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
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20, lines 6-12 should be corrected as follows, “a locking arm extending from the base portion, the locking arm comprising a retainer portion positioned to engage a notch of the utility blade, the retainer portion including an angled impacting surface, the angled impacting surface comprising a non-planar geometry formed in the retainer portion and being inclined relative to a primary plane of the side wall--,-- the blade retainer being structured such that, upon insertion of the utility blade into the receiving channel:” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strauss (US Patent 8,567,071) in view of Gamba (US Patent 5,890,293). Regarding claim 20, Strauss discloses a blade retainer (blade carrier 30) comprising a base portion (fig. 7) comprising a side wall (36) and one or more guide members (38, 40) positioned on opposite ends of the side wall (fig. 7), wherein the side wall and the one or more guide members collectively define a receiving channel configured for slidably receiving and removably retaining a utility blade (col. 4, lines 4-5); and a locking arm (46) extending from the base portion (fig. 7), the locking arm comprising a retainer portion (48, 73) positioned to engage a notch of the utility blade, the retainer portion including an angled impacting surface (48a), the angled impacting surface comprising a non-planar geometry formed in the retainer portion and being inclined relative to a primary plane of the side wall (col. 4, line 66 – col. 5, line 5), the blade retainer being structured such that, upon insertion of the utility blade into the receiving channel: a leading edge of the utility blade contacts the angled impacting surface and the contact deflects the locking arm away from the receiving channel (col. 4, line 66 – col. 5, line 5), and the locking arm resiliently returns toward the receiving channel to engage the notch of the utility blade (col. 4, lines 12-28). Strauss fails to specifically disclose the angled impacting surface comprises a non-planar geometry formed in the retainer portion. However, Gamba teaches it is known in the art of blade retainers for removable holding utility blades to provide an interfacing element (162) of the blade retainer with a non-planar geometry (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the blade retainer of Strauss with the teaching of Gamba such that the angled impacting surface comprises a non-planar geometry formed in the retainer portion because the angled impacting surface could have been any reasonable shape so long as the blade can be inserted and deflect the locking arm enough for the blade to move past the locking arm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 20 has 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not appear to disclose or make obvious to combine a locking arm having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the locking arm comprising an overhang portion on the first end and a retainer portion on the second end, the overhang portion being coupled to the base portion and extending across the receiving channel, the retainer portion being configured to removably engage a notch of the utility blade, and being structured such that, upon insertion of the utility blade into the receiving channel: a leading edge of the utility blade passes the overhang portion prior to contacting the retainer portion, the leading edge contacts the retainer portion and deflects the locking arm out away from of the receiving channel, and the locking arm returns resiliently toward the receiving channel to position and the retainer portion engages in the notch of the utility blade.
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 SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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 at (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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 August 30, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights