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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2 September 2025, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/793,375, filed on 25 October 2017.
Drawings
Newly added Fig. 18a is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Fig. 18a is newly added and illustrates projections 53a’ and 53b’ that include features not described in the original disclosure. Indeed, the original disclosure at page 9, lines 13-16 states, , “Not shown in this embodiment but in addition other areas of the outer surfaces 49 and 50 or the housing surfaces 48a and 48b could have projections to increase the clamping forces”. This passage contemplates that housing surfaces 48a and 48b could have projections, but fails to disclose any particular features of the projections. For example, the passage does not disclose that the projections extend to join the recess, nor does the passage disclose that projections are provided on two opposing sides of the recess, nor does the passage disclose that the projections are symmetrical about a centerline of the knife, nor does the passage disclose that the housing surfaces include projections and the support and cover do not include projections, yet all the features are now illustrated in newly added Fig. 18a. As such, newly added Fig. 18a introduces new matter into the disclosure. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 at lines 13-15 recites that the blade is held “inside the housing with only a part of a cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess”. Claim 9 at lines 13-14 recites that the blade is held “with only a part of a cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess”. Claim 10 at lines 7-8 recites, “only a part of a cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess”. Claim 13 at lines 14-16 recites that the blade is held “inside the housing with only a part of a cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess”. In each of these recitations, the examiner interprets the phrase “only a part” as modifying the “cutting edge” of the blade, but not prohibiting a remainder of the blade beyond the cutting edge from also being exposed in the recess. That is, the examiner interprets these limitations as being satisfied so long as the entirety of the cutting edge of the blade is not exposed in the recess, even if some portion of the blade besides the cutting edge is also exposed in the cutting edge. So, these limitations are interpreted as not controlling whether or not a portion of the blade beyond the cutting edge can be exposed in the recess. This interpretation is consistent with the present disclosure, which discloses an inventive knife where a part of the cutting edge and another region of the blade are both exposed in the recess (see, e.g., Figs. 13, 17, and 18), but where the entirety of the cutting edge is not exposed in the recess.
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 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at the paragraph at lines 33-45 is indefinite due to the multiple uses of “and” and “or” rendering it unclear which feature(s) are required. For example, claim 1 at lines 33-35 recites, “a projection formed on at least one of the cover outer surface and the support outer surface and projecting toward the housing surface”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is required regardless of whether the projection is formed on the cover outer surface and the support outer surface, or whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is only required when the projection is formed on the support outer surface. The claim can be read either way. As another example, claim 1 at lines 35-37 recites, “or on at least one of the first inner housing surface and the second inner housing surface, and projecting toward the support, the blade being clamped …”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the features of “and projecting toward the support” at lines 36-37 and “the blade being clamped …” are always required, or if these features are only required when certain conditions set forth earlier in the claim are satisfied. That is, are these features always required, or are these features required only when the features following “or” at line 35 of the claim are satisfied? The fact that claim 1 at line 37 includes “or” suggests that in one interpretation, all features recited after “or” at line 37 are optional. As yet another example, claim 1 at lines 44-45 recites, “or the cover and support outer surfaces taper relative to each other in the clamping region”. If this feature is satisfied, is that sufficient to satisfy the entirety of lines 33-45, given that the use of “or” at line 44 arguably renders every feature preceding “or” at line 44 optional?
Claim 1 at line 35 recites “the housing surface”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what particular housing surface is being referred to by “the housing surface”. Claim 1 introduces multiple different housing surfaces, including “a first inner housing surface” and “a second inner housing surface”. Which of these surfaces is referred to by “the housing surface”? Does “the housing surface” refer to either one of the previously introduced housing surfaces, or a particular one of the previously introduced housing surfaces?
Claim 1 at line 40 recites, “increase clamping force”. This recitation is indefinite because no benchmark relative to which clamping force must be increased is set forth in the claim. Put another way, it is unclear what the clamping force must be increased relative to. Is the clamping force increased in an area next to the recess relative to an area far away from the recess? Is the clamping force increased in the area next to a recess relative to a comparable knife that lacks a projection? Is the clamping force increased relative to the support being in the blade-replacement position? Is the clamping force increased relative to any conceivable alternative situation?
Claim 1 at line 41 recites, “cutting material”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new material is being introduced. Claim 1 previously introduces, “material to be cut” at line 15. It is unclear whether claim 1 at line 41 is describing the same material as previously introduced, or whether claim 1 at line 41 is introducing some new material. If the former is intended, it is unclear why a different name is used for the material and why “the” is not used as an article for the material. Consider the possibility that the ‘material to be cut’ is a small-diameter material such as dental floss. Can the “cutting material” be a larger, rigid material such as a two-by-four wood material? In this case, so long as the two-by-four wood material cannot enter the recess due to being larger in size than the recess, then the material also cannot enter between the blade and the blade support (as best understood). Alternatively, claim 1 can be interpreted such that the ‘material to be cut’ and the ‘cutting material’ must be the same (e.g., due to both sharing the name ‘material’), in which case the cutting material would be required to have the ability to enter the recess. That is, it is unclear whether the ‘cutting material’ must be able to enter the recess, with the answer being ‘no’ if the cutting material is not required to be the same material as the ‘material to be cut’.
Claim 1 at line 42 recites “the blade support”. There is insufficient antecedent support for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 1 indefinite. For example, the relationship (if any) between the “support” that is introduced at line 5 and “the blade support” at line 42 is unclear. Is “the blade support” at line 42 synonymous with the “support” of line 5? Or, can “the blade support” of line 42 be considered as including both the “support” of line 5 and the “cover” of line 8, since the support and cover as disclosed jointly support the blade? Or, is “the blade support” permitted to include other structures, such as the housing? Since the relationship, if any, between the “support” and “the blade support” is unclear, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 1 at line 43-44 recites “the clamping region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 1 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the claim intends to implicitly limit the knife to having a single clamping region, such that there is inherently an antecedent basis for this limitation. However, in this case, claim 1 would not encompass a knife having a first clamping region on one side of a recess and a second clamping region on another side of the recess. Noting that a “region” can be any arbitrary area (e.g., Merriam Webster’s definition of ‘region’ includes an indefinite area of the world or universe), it is unclear whether the Applicant intends the knife of the present application to include more than one clamping region. This recitation is likewise indefinite in the event that claim 1 encompasses a knife having multiple clamping regions, since in this case it is unclear what particular clamping region is referred to at lines 43-44. Similarly, if there are multiple clamping regions, it is unclear whether “the clamping region” of lines 43-44 must be the same as “the clamping region” of line 45.
Claim 3 recites, “a clamping region” at line 3. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new clamping region is being introduced, or whether claim 3 includes a typographical error and the claim intends to refer to the clamping region (or potentially to one of the clamping regions) already introduced in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “a clamping region” at line 3. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new clamping region is being introduced, or whether claim 4 includes a typographical error and the claim intends to refer to the clamping region (or potentially to one of the clamping regions) already introduced in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, “clamping forces”. This limitation is indefinite in view of claim 1 already introducing “clamping force” (see claim 1 at line 40). The relationship, if any, between the “clamping forces” of claim 6 and the “clamping force” of claim 1 is unclear. Is claim 6 introducing additional clamping forces? Is the clamping force of claim 1 permitted to be one of the “clamping forces” of claim 6?
Claim 9 at the paragraph at lines 31-47 is indefinite due to the multiple uses of “and” and “or” rendering it unclear which feature(s) are required. For example, claim 9 at lines 33-35 recites, “a projection … formed on at least one of the cover outer surface and the support outer surface and projecting toward the housing surface”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is required regardless of whether the projection is formed on the cover outer surface and the support outer surface, or whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is only required when the projection is formed on the support outer surface. The claim can be read either way. As another example, claim 9 at lines 33-37 recites, “or on at least one of the first inner housing surface and the second inner housing surface, and projecting toward the support for clamping the blade between the cover and the support in the operating position of the support so as to surround…”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the features beginning with “, and projecting toward the support” beginning at line 35 are always required, or if these features are only required when certain conditions set forth earlier in the claim are satisfied. That is, are these features always required, or are these features required only when the features following “or” at line 33 of the claim are satisfied? The fact that claim 9 at line 33 includes “or” suggests that in one interpretation, all features recited after “or” at line 33 are optional. Moreover, this interpretation is supported by the projection as disclosed, when the projection is formed on the support outer surface, not projecting toward the support. (That is, the projection formed on the support outer surface projects away from, not toward, the support.) Thus, arguably all the recitations following “or” at line 33 are not required when the projection is formed on at least one of the cover outer surface and the support outer surface. As yet another example, claim 9 at lines 45-47 recites, “or the cover and support outer surfaces taper relative to each other in the clamping region”. If this feature is satisfied, is that sufficient to satisfy the entirety of lines 331-47, given that the use of “or” at line 45 arguably renders every feature preceding “or” at line 45 optional?
Claim 9 at line 33 recites “the housing surface”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what particular housing surface is being referred to by “the housing surface”. Claim 9 introduces multiple different housing surfaces, including “a first inner housing surface” and “a second inner housing surface”. Which of these surfaces is referred to by “the housing surface”? Does “the housing surface” refer to either one of the previously introduced housing surfaces, or a particular one of the previously introduced housing surfaces?
Claim 9 at line 38 recites, “increase clamping force”. This recitation is indefinite because no benchmark relative to which clamping force must be increased is set forth in the claim. Put another way, it is unclear what the clamping force must be increased relative to. Is the clamping force increased in an area next to the recess relative to an area far away from the recess? Is the clamping force increased in the area next to a recess relative to a comparable knife that lacks a projection? Is the clamping force increased relative to the support being in the blade-replacement position? Is the clamping force increased relative to any conceivable alternative situation?
Claim 9 at line 39 recites, “cutting material”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new material is being introduced. Claim 9 previously introduces, “material to be cut” at line 15. It is unclear whether claim 9 at line 39 is describing the same material as previously introduced, or whether claim 9 at line 39 is introducing some new material. If the former is intended, it is unclear why a different name is used for the material and why “the” is not used as an article for the material. Consider the possibility that the ‘material to be cut’ is a small-diameter material such as dental floss. Can the “cutting material” be a larger, rigid material such as a two-by-four wood material? In this case, so long as the two-by-four wood material cannot enter the recess due to being larger in size than the recess, then the material also cannot enter between the blade and the blade support (as best understood). Alternatively, claim 1 can be interpreted such that the ‘material to be cut’ and the ‘cutting material’ must be the same (e.g., due to both sharing the name ‘material’), in which case the cutting material would be required to have the ability to enter the recess. That is, it is unclear whether the ‘cutting material’ must be able to enter the recess, with the answer being ‘no’ if the cutting material is not required to be the same material as the ‘material to be cut’.
Claim 9 at line 40 recites “the blade support”. There is insufficient antecedent support for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 9 indefinite. For example, the relationship, if any, between the “support” that is introduced at line 5 and “the blade support” at line 40 is unclear. Is “the blade support” at line 40 synonymous with the “support” of line 5? Or, can “the blade support” of line 40 be considered as including both the “support” of line 5 and the “cover” of line 8, since the support and cover as disclosed jointly support the blade? Or, is “the blade support” permitted to include other structures, such as the housing? Since the relationship, if any, between the “support” and “the blade support” is unclear, claim 9 is indefinite.
Claim 9 at lines 42-43 recites, “when the cover or the support is in the operating position”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear how the cover can be in the operating position. The operating position as introduced at line 6 of the claim is a position into which the support is pivotable. There is no introduction of any ‘operating position’ of the cover. Thus, it is unclear whether the claim intends to permit the cover to be in the same ‘operating position’ as the support, or whether the ‘operating position’ of the cover is some additional position that is a position of the cover rather than a position of the support.
Claim 9 at line 45 recites “the clamping region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 9 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the claim intends to implicitly limit the knife to having a single clamping region, such that there is inherently an antecedent basis for this limitation. However, in this case, claim 9 would not encompass a knife having a first clamping region on one side of a recess and a second clamping region on another side of the recess. Noting that a “region” can be any arbitrary area (e.g., Merriam Webster’s definition of ‘region’ includes an indefinite area of the world or universe), it is unclear whether the Applicant intends the knife of the present application to include more than one clamping region. This recitation is likewise indefinite in the event that claim 9 encompasses a knife having multiple clamping regions, since in this case it is unclear what particular clamping region is referred to at lines 45. Similarly, if there are multiple clamping regions, it is unclear whether “the clamping region” of line 45 must be the same as “the clamping region” of lines 46-47.
Claim 10 at the paragraph at lines 22-38 is indefinite due to the multiple uses of “and” and “or” rendering it unclear which feature(s) are required. For example, claim 10 at lines 33-35 recites, “a projection … formed on at least one of the cover outer surface and the support outer surface and projecting toward the housing surface”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is required regardless of whether the projection is formed on the cover outer surface and the support outer surface, or whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is only required when the projection is formed on the support outer surface. The claim can be read either way. As another example, claim 10 at lines 24-31 recites, “or on at least one of the housing surfaces, and projecting toward the support for clamping the blade …”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the features of “and projecting toward the support” at lines 26-27 and “so as to surround the recess and increase clamping force …” at lines 28-31 are always required, or if these features are only required when certain conditions set forth earlier in the claim are satisfied. That is, are these features always required, or are these features required only when the features following “or” at line 24 of the claim are satisfied? The fact that claim 10 at line 24 includes “or” suggests that in one interpretation, all features recited after “or” at line 24 are optional. As yet another example, claim 10 at lines 37-38 recites, “or the cover and support outer surfaces taper relative to each other in the clamping region”. If this feature is satisfied, is that sufficient to satisfy the entirety of lines 22-38, given that the use of “or” at line 37 arguably renders every feature preceding “or” at line 37 optional?
Claim 10 at line 24 recites “the housing surface”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what particular housing surface is being referred to by “the housing surface”. Claim 10 introduces multiple different housing surfaces, including “confronting inwardly directed inner housing surfaces”. Which of these surfaces is referred to by “the housing surface”? Does “the housing surface” refer to either one of the previously introduced housing surfaces, or a particular one of the previously introduced housing surfaces? Does the ‘housing surface’ of line 24 have to be ‘confronting’ and ‘inwardly directed’?
Claim 10 at line 29 recites, “increase clamping force”. This recitation is indefinite because no benchmark relative to which clamping force must be increased is set forth in the claim. Put another way, it is unclear what the clamping force must be increased relative to. Is the clamping force increased in an area next to the recess relative to an area far away from the recess? Is the clamping force increased in the area next to a recess relative to a comparable knife that lacks a projection? Is the clamping force increased relative to the support being in the blade-replacement position? Is the clamping force increased relative to any conceivable alternative situation?
Claim 10 at line 30 recites, “cutting material”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new material is being introduced. Claim 10 previously introduces, “material to be cut” at lines 8-9. It is unclear whether claim 10 at line 30 is describing the same material as previously introduced, or whether claim 10 at line 30 is introducing some new material. If the former is intended, it is unclear why a different name is used for the material and why “the” is not used as an article for the material. Consider the possibility that the ‘material to be cut’ is a small-diameter material such as dental floss. Can the “cutting material” be a larger, rigid material such as a two-by-four wood material? In this case, so long as the two-by-four wood material cannot enter the recess due to being larger in size than the recess, then the material also cannot enter between the blade and the blade support (as best understood). Alternatively, claim 10 can be interpreted such that the ‘material to be cut’ and the ‘cutting material’ must be the same (e.g., due to both sharing the name ‘material’), in which case the cutting material would be required to have the ability to enter the recess. That is, it is unclear whether the ‘cutting material’ must be able to enter the recess, with the answer being ‘no’ if the cutting material is not required to be the same material as the ‘material to be cut’.
Claim 10 at line 31 recites “the blade support”. There is insufficient antecedent support for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 10 indefinite. For example, the relationship, if any, between the “support” that is introduced at line 4 and “the blade support” at line 31 is unclear. Is “the blade support” at line 31 synonymous with the “support” of line 4? Or, can “the blade support” of line 30 be considered as including both the “support” of line 4 and the “cover” of line 11, since the support and cover as disclosed jointly support the blade? Or, is “the blade support” permitted to include other structures, such as the housing? Since the relationship, if any, between the “support” and “the blade support” is unclear, claim 10 is indefinite.
Claim 10 at lines 34-35 recites, “when the cover or the support is in the operating position”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear how the cover can be in the operating position. The operating position as introduced at line 6 of the claim is a position into which the support is pivotable. There is no introduction of any ‘operating position’ of the cover. Thus, it is unclear whether the claim intends to permit the cover to be in the same ‘operating position’ as the support, or whether the ‘operating position’ of the cover is some additional position that is a position of the cover rather than a position of the support.
Claim 10 at line 36-37 recites “the clamping region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 10 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the claim intends to implicitly limit the knife to having a single clamping region, such that there is inherently an antecedent basis for this limitation. However, in this case, claim 10 would not encompass a knife having a first clamping region on one side of a recess and a second clamping region on another side of the recess. Noting that a “region” can be any arbitrary area (e.g., Merriam Webster’s definition of ‘region’ includes an indefinite area of the world or universe), it is unclear whether the Applicant intends the knife of the present application to include more than one clamping region. This recitation is likewise indefinite in the event that claim 10 encompasses a knife having multiple clamping regions, since in this case it is unclear what particular clamping region is referred to at lines 36-37. Similarly, if there are multiple clamping regions, it is unclear whether “the clamping region” of lines 36-37 must be the same as “the clamping region” of line 38.
Claim 10 at lines 35-36 recites, “the first and second inner housing surfaces”. This recitation renders claim 10 indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis for each of these surfaces – i.e., although “confronting inwardly directed inner housing surfaces” are previously introduced at line 18, no “first” and “second” inner housing surfaces have been previously introduced. The relationship between the various inner housing surfaces is thus unclear. For example, must the “first” and “second” inner housing surfaces be confronting, inwardly directed surfaces even though this requirement is not made of the first and second inner housing surfaces?
Claim 12 at the final line recites, “increasing clamping force”. This limitation is indefinite in view of claim 10 already introducing “clamping force” (see claim 10 at line 29). The relationship, if any, between the “clamping force” of claim 12 and the “clamping force” of claim 10 is unclear. Is claim 12 introducing an additional clamping force? Is the clamping force of claim 12 required to be the same as the clamping force of claim 10?
Claim 13 at the paragraph at lines 28-42 is indefinite due to the multiple uses of “and” and “or” rendering it unclear which feature(s) are required. For example, claim 13 at lines 28-30 recites, “a projection formed on at least one of the cover outer surface and the support outer surface and projecting toward the housing surface”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is required regardless of whether the projection is formed on the cover outer surface and the support outer surface, or whether “projecting toward the housing surface” is only required when the projection is formed on the support outer surface. The claim can be read either way. As another example, claim 13 at lines 30-37 recites, “or on at least one of the first inner housing surface and the second inner housing surface, and projecting toward the support, the blade being clamped …”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the features of “and projecting toward the support” at lines 31-32 and “the blade being clamped …” at lines 32-37 are always required, or if these features are only required when certain conditions set forth earlier in the claim are satisfied. That is, are these features always required, or are these features required only when the features following “or” at line 30 of the claim are satisfied? The fact that claim 13 at line 30 includes “or” suggests that in one interpretation, all features recited after “or” at line 30 are optional.
Claim 13 at line 30 recites “the housing surface”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what particular housing surface is being referred to by “the housing surface”. Claim 13 introduces multiple different housing surfaces, including “first and second inner housing surfaces”. Which of these surfaces is referred to by “the housing surface”? Does “the housing surface” refer to either one of the previously introduced housing surfaces, or a particular one of the previously introduced housing surfaces?
Claim 13 at line 35 recites, “increase clamping force”. This recitation is indefinite because no benchmark relative to which clamping force must be increased is set forth in the claim. Put another way, it is unclear what the clamping force must be increased relative to. Is the clamping force increased in an area next to the recess relative to an area far away from the recess? Is the clamping force increased in the area next to a recess relative to a comparable knife that lacks a projection? Is the clamping force increased relative to the support being in the blade-replacement position? Is the clamping force increased relative to any conceivable alternative situation?
Claim 13 at line 36 recites, “cutting material”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a new material is being introduced. Claim 13 previously introduces, “material to be cut” at line 17. It is unclear whether claim 13 at line 36 is describing the same material as previously introduced, or whether claim 13 at line 36 is introducing some new material. If the former is intended, it is unclear why a different name is used for the material and why “the” is not used as an article for the material. Consider the possibility that the ‘material to be cut’ is a small-diameter material such as dental floss. Can the “cutting material” be a larger, rigid material such as a two-by-four wood material? In this case, so long as the two-by-four wood material cannot enter the recess due to being larger in size than the recess, then the material also cannot enter between the blade and the blade support (as best understood). Alternatively, claim 13 can be interpreted such that the ‘material to be cut’ and the ‘cutting material’ must be the same (e.g., due to both sharing the name ‘material’), in which case the cutting material would be required to have the ability to enter the recess. That is, it is unclear whether the ‘cutting material’ must be able to enter the recess, with the answer being ‘no’ if the cutting material is not required to be the same material as the ‘material to be cut’.
Claim 13 at line 37 recites “the blade support”. There is insufficient antecedent support for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 13 indefinite. For example, the relationship, if any, between the “support” that is introduced at line 5 and “the blade support” at line 37 is unclear. Is “the blade support” at line 37 synonymous with the “support” of line 5? Or, can “the blade support” of line 37 be considered as including both the “support” of line 5 and the “cover” of line 8, since the support and cover as disclosed jointly support the blade? Or, is “the blade support” permitted to include other structures, such as the housing? Since the relationship, if any, between the “support” and “the blade support” is unclear, claim 13 is indefinite.
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 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 1,774,617 to Temple in view of US Pat. No. 2,523,575 to Kassel and US Pat. No. 1,816,422 to Coleman.
Regarding claim 1, Temple discloses a knife (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an elongated housing 14 having a channel-shaped laterally open recess (see Fig. 7, where the recess extends upward into the bottom end of the housing 14, where the blade 4 is within the recess, such that ‘lateral’ is relative to the view of Fig. 6; to the extent that a ‘recess’ cannot be open at two ends, the housing 14 ‘has’ the recess in conjunction with the support 2 and cover 5);
a blade 4;
a support 2 (the support 2 is considered as including stem 1, and is referred to herein as “support 2” for brevity) having a support outer surface 17 (see Figs. 4 and 7) and pivotal about a first axis on the housing 14 (the first axis defined by pivot 13; compare Figs. 1 and 5 showing different pivotal positions of the support 2) between a first position (the position of the support 2 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) and a blade-replacement position (the blade-replacement position of the support 2 shown in Fig. 1); and
a cover 5 having a cover outer surface 18 (see Figs. 4 and 7) and pivotable on the support 2 about a second axis (the second axis being at thumb screw 8; compare Figs. 1 and 5) between a position holding the blade 4 against the support 2 (see Figs. 4 and 7) and a position free of the blade 4 (see Fig. 1), the support 2
in the first position being inside the housing 14 and holding the blade 4 inside the housing 14 with no part of a cutting edge of the blade 4 exposed for engagement with material to be cut (see Figs. 5 and 7 – the cutting edge at the bottom of the blade 4 is blocked by the housing 14 such that no part of the cutting edge is exposed) and with the support outer surface 17 interacting with a first inner housing surface (see Fig. 7, the first inner housing surface being an inside surface of housing 14 in contact with support outer surface 17) and the cover outer surface 18 interacting with a second inner housing surface (see Fig. 7, the second inner housing surface being an inside surface of housing 14 in contact with cover outer surface 18) such that the blade is clamped in a blade seat (the blade seat being a space defined by the support 2, where the blade seat extends from a right-facing surface of the support 2 relative to Fig. 7 to a right end of the projection 3 of the support 2 relative to Fig. 2, where the blade seat is a space facing out of the page relative to Fig. 1) between the support 2 and the cover 5 (Fig. 7 shows the cover 5 clamping the blade 4 against the blade seat at least because the clamping provided by the cover 5 prohibits the blade 4 from moving to the right relative to the Fig. to disengage the seat; see also page 2, lines 42-46, where the wedging action produces a clamping force on the blade), the support 2.
in the blade-replacement position, being so far out of the housing 14 that the cover 5 can free and expose all of the blade 4 so the blade can be replaced (see Fig. 1 – the entire out of the page facing surface of the blade 4 is exposed; see page 2, lines 25-31), the cover outer surface 18 and the support outer surface 17 being oppositely outwardly directed (see Fig. 4, relative to which the surfaces 18 and 17 are directed rightward and leftward, respectively) and the first and second inner housing surfaces being confronting inwardly directed inner housing surfaces (see Fig. 7, where the first and second inner housing surfaces are the inner surfaces of the housing 14 abutting surfaces 17 and 18) so that the inner housing surfaces engage the outer surfaces 17 and 18 when the support 2 is in the first position and clamp the cover 5 into the blade seat against the support 2 (see Fig. 7 and page 2, lines 41-46; see also page 1, lines 36-43 disclosing the support 2 and the cover 5 as ‘clamping plates’); and
a projection formed on at least one of the cover outer surface 17 and the support outer surface 18 (see the annotated Fig. 4 below, where each projection is wedge-shaped and is relative to the support 2 and cover 5 being plate-shaped of a constant thickness – i.e., were it not for the projections, the support 2 and cover 5 would be a constant thickness) and projecting toward the housing surface (each of the projections indicated in the annotated Fig. 4 projects toward a respective one of the housing surfaces as can be seen in Fig. 7), the blade 4 being clamped by the projection between the cover 5 and the support 2 when the support 2 is in the first position (see Fig. 7; the blade 4 is ‘clamped by the projection’ because the projection engages the housing to exert a clamping force on the blade 4) so as to surround the recess (see Fig. 7 – the recess is surrounded, in part, by the housing, cover, and support, including the projections; note that ‘surround’ consistent with the present specification merely requires partially surrounding the recess, since the recess in the present application is not entirely surrounded) and increase clamping force in an area next to the recess (the clamping force at above the recess relative to Fig. 7 is ‘increased’, at least relative to the configuration of Fig. 1) so that no cutting material can enter between the blade 4 and the blade support (as best understood, the blade support can include the support 2 and/or the cover; and the blade 4 is clamped between the support 2 and cover 5 as shown in Fig. 7 to prevent cutting material from entering therebetween), wherein the cover and support outer surfaces taper relative to each other in the clamping region (see Figs. 4 and 7, where the ‘clamping region’ is a region between the first and second inner housing surfaces, and where the outer surfaces taper toward each other in a direction toward a tip of the blade 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Temple discloses that the support 2 pivots the blade 4 about the first axis as the support 2 moves between the blade-replacement position (shown in Fig. 1) and the first position within a plane (the plane extends along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1, noting that the pivoting is about at element 13 in Fig. 1; i.e., the plane extends perpendicular to the page relative to Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Temple discloses that at least one of the housing surfaces is inclined toward the plane in a clamping region (see the annotated Fig. 7 below, where a vertical reference line is added to better illustrate the incline, where the clamping region a central region of the knife in a left-right direction, such that the clamping region extends along the entire height of the knife).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Temple discloses that at least one of the outer surfaces 17 and 18 is inclined toward the plane in a clamping region (see Fig. 7, where the clamping region a central region of the knife in a left-right direction, such that the clamping region extends along the entire height of the knife, and where both surfaces 17 and 18 are inclined toward the plane moving from top toward bottom relative to Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Temple discloses that one of the outer surfaces 17 and 18 or one of the housing surfaces is inclined (see Fig. 7) in such a manner that clamping forces acting on the outer surfaces 17 and 18 increase during pivotal movement of the support 2 from the blade-replacement position into the first position (see Fig. 7 – the further than the support 2 is pivoted to extend downward between the inner surfaces of the housing 14, the wider the combined support 2 and cover 5 become, so that the clamping forces increase)
Regarding claim 8, Temple discloses that the support 2 forms a pivot joint (at element 13) with the housing 14 and pivots about the first axis between the first position and the blade-replacement position (compare Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Temple discloses a knife (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an elongated housing 14 having a channel-shaped laterally open recess (see Fig. 7, where the recess extends upward into the bottom end of the housing 14, where the blade 4 is within the recess, such that ‘lateral’ is relative to the view of Fig. 6; to the extent that a ‘recess’ cannot be open at two ends, the housing 14 ‘has’ the recess in conjunction with the support 2 and cover 5);
a blade 4;
a support 2 (the support 2 is considered as including stem 1, and is referred to herein as “support 2” for brevity) having a support outer surface 17 (see Figs. 4 and 7) and pivotal about a first axis on the housing 14 (the first axis defined by pivot 13; compare Figs. 1 and 5 showing different pivotal positions of the support 2) between a first position (the position of the support 2 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) and a blade-replacement position outside the housing 14 (the blade-replacement position of the support 2 shown in Fig. 1); and
a cover 5 having a cover outer surface 18 (see Figs. 4 and 7) and pivotable on the support 2 about a second axis (the second axis being at thumb screw 8; compare Figs. 1 and 5) between a position holding the blade 4 against the support 2 (see Figs. 4 and 7) and a position free of the blade 4 (see Fig. 1), the support 2
in the first position being inside the housing 14 and holding the blade 4 inside the housing 14 with no part of a cutting edge of the blade 4 exposed for engagement with material to be cut (see Figs. 5 and 7 – the cutting edge at the bottom of the blade 4 is blocked by the housing 14 such that no part of the cutting edge is exposed) with the support outer surface 17 interacting with a first inner housing surface (see Fig. 7, the first inner housing surface being an inside surface of housing 14 in contact with support outer surface 17) and the cover outer surface 18 interacting with a second inner housing surface (see Fig. 7, the second inner housing surface being an inside surface of housing 14 in contact with cover outer surface 18) such that the blade is clamped in a blade seat (the blade seat being a space defined by the support 2, where the blade seat extends from a right-facing surface of the support 2 relative to Fig. 7 to a right end of the projection 3 of the support 2 relative to Fig. 2, where the blade seat is a space facing out of the page relative to Fig. 1) between the support 2 and the cover 5 (Fig. 7 shows the cover 5 clamping the blade 4 against the blade seat at least because the clamping provided by the cover 5 prohibits the blade 4 from moving to the right relative to the Fig. to disengage the seat; see also page 2, lines 42-46, where the wedging action produces a clamping force on the blade 4) and
in the blade-replacement position, the support 2 being moved so far out of the housing 14 that the cover 5 is movable to expose the blade 4 so the blade can be replaced (see Fig. 1 – the entire out of the page facing surface of the blade 4 is exposed; see page 2, lines 25-31), the cover outer surface 18 and the support outer surface 17 being oppositely outwardly directed (see Fig. 4, relative to which the surfaces 18 and 17 are directed rightward and leftward, respectively) and the first and second inner housing surfaces being confronting inwardly directed (see Fig. 7, where the first and second inner housing surfaces are the inner surfaces of the housing 14 abutting surfaces 17 and 18) so as to engage the outer surfaces 17 and 18 when the support 2 is in the first position and clamp the cover 5 into the blade seat against the support 2 (see Fig. 7 and page 2, lines 41-46; see also page 1, lines 36-43 disclosing the support 2 and the cover 5 as ‘clamping plates’); and
a projection partially surrounding the recess (see the annotated Fig. 4 above indicating the projection; as can be seen in Fig. 7, the projection partially surrounds the recess by extending along a top of the recess), [the projection] formed on at least one of the cover outer surface 17 and the support outer surface 18 (see the annotated Fig. 4 above, where each projection is wedge-shaped and is relative to the support 2 and cover 5 being plate-shaped of a constant thickness – i.e., were it not for the projections, the support 2 and cover 5 would be a constant thickness) and projecting toward the housing surface (each of the projections indicated in the annotated Fig. 4 projects toward a respective one of the housing surfaces as can be seen in Fig. 7), wherein the projection, when on the cover outer surface or the support outer surface is only required to partially surround the recess when the cover 5 or the support 2 is in the operating position (see Fig. 7), wherein the cover and support outer surfaces taper relative to each other in the clamping region (see Figs. 4 and 7, where the ‘clamping region’ is a region between the first and second inner housing surfaces, and where the outer surfaces taper toward each other in a direction toward a tip of the blade 4). [Features not required due to recitation of ‘or’ have not been addressed; note that the feature beginning ‘and projecting toward the support …’ at line 35 and extending until line 40 is only required when the projecting is on one of the housing inner surface.]
Temple fails to disclose that the first position is an operating position (since no portion of any cutting edge of the blade is exposed in the first position of Temple, it would not be within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “operating position” to consider the first position of Temple as an ‘operating position’), that the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis, and that in the operating position the blade is held with only a part of the cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess for engagement with material to be cut, as required by claim 1. Template also fails to disclose that the first position is an operating position, that the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis, and that in the operating position the blade is held with only a part of the cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess for engagement with material to be cut, as required by claim 9.
First, Kassel teaches a knife having a housing 10 that has a slot 14 that exposes only a part of a cutting edge of a blade 23 when the blade 23 is positioned in a recess defined by the housing 10. Kassel teaches that a support 11 is pivotal into an operating position within the housing 10 (shown in Fig. 1), and only the part of the cutting edge of a blade 23 is exposed in the recess for engagement with material to be cut when the support 11 is in the operating position (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 22-23). Kassel teaches that providing the housing with the slot is advantageous because, even when the support and blade are pivoted into the housing, the slot allows a portion of the blade to be exposed such that a cord cutter is provided (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 22-23), and yet the blade remains generally protected from inadvertent contact (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the housing of Temple with a slot as taught by Kassel so that even when the support and blade are pivoted into the housing, a portion of the cutting edge of the blade is exposed in the recess in order to provide a cord cutter (i.e., providing Temple with a slot in the housing exposes a part of the cutting edge of the blade in the recess of Temple). This modification allows the knife of Temple, as modified, to be used to cut cord, string, etc. even when the knife is in the safely folded position, thus enhancing the versatility of the knife. As a result of this modification, the first position of Temple, as modified, becomes an operating position since a portion of the blade is exposed in the recess via the addition of the slot.
Second, Coleman teaches a knife having a housing 1, a blade 6, a support 2, and a cover 7. The support 2 is pivotal relative to the housing 1 about a first axis (defined by pivot 3) and the cover 7 is pivotable on the support 2 about a second axis (defined by pivot 8) that is orthogonal to the first axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Temple by making the second axis about which the cover pivots relative to the support to be orthogonal to the first axis about which the support pivots relative to the handle in view of the teachings of Coleman. First, this modification is advantageous because Coleman and Temple provide evidence that the two cover pivot configurations are equivalent, such that the selection of the orientation of the second axis relative to the first axis is merely a design choice. That is, a cover is able to selectively secure a blade to a pivotable support regardless of whether the cover is pivotable parallel to or orthogonal to an axis about which the support pivots relative to the housing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art can select either configuration with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, this modification is further advantageous because it reduces the likelihood of the blade being inadvertently released. In Temple, as can be seen in Fig. 7, an upward force applied to the support has some chance of moving the support relative to the cover, while the cover remains wedged against the housing. That is, if the cover is not securely attached to the support (e.g., if a user inadvertently does not fully secure the cover to the support), then a force applied to the support to move the support out of the housing has a chance to permit the cover to remain in the housing, since the cover is engaged to the housing and since the orientation of the two axes of Temple are parallel. Friction between the cover and housing has a tendency to hold the cover in the housing. If the cover remains engaged to the housing as the support is rotated, the blade may be inadvertently released. The modification of Temple to make the second axis perpendicular to the first axis avoids this problem, since the friction force between the cover and housing is no longer in a direction that tends to pivot the cover relative to the support. As such, this modification enhances safety by reducing the likelihood of the blade being inadvertently released.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Temple as modified by Kassel and Coleman as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pub. No. US 2008/0086894 A1 to Sullivan.
Temple, as modified, fails to disclose the specific material from which its housing is constructed. As a result, Temple, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that at least in the clamping region the housing is elastically deformable so that the first housing surface and the second housing surface can be spread counter to an elastic restoring force of the housing as recited in claim 7. Note, however, that if the housing of modified Temple were constructed of a material which exhibits elastic deformation, such as plastic, then at least in the clamping region the housing would be elastically deformable so that the first housing surface and the second housing surface can be spread counter to an elastic restoring force of the housing. This is because the housing, being made of an elastically deformable material, would be deform to create a restoring force in response to the blade support being wedged into the housing.
Sullivan teaches a housing for a knife, where the housing functions as a handle, and where the housing is preferably made of plastic (see paragraph 54). Moreover, Sullivan teaches that a wide variety of materials can be used to construct a knife housing that functions as handle, including plastic, carbon-fiber, wood, metal, or other composite materials or laminates (see paragraph 55). Plastic is well known to offer various advantages including being an inexpensive material, being a material that is easy to form into complex shapes via molding, and being a material that is recyclable.
Thus, Temple as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the housing of the handle being constructed from an elastically deformable material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the entire handle of modified Temple, including the housing, from a plastic material as taught by Sullivan, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sullivan is evidence that plastic is a material known to be suitable for constructing the handle of a knife. Moreover, this modification offers advantages including plastic being an inexpensive and readily available material, plastic being easy to form into complex shapes, and certain types of plastic being recyclable.
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 1,774,617 to Temple in view of US Pat. No. 2,523,575 to Kassel.
Regarding claim 10, Temple discloses a knife (see Fig. 1) comprising:
an elongated housing 14 having a laterally open recess (see Fig. 7, where the recess extends upward into the bottom end of the housing 14, where the blade 4 is within the recess, such that ‘lateral’ is relative to the view of Fig. 6; to the extent that a ‘recess’ cannot be open at two ends, the housing 14 ‘has’ the recess in conjunction with the support 2 and cover 5);
a blade 4;
a support 2 (the support 2 is considered as including stem 1, and is referred to herein as “support 2” for brevity) having a blade seat (the surface having studs 3) constructed to hold the blade 4 (see Figs. 1 and 4), the support 2 being pivotal about a first axis on the housing 14 (the axis defined by pivot 13; compare Figs. 1 and 5 showing different pivotal positions of the support 2) between a first position with the blade seat inside the housing 14 (the position of the support 2 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) and a blade-replacement position with the blade seat outside the housing 14 (the blade-replacement position of the support 2 shown in Fig. 1); and
a cover 5 on the support 2 (see Fig. 1) and pivotable on the support 2 about a second axis (defined at element 8; compare Figs. 1 and 5) between a closed position clamping the blade 4 against the blade seat of the support 2 (Fig. 7 shows the cover 5 clamping the blade 4 against the blade seat 3 at least because the clamping provided by the cover 5 prohibits the blade 4 from moving to the right relative to the Fig. to disengage the seat) and an open position free of the blade 4 and exposing the blade 4 for removal from the blade seat (see Fig. 1), the cover 5 and the support 2 forming oppositely outwardly directed cover and support outer surfaces 17 and 18 (see Fig. 4; the cover 5 forms the surface 18 and the support 2 forms the surface 17) and the housing 14 is formed with confronting inwardly directed inner housing surfaces (inner surfaces of the housing 14 that each face the support outer surfaces 17 and 18 as can be seen in Fig. 7) that in the first position of the support 2 engage the outer surfaces 17 and 18 and clamp the cover 5 into the blade seat against the support 2 (see Fig. 7 and page 2, lines 42-46); and
a projection partially surrounding the recess (see the annotated Fig. 4 above indicating the projection, where as can be seen in Fig. 7 the projection extends across the top of the recess to ‘partially surround’ the recess), [the projection] formed on at least one of the cover outer surface 17 and the support outer surface 18 (see the annotated Fig. 4 above, where each projection is wedge-shaped and is relative to the support 2 and cover 5 being plate-shaped of a constant thickness – i.e., were it not for the projections, the support 2 and cover 5 would be a constant thickness) and projecting toward the housing surface (each of the projections indicated in the annotated Fig. 4 projects toward a respective one of the housing surfaces as can be seen in Fig. 7), wherein the projection, when on the cover outer surface or the support outer surface is only required to partially surround the recess when the cover 5 or the support 2 is in the operating position (see Fig. 7), wherein the cover and support outer surfaces taper relative to each other in the clamping region (see Figs. 4 and 7, where the ‘clamping region’ is a region between the first and second inner housing surfaces, and where the outer surfaces taper toward each other in a direction toward a tip of the blade 4). [Features not required due to recitation of ‘or’ have not been addressed; note that the feature beginning ‘and projecting toward the support …’ at line 26 and extending until line 31 is only required when the projecting is on one of the housing inner surface.]
Regarding claim 12, Temple discloses that the outer surfaces and the inner surfaces are nonparallel and relatively angled (i.e., each outer surface 17 and 18 is non-parallel and angled relative to the respective inner surface of the housing 14 that the respective outer surface 17 or 18 contacts, especially a portion of the inner surfaces in the vicinity of element 3 in Fig. 7) such that on movement of the support 2 from the blade-replacement position into the first position the outer surfaces 17 and 18 engage with increasing clamping force (see Fig. 7 and page 2, lines 42-46 – the further into the housing 14 that the support 2 and cover 5 are pressed, the greater the clamping forces).
