DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-5 are canceled. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1 and 6-13 appears below.
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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites a first pivot extending outwardly to the second pivot. Fig. 1 shows pivots 40 and 46 being points separated from one. Claims 6-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 and 6-13 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 recites the limitation "the first leg". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boudreaux US 20130296843.
Regarding claim 1, Boudreaux teaches a first shaft (Fig. 7 arm 320) having a first jaw positioned at a first end (Fig. 7 312); a second shaft pivotally coupled to the first shaft (Fig. 7 310) and having a second jaw associated with a second end (Fig. 7 322) so that the first shaft and second shaft are pivotal relative to each other to move the first jaw and the second jaw between an open position and a closed position (Figs. 13A and B); a knife actuating assembly coupled to the first shaft (Fig. 7 340, 344, 346, and 352) positioned to move a knife between a retracted position (Fig. 13A)and an extended position between the first jaw and the second jaw (Fig. 13D) in response to contact by the second shaft (Fig. 7 its always contacting the second shaft), wherein the knife actuating assembly comprises a first pivot secured to the first shaft (Fig. 7 342) and extending outwardly from the first shaft to a second pivot (Fig. 7 346) and a second leg coupled at one end to the first leg by the second pivot (Fig. 7 340 and 344) and coupled at an opposing end to a knife pin (Fig. 7 348) position in a slot extending longitudinally along the first shaft (Fig. 7 328), and wherein when the first jaw and the second jaw are in the closed position, the second shaft is in contact with the second pivot (Fig. 13C).
Regarding claim 6, Boudreaux teaches wherein the second leg of the linkage is coupled to the knife (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Boudreaux teaches wherein the second shaft includes a first section pivotally coupled to a second section (Fig. 7 340 and 344).
Regarding claim 8, Boudreaux teaches wherein a spring interconnects the first section and the second section to prevent pivotal movement of the first section relative to the second section until the first jaw and the second jaw are in the closed position (par. [0083] spring biasing locking arm 374 to prevent rod of the knife from moving until the jaws are closed).
Regarding claim 9, Boudreaux teaches further comprising a knife lockout interconnected to the knife actuating assembly and moveable to selectively prevent or allow the knife actuating assembly to move the knife between the retracted position and the extended position (par. [0083] spring biasing locking arm 374 to prevent rod of the knife from moving until the jaws are closed).
Regarding claim 10, Boudreaux teaches wherein the knife lockout comprises an interlock secured to a knife lockout button that is accessible by a user (Fig. 10 trigger 360).
Regarding claim 11, Boudreaux teaches wherein the knife lockout is pivotally mounted to the first shaft for movement between a first position where the interlock is in engagement with the knife actuating assembly and a second position where the interlock is out of engagement with the knife actuating assembly (Fig. 10 366 par. [0083] rotation of locking member around the pin).
Regarding claim 12, Boudreaux teaches wherein the interlock includes a detect (Fig. 10 374) and the knife actuating assembly includes a notch into which the detent may fit (Fig. 10 358).
Regarding claim 13, Boudreaux teaches wherein the detent is positioned in the notch when the first jaw and the second jaw are in the open position (par. [0083] they will remain engaged until the trigger is pivoted around 366).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the device of Boudreaux presented in Figs. 1-5 is inoperable and does not read on the claim limitations since 144 does not move longitudinally. First, the embodiment used is in Fig. 7-13D. Further, when flipping between Figs. 1B and 1C 144 moves longitudinally. Additionally, just fundamentally it has to as seen from Fig. 1A to Fig. 1C the cutting edge 152 moves distally and it is on firing beam 150. This is exactly like a finger if you think about it. If a finger is bent at the knuckle and then straightened the knuckle moves forward to make the tip of the finger move forward. This would also apply to how Fig. 7 moves, this is further described in par. [0080]. Next, the applicant argues that 340 and 344 are not part of the shaft but part of the linkage. The examiner disagrees, it does not matter what the parts are called they read on the claim limitations. They are attacked to the shaft and therefore can be considered part of it. Further, as required by the claim, the shaft has to have parts that are not unitary but different and attached via a pivot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 RYAN T. CLARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7606. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached on (571)272-4764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights