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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 4, items 111 and 115
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
The reference line for label 21 is pointing at a different structure in Figure 1 than it is in Figure 2. One of the Figures needs to be amended to correct the reference line of label 21.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The legal phraseology “configured to”.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Pneumatic Cutter with Concealed Blades.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 6 lines 21-22, the phrase “first and second blades 50 and 80 lie down instead of standing upright, in other words, thickness directions thereof are parallel to the vertical direction” are unclear. The blades can be in multiple positions and it is unclear which position is the “standing upright” position that allows for thickness directions to be parallel to the vertical direction. Using Figure 1, the blades are oblique to vertical and it is unclear how the thicknesses in this position is parallel to vertical.
On page 9 line 20, the phrase “pneumatic cutter 20” should be replaced with “pneumatic cutter 30”.
On page 9 line 24 - page 10 line 1, the phrase “a flow path extending portion 25 which has a front end portion connected to the first and second pouch fixing portions 21 and 23” is unclear. It is unclear how 25 connects to 23. Using Figure 2, 25 connects with 21 but is spaced from 23. It is noted that 21 is referencing different structures in Figures 1 and 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Please see pages 9 and 10 below for proposed claim 1 and claim 14 that overcome all of the 112 issues below.
With regards to claim 1 line 1, the phrase “a concealed blade” is unclear. What structure allows for the blade to be concealed? Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 line 3 “an inner space” is unclear. What structure defines the inner space? As written, the inner portion of the pouch and the variable portion are unrelated to the inner space which is not supported. The claim needs to be amended to acknowledge the inner portion of the pouch and the variable at least partially define the inner space since all are claimed. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 lines 3-5 and 8-9, the disclosure that the “variable portion protrudes outward as the inner space expands” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for the variable portion to protrude as the variable portion is flat. Also, what does the variable portion protrude outward from? It cannot be the pouch as the variable portion is part of the pouch and cannot protrude from itself. The variable portion moving to the expanded position is what expands the inner space and the variable is connected to the blade and when the variable portion moves to the expanded position, the blade is the structure that protrudes from the pouch. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 line 6-7, the phrase “concavely recess inward” is unclear. What structure is the variable portion recessed inwardly into? The claim needs to be amended to disclose the variable portion being inwardly recessed is the structure that contracts the inner space. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 line 8, the phrase “a blade” is unclear. It is unclear if this blade represents the same or a different structure than the concealed blade on line 1. As written, there are two blades claimed which may not be the intent. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 line 8, the blade disclosure is unclear. As written, the blade is never in the pouch which is not supported especially since the variable portion is disclosed as being concavely recessed inward. When the variable portion is concavely recessed inward, the blade is within the pouch and concealed. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 line 10, the phrase “protrude toward an object to be cut” is indefinite. The object is an unclaimed indefinite intended use of the cutter. Since the object is not positively claimed, the limitation using the object to further define the structure of the cutter is indefinite. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 2, what structure has the fixed shape portion? As written, the fixed shaped portion is not part of the pouch which is not supported. Also, the claim needs to be amended to acknowledge that the fixed shape portion would also partially define the inner space. Claim 14 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 3, it is unclear how the blade moves along a path when the variable portion protrudes outward? The blade moves along a path when the variable portion moves from the inward positon to the outward position. The blade does not move when the variable portion protrudes outward.
With regards to claim 6, a single pouch cannot ever be more than one pouch. Claim 1 either has to disclose “at least one pouch” and then claim 6 discloses “the at least one pouch is a pair of pouches” or claim 1 discloses a first pouch and claim 6 disclose a second pouch.
With regards to claim 6, as written, the pair of pouches each define the single variable portion and both incorporate the same single blade which is not supported because the pouches each define their own variable portion and have their own blade.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, the phrase “the blade is installed at each” no longer correspond with the langue of claim 1 and should be amended to match.
With regards to claim 6, “applied to inner portions” is unclear. Claim 6 introduces inner portions of the pouches but claim 1 already discloses an inner portion of the claim 1 pouch. As written, there are three inner portions which does not correspond with the specification.
With regards to final paragraphs of claims 6 and 7, the cutting functions of the blades need to be explained using the movement of the variable portion from the recessed position to the outward position. This is the structure that allows for the blades to move where they protrude from the pouch to cut.
With regards to claim 7, it is unclear how the single pouch of claim 1 can have more than one variable potion. Also, a single portion cannot ever be two portions. Claim 7 needs to first claim a second pouch defining a second variable portion to positively claim the more than one variable portion.
With regards to claim 7, it is unclear what structure allows for the single blade to be on two different variable portions. Later claim 7 discloses “the pair of blades” which is unclear because claim 7 does not introduce a second blade.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pair of blades" on lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 8, it is unclear what structure allows for the blade to perform the cutting function by itself. The blade engages the guide so both cooperate to cut the object.
Claim 10 is unclear as it is further limiting the object that is not positively claimed. It is unclear what Applicant’s intentions.
With regards to claim 12, what structure defines the boundary portion? As written, the pouch does not incorporate the boundary portion which is not supported.
With regards to claim 12, the term “deflated” is unclear. Claim 1 does not use this terminology. Claim 12 needs to utilize the language previously utilized by claim 1.
Claim 14 has the same issues as claims 1 and 2.
With regards to claim 14, the phrase “a blade installed at the variable portion” is unclear. Being “at” another object does not require engagement so it is unclear what structure allows for the blade to be “at” the variable portion.
With regards to claim 14, the phrase “a boundary portion” is unclear. As written, the variable portion move positions in a way unrelated to the boundary portion which is not supported.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following claims are drafted by the examiner and are considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application and overcomes all of the issues under 112, is presented to applicant for consideration:
(Claim 1) A pneumatic cutter comprising:
a pouch having a variable portion and an inner portion, the variable portion and the inner portion at least partially defining an inner space of the pouch that is filled with air, when a pneumatic pressure is applied to the inner portion, the variable portion moves to an outward expanded position in relation to the inner portion where the inner space is maximized and when the pneumatic pressure is not applied to the inner portion, the variable portion moves to a concavely recessed inward position in relation to the inner portion where the inner space is minimized; and
a blade affixed to the variable portion, the blade protrudes from the pouch to cut when the variable portion is in the expanded position and the blade is concealed within the pouch when the variable portion is in the concavely recessed inward position.
If this claim language is to be adopted, claims 2-13 will need to be amended to correspond with the new language.
(Claim 14) A pneumatic cutter comprising:
a pouch having a variable portion, a fixed shape portion, a boundary portion, and an inner portion, the boundary portion is between the variable portion and the fixed shape portion, the variable portion, the fixed shape portion, the boundary portion, and the inner portion at least partially defining an inner space of the pouch that is filled with air, when a pneumatic pressure is applied to the inner portion, the variable portion moves via the boundary portion to an outward expanded position in relation to the fixed portion and the inner portion where the inner space is maximized and when the pneumatic pressure is not applied to the inner portion, the variable portion moves to a concavely recessed inward position via the boundary portion in relation to the fixed portion and the inner portion where the inner space is minimized, the fixed shape portion is not deformed when the pneumatic pressure is applied to the inner portion; and
a blade affixed to the variable portion, the blade protrudes from the pouch to cut when the variable portion is in the expanded position and an end of the blade does not protrude outward past the boundary portion so that the blade is concealed within the pouch when the variable portion is in the concavely recessed inward position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because they do not correspond to the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
08 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights