 1) (see fig 2, and 7), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (claim 2) (see fig 2, and 7).
However, the exact dimensions of the sections are not disclosed in Collins. Thus Collins lacks wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section is from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (claim 1), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (claim 2).
In regards to the widths of the first end section and second end sections, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select respective widths of the first end section and the second end section be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, (claim 1), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, (claim 2) because discovering an optimum width would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the blade is securely held in the knife slot. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement, of securing the blade.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select respective widths of the first end section and the second end section of Collins to be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (claim 1), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (claim 2).
Further, Brown teaches that in a utility knife, analogous to the utility knife of the present invention, that the width of a blade opening is a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade, par 0086, and that the width may be narrower or wider than approximately two times the thickness of the blade (par 0086).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins by making/selecting the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since Brown discloses that blade opening width to be a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to the thickness of the central sections: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the width of the central section be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 1), wherein the width of the central section be greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 2), because discovering an optimum width would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the blade is securely held in the knife slot. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement, of securing the blade.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the width of the central section be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 1), wherein the width of the central section be greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 2).
Further, in Collins, at col 3, 30-55 it is taught that the width of the central hexagonal shaped openings of the blade opening is a result effective variable for supporting tools of differing dimensions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins by having the width of the central section be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 1), wherein the width of the central section be greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 4, in Collins, the blade aperture is defined in the front end of the body (See annotated fig 2 above), wherein the blade holder is slidable relative to the body to move the blade through the blade aperture between the extended position and the retracted position (Col. 4, 1-20).
Regarding Claim 6, in Collins, the width of the first end section is equal to the width of the second end section and the height of the first end section is equal to the height of the second end section. (See annotated fig 7 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
554
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, in Reda the method of use there of further comprises wherein the first body portion faces a first side of the blade and the second body portion faces a second side of the blade (See annotated fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
606
741
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, in Collins a first gap defined between a first recess of the first body portion and a first side of the blade; and a second gap defined between a second recess of the second body portion and a second side of the blade; wherein the first gap and second gap are located within the central section of the blade aperture.
PNG
media_image6.png
668
782
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, in Collins the first and second recesses extend from the blade aperture into the body along a length direction of the blade (compare fig 2 to annotated fig 7 above).
Regarding Claim 14, in Collins the first recess has a size and a shape to receive a hook of a tape measure and the second recess having a size and a shape to receive the hook of the tape measure such that when the hook is received in the first or second recess the tape measure is coupled to the utility knife (since the recess may receive a hook of a tape measure of certain sizes).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Brown, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of USPGPUB 20050283983, Huang.
Regarding Claims 15-16, modified Collins lacks wherein the blade holder comprises a lock member coupled to a resilient spring arm (Claim 15) and a plurality of projections formed on the interior portion of the body and spaced along a slot that extends through the first body portion of the body such that the lock member is selectively receivable between adjacent pairs of projections to retain the blade holder in a position (Claim 16).
Huang discloses a sliding blade knife assembly in the same field of endeavor as the sliding blade knife assembly of Collins and discloses that such an assembly includes a blade body having a slideable blade 90 carried on sliding body 20 received ion housing 10, and discloses that in such a sliding blade assembly it is known to include the blade holder 20 comprising a lock member 27 coupled to a resilient spring arm 26 (Claim 15) and a plurality of projections 19 formed on the interior portion of the body and spaced along a slot (channel defining housing 10 interior) that extends through the first body portion of the body such that the lock member is selectively receivable between adjacent pairs of projections to retain the blade holder in a position (par 0047) in order to allow the blade to be selectively locked in a number of positions (par 0047) (Claim 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins by having the blade holder comprises a lock member coupled to a resilient spring arm (Claim 15) and a plurality of projections formed on the interior portion of the body and spaced along a slot that extends through the first body portion of the body such that the lock member is selectively receivable between adjacent pairs of projections to retain the blade holder in a position (Claim 16) in order to allow the blade to be selectively locked in a number of positions as taught via/by Huang.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 7913397 van Deursen, in view of Collins, and in view of the teachings of Brown.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Van Deursen discloses a utility knife (abstract) comprising: a body (10, 11, and 12) comprising a front end (12 and 15) and a rear end opposite the front end 11;
a blade holder (12) supported by the body (fig 4), the blade holder moveable relative to the body to move a blade 13 between an extended position (fig 10) and a retracted position (see fig 11-12), wherein the blade has a thickness (since it is three dimensional, see also fig 2);
a blade aperture (opening in front of body 12 from which the blade extends forward through) through which the blade extends when in the extended position (fig 2 through 4) (claim 1), and wherein the blade aperture is defined in the blade holder (fig 1 and 2) and the blade holder is pivotally coupled to the body to pivot the blade between the extended position (fig 1) and the retracted position (fig 1) (Claim 5).
Van Deursen lacks the blade aperture comprises/ing a first end section having a width, a central section having a width, and a second end section having a width, wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section is from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade.
Collins discloses a sliding blade knife assembly in the same field of endeavor as the sliding blade knife assembly of Van Deursen and discloses that such an assembly includes a blade body having a blade aperture 20 which leads to a channel 16, both comprises/ing a hexagonal cross section col. 3, 30-40) which cross section includes a first end section having a width, a central section having a width, and a second end section having a width, wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are approximately from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is approximately greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (see annotated fig 7 below), which hexagonal cross section ensures that the blade channel therein can not only carry a blade, but can also carry analogous tools such as drivers 32 and 36 of Collins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van Deursen by having the blade aperture comprise a hexagonal cross section, including a first end section having a width, a central section having a width, and a second end section having a width, wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are approximately from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than approximately 150% of the thickness of the blade in order to ensure that the blade channel can not only carry a blade, but can also carry analogous tools such as drivers; as taught by Collins.
Further, Brown teaches that in a utility knife, analogous to the utility knife of the present invention, that the width of a blade opening is a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade, par 0086, and that the width may be narrower or wider than approximately two times the thickness of the blade (par 0086).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins by having the blade art to select respective widths of the first end section and the second end section is approximately 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than approximately 150% of the thickness of the blade since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since Brown discloses that blade opening width to be a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(emphasis added).
PNG
media_image7.png
538
679
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Van Deursen still lacks wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section is from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (claim 1), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (claim 2).
In Collins the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section appears to be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, and the width of the central section appears to be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (see fig 2, and 7). However, the exact dimensions of the sections are not disclosed in Collins. Thus Collins, and also modified Van Deursen, lack wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section is from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade.
In regards to the widths of the first end section and second end sections, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select respective widths of the first end section and the second end section be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, (claim 1), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, (claim 2) because discovering an optimum width would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the blade is securely held in the knife slot. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement, of securing the blade.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select respective widths of the first end section and the second end section of Collins to be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (claim 1), and wherein the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section are each less than 115% of the thickness of the blade, wherein the width of the central section is greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (claim 2).
Further, Brown teaches that in a utility knife, analogous to the utility knife of the present invention, that the width of a blade opening is a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade, par 0086, and that the width may be narrower or wider than approximately two times the thickness of the blade (par 0086).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins by making/selecting the respective widths of the first end section and the second end section be from 100% to 125% of the thickness of the blade, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and since Brown discloses that blade opening width to be a result effective variable for providing lateral support to a blade. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to the thickness of the central sections: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the width of the central section be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 1), wherein the width of the central section be greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 2), because discovering an optimum width would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring that the blade is securely held in the knife slot. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement, of securing the blade.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the width of the central section be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 1), wherein the width of the central section be greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 2).
Further, in Collins, at col 3, 30-55 it is taught that the width of the central hexagonal shaped openings of the blade opening is a result effective variable for supporting tools of differing dimensions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Collins by having the width of the central section be greater than 150% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 1), wherein the width of the central section be greater than 170% of the thickness of the blade (Claim 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/1/26, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 10 and 12-16 (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and persuasive. Collins, as previously interpreted, with regard to Claim 1 of the previous claims, lacks “the central section having the claimed width”. Thus, a new rejection is made in view of the teachings of Collins in view of Brown, specifically citing the Brown sections which teach the central section width being a result effective variable, and citing design considerations with regard to the end sections. With regard to Claims 7-8, Applicant argues that McGahan lacks the invention as now claimed to include first and second recesses on either side of the aperture. However, a further search has produced a rejection in view of Jinks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20050022390 A1 5403337 1405529 2596303 3448518 20010016988 9335141 6763603 and 10036620, disclose state of the art cutter tools with geometrically shaped recesses capable of receiving a tape hook, and, thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights