DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over AAPA of US Patent Application Publication No. 20050278955 to Lee in view of US Patent No. 1,616,141 to Rosenblum or US Patent No. 1,553,449 to Kennedy.
In re claim 7, (the prior art to) AAPA of Lee teaches a holder for a utility blade that includes a pair of openings, the holder (2) comprising a housing (as shown in at least Figure 1) in which a blade pocket is formed, the blade pocket defining at least:
a top edge (see Annotated Figure 1, below);
a blade opening (see Annotated Figure 1, below) on an opposite side of the blade pocket from the top edge;
a pair of side edges (see Annotated Figure 1, below) located on opposite sides of the blade pocket, extending between the top edge and the blade opening, wherein the pair of side edges includes a first side edge and a second side edge (see Annotated Figure 1, on Pg. 4, below); and
a pair of detents (22) located proximate the pair of side edges, between the top edge and the blade opening, the pair of detents spatially separated from the top edge and the blade opening, the blade pocket contoured to fit a top portion of the utility blade, and the pair of detents contoured to fit within the pair of openings to position and hold the top portion of the utility blade within the blade pocket,
wherein the pair of detents include a first detent (as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1) located proximate the first side edge and a second detent located proximate the second side edge (as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1).
Note, the preamble is directed to a holder for a utility blade; therefore, the utility blade has not been positively recited in combination with the blade holder. Further, the BRI of the term “proximate” is defined by Merriam Webster is “very near: close.” Per the requirements of the claim, the detents merely have to be very near or close to the side edges, in which they are as set forth in (AAPA) to Lee.
However, in the event one may argue the first and second detents of Lee are not proximate the first and second side edges, Rosenblum teaches a first detent (10, left) located proximate the first side edge (9) and a second detent (10) located proximate a second side edge (8). Kennedy teaches a first detent (13, bottom (closest to 23)) proximate the first side edge (20) and a second detent (13, top, (closest to reference character 10)) proximate the second side edge (opposite of 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide AAPA to Lee with a first detent proximate the first side edge and a second detent proximate the second side edge as taught by Rosenblum or Kennedy to maintain proper security of the blade which prevents unwanted movement during use and reduces user injury (while in and out of use).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 8, wherein the holder (2) is a blade carrier of a folding utility knife (as shown in at least Figure 1) that also includes a handle (1) to which the blade carrier is pivotably connected.
In re claim 9, wherein the holder (2) is a blade carrier of a scraper that also includes a handle (1) to which the blade carrier is pivotably connected.
In re claim 10, wherein the housing is (capable of being) sized such that more than 75% of a linear cutting edge (3) of the utility blade is exposed when the top portion of the utility blade is fit into the blade pocket of the housing.
Note, the preamble is directed to a blade holder; therefore, the housing (of the blade holder) has to be capable of being sized such that more than 75% of the linear cutting edge is exposed.
In re claim 11, wherein the blade pocket is (capable of being) structured such that a normal force against a linear cutting edge of the utility blade proximate a first detent (22) of the pair of detents promotes rotation of the utility blade about the first detent, and such that the rotation is resisted by a second detent of the pair of detents.
Note, the preamble is directed to the blade holder and not the combination of the blade holder and the blade.
In re claim 12, wherein the holder further comprises a cover (4) that is securable to the housing (2) over the top portion of the utility blade to hold the utility blade firmly in the blade pocket of the housing.
In re claim 14, wherein the housing (see Annotated Figure 1, above) and the cover (4) are (capable of being) sized such that less than 25% of a linear cutting edge of the utility blade is covered when the top portion of the utility blade is fit into the blade pocket of the housing and the cover is secured over the top portion of the utility blade (Paras 0004,0005).
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 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Rosenblum or Kennedy, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 9,770,834 to Wang.
In re claim 13, Lee teaches a cover (4), but does not teach the cover includes a boss that is contoured to the top portion of the utility blade, and that is held against the top portion of the utility blade when the cover is secured to the housing.
Wang teaches a holder (as shown in at least Figures 3 and 4) having a cover (32) including a boss (323, Col. 4, lines 45-67, Col. 5, lines 1-17) which matches a recess or protuberance on the lock catch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide cover and clip arrangement of Lee with a boss and recess arrangement as taught by Wang in order to provide a structure to exert a force, to mismatch or match the protuberances and corresponding recesses in order to maintain a safe and convenient way of replacing the blade (Col. 1, lines 38-41, Col. 2, lines 16-17, 66-67, Col. 3, lines 1-17).)
In re claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the holder further comprises at least one fastener (as shown in at least Figure 1, the fastener is the structure the cover pivots about) configured to secure the cover to the housing, but does not teach wherein the at least one fastener includes a tensioning fastener loosened to provide access to the blade pocket for insertion or replacement of the utility blade, and tightened to hold the utility blade firmly in the blade pocket.
Wang teaches a screw used for fastening the cover to the housing and unscrewing the screw to replace the blade and tightening to hold the utility blade firmly in the blade pocket (Col. 5, lines 19-24).
The threads provide the fastener to be a tensioning fastener.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the fastener of Lee with the screw fastener taught by Wang which is advantageous for providing a strong and adjustable connection. Replacing the fastener of Lee with the screw fastener of Wang is an obvious matter of design choice.
In re claim 16, Lee teaches a pivot pin (as shown in at least Figure 1) configured to pivotably secure a second end of the cover to the housing, but does not teach wherein the holder further comprises at least one fastener configured to secure the cover to the housing, and wherein the at least one fastener includes a tensioning fastener configured to removably secure a first end of the cover to the housing.
Wang teaches a screw used for fastening the cover to the housing and unscrewing the screw to replace the blade and tightening to hold the utility blade firmly in the blade pocket (Col. 5, lines 19-24).
The threads provide the fastener to be a tensioning fastener.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention secure the cover of Lee to the housing with the screw fastener taught by Wang which is advantageous for providing a strong and adjustable connection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of in view of Rosenblum or Kennedy, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 1,741,924 to Engel or US Patent No. 971,257 to Dube.
In re claim 19, Lee teaches wherein the blade pocket further defines a back wall, and detents (22) of the pair of detents are pins that extend from the back wall located proximate to the pair of side walls, but does not teach the detents are spatially separated from the pair of side edges.
Engel teaches a blade holder having a pair of detents (8) which are spatially separated from the pair of side edges.
Dube teaches a blade holder (2) having a pair of detents (5) spatially separated from the pair of side edges.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the detents of Lee with detent spatially separated from the side edges as taught by Engel or Dube to maintain securing the cutting blade relative to the blade holder to prevent unwanted movement during use, which could lead to user injury. Providing the detents of Lee spatially separated from the side edges as taught by Engel or Dube is an obvious design choice, as it does not alter the function of the device.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of in view of Rosenblum or Kennedy, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 5,036,591 to Cousins.
In re claim 20, Lee teaches the holder having a top edge, but does not teach wherein the top edge defines one or more further detents that are contoured to fit one or more indentations on the utility blade.
Cousins teaches in the art of blade holders, a holder having detents (86) contoured to fit along a side of a utility blade (54) and a detent (84) for securing the center of the blade.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Lee with a detent and blade arrangement as taught by Cousins to maintain securing the cutting blade relative to the blade holder to prevent unwanted movement during use, which could lead to user injury. Modifying Lee with a detent arrangement as taught by Cousins would modify the top edge to have a detent and the back wall to have a detent to receive a blade having a similar structure to Cousins. This would not alter the function of the device, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize various modifications could be made when building Lee from the ground up that would still arrive at securing a blade relative to a holder to perform the intended function of the device, which is cutting.
Note, claims 17-18 have not been explained, since the limitation is in the alternative to the examined limitation.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed October 1, 2025 have been obviated by the amendments filed January 30, 2026.
The 112, second paragraph rejection in the Office Action mailed October 1, 2025 has been overcome by the amendments filed January 30, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Lee fails to teach or suggest a pair of detents include a first detent located proximate the first side edge and a second detent located proximate the side edge, in which the side edges are located on opposite sides of the blade pocket.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Merriam Webster Dictionary the term “proximate” is defined as ““very near: close.” The claims recites “a first detent located proximate the first side edge and a second detent located proximate the second side edge. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the pair of detents of Lee are located proximate to both the first and second side edges. In this particular instance, the first detent is “very near: close” to the first side edge and the second detent is “very near” close” to the second side edge with respect to the rear end of the handle of the blade. There is nothing in the claim precluding this interpretation, since the term “proximate” merely requires the second detent (of Lee) to be very close to the second side edge, in which it is. However, in the event one may argue, the Examiner relied on Rosenblum and Kennedy, which each teach detents positioned in a different position with respect to the side walls than Lee and satisfy the claim limitation of a first detent proximate a first side edge and a second detent proximate a second side edge.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights