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 Objections
Claim1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 (line 3), should recite “that the folding knife
Claim 5 (line 2), should recite “
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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. Regarding claim 1 (lines 12-13) and claim 8 (lines 9-10), the phrase “the resetting component is composed of several mutually exclusive magnetic components” is indefinite. The scope of the phrase “mutually exclusive” with respect to the magnetic components is unclear. What structure, if any, is imparted by the phrase “mutually exclusive?” How are the magnets mutually exclusive? Per Merriam Webster Dictionary the term “mutually exclusive” is defined as being related such that each excludes or preclude the other. How do the magnetic components exclude or preclude one another, when the claim states the magnetic components either move towards one another or repel one another? In other words, there seems to be a direct relationship between the magnets rather than a mutually exclusive relationship between the disclosed magnets.
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 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 22020297322 to Douglas in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20080155833 to Busse.
In re claim 1, Douglas teaches a folding knife with different unlocking modes, comprising a handle (204) and a blade (108) that can be folded and stored inside the handle, is characterized in that the folding knife further comprises a locking buckle (see Annotated Figure 1, below), the handle has a storage slot for the blade, and
the blade (108) has a first locking groove (524) and a second locking groove (528) that are adapted to the locking buckle;
the locking buckle includes a slider (120), a resetting component (132), and a first limiting column (172); the first limiting column (172) is (capable of being) installed in the storage slot (as shown in at least Figure 2) and the slider is provided with a sliding groove (124, 194); and the resetting component (132) is arranged inside the sliding groove (as shown in at least Figure 6);
the slider (120) is provided with a locking part (508) that is adapted to the first locking (524) groove and the second locking groove (528); wherein the slider (120) has a protrusion extending obliquely upwards (see Annotated Figure 1, below), and a pull rod (148) is (capable of being) set on the left and right side of the slider.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, characterized in that the first locking groove (524) and the second locking groove (528) are strip-shaped grooves, and the strip-shaped grooves have a first limit wall surface (as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1, above);
the locking part has a second limit wall surface (as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1, above) that is adapted to the first limit wall surface.
In re claim 3, characterized in that the storage slot is provided with a second limiting column (144) for limiting the downward movement of the slider.
In re claim 5, characterized in that a third limiting column (180) is provided on the handle (204, Para 0043) to limit the upward rotation of the blade, and a limit groove (540) is provided on the blade for the third limiting column.
In re claim 6, characterized in that the protrusion has friction patterns (128, Para 0048).
In re claim 8, Douglas teaches a folding knife, comprising
a handle (204) and a foldable blade (108), characterized in that a locking groove (524,528) is provided between the handle and the foldable blade, and the folding knife further comprises a slider (120), a resetting component (132), and a first limiting column (172);
the slider is provided with a sliding groove (124,194), the first limiting column (172) is fixed by the handle and disposed in the sliding groove (194); and the resetting component (132) is arranged inside the sliding groove;
wherein the slider (120) comprises a protrusion (see Annotated Figure 1) extending obliquely upwards, and a pull rod (148) set on a left and right side of the slider (120).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Douglas teaches a folding knife having a pull rod (is capable of being) set on a right and left side of the slide, but does not teach the pull rod extends to an outside of the handle.
Busse teaches a folding knife having a slider (32) which engages with a pull rod (K) on the left and right sides of the slider (Para 0043). The pull rod (K, Para 0043) (is capable of extending) to an outside of the handle (H). The slider and the pull rod arrangement extend through a slot on the handle for the user to access on either side of the handle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the handle arrangement of Douglas with a slot and pull rod arrangement as taught by Busse to maintain the prevention of knife inadvertently moving from a closed to open position and injuring the user.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize there are various locking devices in the art of folding knives. Douglas teaches a locking device having a locking buckle accessible to a user as shown in Figure 2 (and from a “top” portion of the handle), in which the user engages portion (128) to maneuver the locking part. Busse teaches a device having a locking buckle in which the user can access the buckle via a pull rod on a “side” of a handle accessing the slider and pull rod. Modifying Douglas in order for the handle to have slots and the pull rod to extend outward of the handle as taught by Busse does not alter the functionality of the device. This modification still permits the locking part to travel within the slot to aid in moving the blade from an open position to a stored position and vice versa.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Douglas teaches a resetting component is a spring, which is disposed in a sliding groove and permits biasing of the locking buckle to lock the blade in an extended or folding position, but does not teach the resetting component is composed of several mutually exclusive and arranged magnetic components; and wherein the slider is slidable relative to the first limiting column by pushing the protrusion or the pull rod along the first locking groove or the second locking groove, and the magnetic components are configured in a manner that when the slider is moved by the protrusion or the pull rod, at least one of the magnetic components is moved towards another one of the magnetic components, or is repelled by exclusive force between the magnetic components.
