Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 4-12, 14-22 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 “the edge of the blade channel” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers a new edge or inherently refers to previously introduced edge of the blade channel. Claim 11 has the same issue
Claim 4 “a front edge of the blade channel” is unclear whether the front edge of the blade channel refers back to the edge of the blade channel in claim 1 or refers an additional edge of the blade channel. Claims 13, 16 have the same issue of “a front end” or “a front edge of the blade channel”. Are an edge and an end of the blade channel the same right?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura (WO2017057468 and art of record) in view of Ragland III(US 5509205 and art of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiura shows a cutting device (Figures 1-16), comprising:
a housing (1-2);
a blade carriage (6) having a blade channel formed at a first end of the blade carriage (for receiving and exposing a blade 5, Figure 2), wherein the blade channel is configured to receive a blade (5, Figure 2) and comprises a top side with a top side locking member and a bottom side with a bottom side locking member (Figure 2 shows the carriage 6 that has top and bottom tabs engaging notches of the blade for locking the blade as seen in Figures 8-9),
wherein both the top side locking member and the bottom side locking member each comprises a tab implement
PNG
media_image1.png
349
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sugiura fails to shows that the indented or indentation portion is a slot extending across the tab implement to an edge of the blade channel.
Ragland shows a blade carrier (18, Figure 3) having a locking member (40) including an tab implement (48, Figure 3) and indented portions (portion 44 is indented relative with the portion 48, Figure 3) for locking a blade (20), wherein each of the indented portions is a slot (the slot is formed by the surface 28, the portion 44, and the portion 48 as seen in Figure 3 below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified each of the locking members of Sugiura to have a slot formed by an indented portion and a tab implement, as taught by Ragland, in order to allow the blade carrier to restrain the blade during heavy use and which prevents the blade from disengaging from the knife (Abstract of Ragland).
In doing so, the slot of the indented portion extends across the tab element to an edge of the blade channel (because Sugiura’s tab implement, Figure 2 below, is positioned at an end of the blade carriage or the blade channel).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
860
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Sugiura shows that the slot of the tab implement of the top side locking member and the slot of the tab implement of the bottom side locking member are opened and aligned along the “a front” edge of the blade channel (see the modification of claim 1 above, the slots are opened and aligned along the edge of the blade channel because Sugiura’s tab implement, Figure 2 above, is positioned at an end of the blade carriage or the blade channel).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Sugiura shows that the tab implement is configured to engage with a portion of the blade to prevent the blade from sliding within the blade channel (see Sugiura’s Figures 8-9, the tabs are in the notches of the blade).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Sugiura shows a cutting edge of the blade is covered by the tab implement of the top side locking member (since the blade can be flipped as stated in claim 1, the cutting edge is slightly covered by the portions 48 and 50 as seen Ragland’s figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Sugiura shows a cover member (13) that is reversibly attachable to a front portion of the housing (see Figure 3 of Sugiura, the top and bottom sides of the cover 13 are identical; therefore, the cover can be reversibly attachable to a front portion of the housing).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Sugiura shows that the blade carriage is movable between a retracted position and an extended position (Figures 8-9 of Sugiura).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Sugiura shows that a tension component (4 of Sugiura) configured to bias the blade carriage towards the retracted position within the housing (page 30, the second last paragraphs of Translation of Sugiura).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Sugiura shows that a blade carriage track (two longitudinal rails at the reference “2” in Figure 5 of Sugiura) configured to guide movement of the blade carriage, wherein the blade carriage track is fixed with respect to the housing.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Sugiura shows all of the limitations as stated above in claims 1, 4-10 above including the housing that is a handle (Sugiura’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Sugiura shows all of the limitations as stated in claim 5 above and Sugiura’s Figures 8-9.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Sugiura shows the slot of the tab implement of the top side locking member and the slot of the tab implement of the bottom side locking member are opened and aligned along the edge of the blade channel (see the modification of claim 1 above and the discussion in claim 4 above).
Regarding claims 14-15, the modified device of Sugiura shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 9-10 above.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Sugiura shows that the cover member (13, Figure 2 of Sugiura) is removable to facilitate a blade change of the blade with a second blade and “a front end” of the blade channel is extended to a front end of the blade carriage track for the blade change (Figure 5 of Sugiura and see Figures 2-3, the blade is removable and can be replaced with a new blade).
If one argues that Sugiura does not discuss a second blade, Examiner takes official notice that it is well known to have a blade of the knife replaceable to a new blade (a second blade). Examples can be provided if challenged. It would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art (phosita) to have had the blade to be changeable to a new blade (a second blade), as is well known, in order to allow a new fresh blade to be effectively cut on workpieces.
Regarding claims 17-18, the modified device of Sugiura shows all of the limitations as stated above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Sugiura shows that a top side of the slot of the tab implement of the top side locking member is flat and continuous with the top side of the blade channel (see Ragland’s Figure 3 above, the top portion of the surface 28 formed the slot is flat) and a bottom side of the slot of the tab implement of the bottom side locking member is flat and continuous with the bottom side of the blade channel (see the modification above, the portion of the surface 28 formed the slot is flat).
Regarding claims 20-22, the modified device of Sugiura shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 7-10, 16 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below.
With regards to “a slot extending across the tab element to the edge of the blade channel”, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
As this is written, it is unclear what the size and shape of the slot be and where its position be. Looking at Ragland’s figure 3 above, the lot is formed by a portion of surface 28, a lower portion 44 and a upper portion 48. The slot extends across the tab element or implement 40.
The combination of Sugiura and Ragland shows the slot extends across the tab element or implement to the edge of the blade channel (because, the tab element of the main art, Sugiura is positioned at an end the blade carriage or the blade channel).
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus different from the prior art’s apparatus or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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 on (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 4/7/2026
Prosecution Insights