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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I.
Claim 10 limitation “a position setting component configured to travel” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
For an example, first, "component" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "component" is modified by functional language including “adapted to travel”; and third, the "component" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "position setting" preceding component describes the function, not the structure of the component.
Similarly, claim 16 has the same issue.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 10, and 16 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and or equivalents thereof.
Similar analysis, Claim 3 recites the “one or more locking members configured to reversibly receive a blade” also invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 3 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 10569433, art of record) in view of Owoc (US 2003/0150117).
Regarding claim 7, Wong shows an adjustable blade depth assembly (Figures 1-5), comprising:
a housing (12) with an indicator slot (14, Figure 2), wherein the indicator slot is an opening formed in a wall of the housing (Figure 2);
a blade carriage (2, Figure 1) configured to receive a blade (3) that is movable between a retracted position and an extended position (via a rotation dial 6, Figures 1-3); and
a position adjustment assembly (4-6, Figure 1) in mechanical communication with the blade carriage, the position adjustment assembly comprising: a dial component (6) having a post (4) extending from the dial component, wherein the post has a first end and a second end (Figures 1-2), and
a position indicator (a hexagon nut 5, Figures 1-3) having a protruding indicator (see corners or edges of the nut 5, Figure 1) formed on a first face of the position indicator (see the nut 5 in zoom-in of Figure 1)the blade carriage (2, Figure 4) abuts with the position indicator (5) to defined a movement boundary of the blade carriage (as seen in Figure 4 and Col. 2, lines 54-58 recites “the nut 5 has a cross-section in shape of a hexagon. The nut 5 is positioned in the groove forming the rotation restricting means 51 in such a way that two parallel sides of the hexagon align with the two sidewalls 511 of the groove” that means the blade carriage 2 abuts with the nut 5 for restricting its rotation and see the discussion of visually access to the nut 5 throughout the slots 14).
However, Wong’s device fails that a portion of the protruding indicator extends into the indicator slot.
Owoc shows an indicator slot (17, Figure 20) of a housing (10a, b) and an indicator (51, Figure 20) having apportion of a protruding indicator extends into the indicator slot (17, Figure 20).
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 the indication slot and the indicator of Wong to include or add a portion of a protruding indicator extends into the indicator slot of the housing, as taught by Owoc, in order to allow a user easily visual the movement of the indicator and the blade can be accurately set before cutting begins (Para. 51 of Owoc). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Regarding claim 8, the modified assembly of Wong shows that the position indicator is retained between the post of the dial component and the wall of the housing in which the indicator slot is formed (Figures 1-2 of Wong).
Regarding claim 9, the modified assembly of Wong shows that the position indicator has a length that is greater than or equal to the length of the indicator slot (as it is written, it is unclear which direction of a length of the slot or which direction of a length of the position indicator is, therefore, see Owoc’s Figure 20, the arm 51 is greater than a length of a width of the slot 17).
Regarding claim 10, the modified assembly of Wong shows a position setting component (21, Figure 4) configured to travel to one or more position setting component positions between the first and second ends of the post of the dial component, wherein the one or more position setting component positions each correspond to a blade carriage movement boundary defining a movement limit of the blade carriage (see the discussion of the guide member 21 of Wong).
Regarding claim 12, the modified assembly of Wong shows a position of the position indicator within the indicator slot corresponds to an extension limit of the blade carriage (see the discussion of Owoc’s arm 51 and Wong’s nut 5).
Regarding claim 13, the modified assembly of Wong shows the protruding indicator does not extend beyond an outer surface of the housing (see the arm 51 of Owoc’s 20).
Regarding claim 14, the modified assembly of Wong shows an adjustable blade depth assembly (see all limitations as stated in claim 7 above), comprising:
“a housing with an indicator slot, wherein the indicator slot is an opening formed in a wall of the housing;
a blade carriage for receiving a blade that is movable between a retracted position and an extended position; and
a position adjustment assembly in mechanical communication with the blade carriage, the position adjustment assembly comprising, a dial component having a post extending from the dial component, and
a position indicator connected to the post of the dial component and adjustable independent of the blade carriage (as seen in Wong’s Figures 1-2 and Abstract “adjustment of the blade length”, it appears only one independently adjustment of the blade length, therefore, the blade carriage 2 is independently adjustable by rotating the knob 6 and see Col. 3, lines 10-34 “the user rotates the rotatable knob 6 towards a second direction, thereby driving rotation of the threaded shaft 4 towards the second direction. …. the blade carrier 2 to move forward for a shorter distance to expose a shorter length of the blade 3 outside the housing 1”), the position indicator comprising:
an elongate member (a blade retainer 50 of Owoc) having a first side face and a second side face opposite the first side face, wherein the first side face and the second side face each start at a first longitudinal end of the elongate member and terminate at a second longitudinal end of the elongate member (Owoc’s Figure 20), and
a protruding indicator (the nut 5 of Wong has been modified to have an arm 51 of Owoc) on the first side face of the elongate member, wherein the protruding indicator is positioned between the first longitudinal end of the elongate member and the second longitudinal end of the elongate member (Owoc’s Figure 20), wherein the elongate member and the protruding indicator are a single piece (Owoc’s Figure 20).
Regarding claim 16, the modified assembly of Wong shows a position setting component configured to travel to one or more position setting component positions along the post of the dial component, wherein the one or more position setting component positions each correspond to a blade carriage movement boundary defining a movement limit of the blade carriage (see the discussion of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 17, the modified assembly of Wong shows that the position indicator is a separate component from the position setting component (see the nut 5 and the guide member 21 of Wong ).
Regarding claim 18, the modified assembly of Wong shows that the protruding indicator is a protrusion that extends from the first side face of the position indicator (see Owoc’s Figure 20 and see the discussion above).
Regarding claim 20, the modified assembly of Wong shows that the protruding indicator is configured to move within the indicator slot to provide an external visual reference of a movement range of the blade carriage (see the discussion in claim 7 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowable, set forth in the previous Office action.
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance: independent Claims 1, 11, 19 are free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature of a position indicator component having a pair of flanges and a position setting component disposed between the pair of flanges with combination of many limitations as stated in claims 1, 11, 19. Also, see the parent case for allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons:.
With regards to “Claims 7 and 14, Applicant maintains that the combination of Wong and Owoc do not provide for a position indicator with a protrusion portion…there is no motivation to combine Wong and Owoc” in the remarks, pages 7-8, the argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive.
Examiner agrees that Wong does not show a protruding portion of the position indicator extending throughout the handle slot, however, Owoc’s Figure 20 shows a protruding portion (position arm 51) that extends throughout the handle slot (17). Having a protruding portion on the position indicator extends throughout the handle slot and allows the user knows where an appropriate position of the blade is for cutting material as discussed in Para. 51 of Owoc. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
With regards to “no motivation to combine Wong and Owoc…Owoc’s placement of a blade position arm (51) on the blade carriage…”, Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The point of this modification that Examiner or one skill in the art is making is to have Wong’s position indicator (the nut 5) to add or include a protrusion portion extending throughout the handle slot that allows the user knows where positions of the blade for appropriately cutting material as discussed in Para. 51 of Owoc. It is a motivation and a suggestion from the Owoc’s art.
Moreover, this modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. Adding a protrusion portion or Owoc’s position arm 51 on Wong’s nut or position indicator is simple modification without destroying Wong’s position indicator or replacement the adjusting mechanisms (emphasis added) (as in matter specifically challenged in the argument of remarks, page 7-8) and would improve the user’s visual where the blade position be as strongly suggested by Owoc. The results are highly predictable.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method 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
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 2/19/2026