Figure 3D of Busse discloses a magnet arrangement in which the magnets are arrangement such that they repel one another (Para 0055), the slider (32’) is slidable along a locking groove, and the magnetic components (100,102) are configured in a manner that when the slider is moved at least one of the magnetic components (102) is repelled by exclusive force between the magnetic components (Para 055). The repulsion force acts like a spring force to bias the locking member towards the locking (in which the blade is in the folded position) and engagement positions (in which the blade is in the extended position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the spring resetting component of Douglas with a magnet arrangement as taught by Busse which is an obvious design variant for locking the knife in a desired orientation to prevent the knife from inadvertently moving from a closed to open position and injuring the user. The modification of Douglas in view of Busse would lead to the slider being slidably relative to the first limiting column via the pull rod to repel the magnets relative to one another.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Busse, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20100192381 to Sakai.
In re claim 4, modified Douglas teaches the handle (204) has a left plate (184, left) and a right plate (184, right), but does not teach the left plate having a left outer liner and a left inner liner, and the right plate having a right outer liner and a right inner liner, the left inner liner and the right inner liner are both hardware components, and both have a first avoidance hole for the first limiting column and a second avoidance hole for the second limiting column.
Sakai teaches a folding knife having a handle (1) including a left plate having a left outer liner (12) and a left inner liner (11), and the right plate having a right outer liner (14) and a right inner liner (13), the left inner liner and the right inner liner are both hardware components, and both have a first avoidance hole (hole in which 35 extends) for the first limiting column (35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Douglas with a left and right liner as taught by Sakai which is advantageous for enhancing strength, stability, and durability of the folding knife.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Busse, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20130000129 to Huang.
In re claim 7, modified Douglas teaches a pull rod (148) extending on front and rear sides of the slider (120), but does not teach the pull rod is connected to the slider through connecting screws.
Huang teaches in the art of folding knives a pull rod (62) extending on front and rear sides of the handle connected via screws (as shown in at least Figure 3. The shaft of pull rod 62 is threaded and it is received threaded engagement with the other pull rod).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for modified Douglas to have a pull rod connected to the slider via screws as taught by Huang which is an obvious design variant for securing the pull rod to the slider to maintain ambidextrous use of the folding knife.
Response to Arguments
The Claim objections in the Office Action mailed May 8, 2025 have been obviated by the amendments filed July 30, 2025.
The 112, second paragraph rejection to the “storage slot is adjustably provided with a locking buckle” has been overcome by the amendments field July 30, 2025.
The 112, second paragraph rejection to the magnetic components being “mutually exclusive” has been maintained for the reasons set forth on Page 2, above.
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Douglas teaches the resetting device is a spring and does not exclusive teach magnetic components.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the Douglas reference 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). Specifically, Applicant did not present any arguments to the combination of Douglas in view of Busse regarding the magnetic components, which were relied on to teach this particular feature.
Applicant argues Douglas only relies on pin 148 to move the locking bar 120 and the oblique portion is not used to move the locking bar.
The claim sets forth the slider has a protrusion extending obliquely upwards and that the slider is slidable…by pushing the protrusion or the pull rod. The claim recites the protrusion in an “or” clause which means that either the protrusion or the pull rod can be used to move the slider. Douglas teaches a pull rod (148) and the combination of Douglass in view of Busse teaches a pull rod extending from the left and/or right side of the handle for user to access to maintain the prevention of knife inadvertently moving from a closed to open position and injuring the user. Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the Douglas reference 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).
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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