Regarding claim 13, Temple discloses a knife comprising:
an elongated housing 14 having a channel-shaped laterally open recess (see Fig. 7, where the recess extends upward into the bottom end of the housing 14, where the blade 4 is within the recess, such that ‘lateral’ is relative to the view of Fig. 6; to the extent that a ‘recess’ cannot be open at two ends, the housing 14 ‘has’ the recess in conjunction with the support 2 and cover 5) and forming first and second inner housing surfaces (see Fig. 7, where the first and second housing surfaces are inner surfaces of the housing 14 that face and engage with surfaces 17 and 18, respectively);
a blade 4;
a support 2 (the support 2 is considered as including stem 1, and is referred to herein as “support 2” for brevity) having a support outer surface 17 and pivotal about a first axis on the housing 14 (the axis defined by pivot 13; compare Figs. 1 and 5 showing different pivotal positions of the support 2) between a first position (the position of the support 2 shown in Figs. 5 and 7) and a blade-replacement position (the blade-replacement position of the support 2 shown in Fig. 1); and
a cover 5 having a cover outer surface 18, the first and second housing surfaces tapering relative to each other in a clamping region (this feature is optional due to the following ‘or’) or the outer surfaces 17 and 18 tapering relative to each other in a clamping region (see Figs. 4 and 7, where the clamping region is a central area in a left-right direction where the outer surfaces 17 and 18 engage the housing surfaces), the support 2
in the first position being inside the housing 14 (see Fig. 5) and holding the blade 4 inside the housing 14 and with the support outer surface 17 interacting with the first housing surface (see Fig. 7) and the cover outer surface 18 interacting with the second housing surface (see Fig. 7) such that the blade 4 is clamped in a blade seat (the blade seat defined by protrusions 3) between the support 2 and the cover 5 (see Figs. 5 and 7; see also page 2, lines 42-46), and
in the blade-replacement position, the support 2 being so far out of the housing 14 that the cover 5 is able to free and expose all of the blade 4 so the blade 4 can be replaced (see Fig. 1); and
a projection formed on at least one of the cover outer surface 17 and the support outer surface 18 (see the annotated Fig. 4 above, where each projection is wedge-shaped and is relative to the support 2 and cover 5 being plate-shaped of a constant thickness – i.e., were it not for the projections, the support 2 and cover 5 would be a constant thickness) and projecting toward the housing surface (each of the projections indicated in the annotated Fig. 4 projects toward a respective one of the housing surfaces as can be seen in Fig. 7), the blade 4 being clamped by the projection between the cover 5 and the support 2 when the support 2 is in the first position (see Fig. 7; the projection interacts with the housing 14 to aid in clamping the blade, and the blade 4 is between the cover 5 and support 2) so as to surround the recess (see Fig. 7 – the recess is surrounded, in part, by the housing, cover, and support, including the projections; note that ‘surround’ consistent with the present specification merely requires partially surrounding the recess, since the recess in the present application is not entirely surrounded) and increase clamping force in an area next to the recess (the clamping force at above the recess relative to Fig. 7 is ‘increased’, at least relative to the configuration of Fig. 1) so that no cutting material can enter between the blade 4 and the blade support (as best understood, the blade support can include the support 2 and/or the cover; and the blade 4 is clamped between the support 2 and cover 5 as shown in Fig. 7 to prevent cutting material from entering therebetween), wherein the support 2 forms a pivot joint with the housing 14 (see Fig. 1, where the pivot joint is at ‘13’ and pivots about the first axis between the first position and the blade-replacement position (compare Figs. 2 and 5), and wherein the support 2 is accommodated in the recess when the support 2 is in the first position (see Figs. 5 and 7).
Temple fails to disclose that the first position is an operating position (since no portion of any cutting edge of the blade is exposed in the first position of Temple, it would not be within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “operating position” to consider the first position of Temple as an ‘operating position’) with only a part of a cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess for engagement with material to be cut, all as required by claim 10. Temple also fails to disclose that the first position is an operating position with only a part of a cutting edge of the blade exposed in the recess for engagement with material to be cut, all as required by claim 13.
Kassel teaches a knife having a housing 10 that has a slot 14 that exposes only a part of a cutting edge of a blade 23 when the blade 23 is positioned in a recess defined by the housing 10. Kassel teaches that a support 11 is pivotal into an operating position within the housing 10 (shown in Fig. 1), and only the part of the cutting edge of a blade 23 is exposed in the recess for engagement with material to be cut when the support 11 is in the operating position (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 22-23). Kassel teaches that providing the housing with the slot is advantageous because, even when the support and blade are pivoted into the housing, the slot allows a portion of the blade to be exposed such that a cord cutter is provided (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 22-23), and yet the blade remains generally protected from inadvertent contact (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the housing of Temple with a slot as taught by Kassel so that even when the support and blade are pivoted into the housing, a portion of the cutting edge of the blade is exposed in the recess in order to provide a cord cutter (i.e., providing Temple with a slot in the housing exposes a part of the cutting edge of the blade in the recess of Temple). This modification allows the knife of Temple, as modified, to be used to cut cord, string, etc. even when the knife is in the safely folded position, thus enhancing the versatility of the knife. As a result of this modification, the first position of Temple, as modified, becomes an operating position since a portion of the blade is exposed in the recess via the addition of the slot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that none of the references teach or suggest a knife having a projection provided so as to clamp the blade between the cover and the support when the support is in the operating position so as to surround the recess in the housing and increase clamping force in an area next to a recess. However, this argument fails to explicitly address the teachings of Temple, where a projection partially surrounds a recess by extending across an upper end of the recess, and where the projections interact with the housing to clamp a blade between the cover and support of Temple. As can be seen in Fig. 7 of Temple, clamping forces increase the further the cover and support are urged into the housing. Moreover, Temple performs the function of preventing cutting material from entering between the blade and the blade support because the cover and blade support are urged against the blade, thus preventing material from entering between the cover and the blade support. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner acknowledges that there are structural differences between the projections 53a and 53b on the support and cover, respectively, of the inventive knife compared to the projections of Temple. However, the present claims do not describe the projections in a manner that distinguishes the projections of the inventive knife from the projections of Temple. The examiner suggests, in addition to addressing all issue under 35 USC 112(b) set forth above, that the Applicant more particularly describe the characteristics of the inventive projections in order to distinguish over Temple. For example, there is no requirement in the present claims that the projections extend around three sides of recesses indented into the support and cover, although this feature is illustrated in Figs. 8 and 10 of the present drawings (note that the examiner is not suggesting any particular claim language, but is instead generally noting a structural different between the projections of the present application and those of Temple).
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724