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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of the current state of claim 1, claims 5 and 8-11 have been rejoined.
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, 2, and 4-11 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.
With regards to claim 1 line 7, the phrase “handle being arranged on one side of the proximal end” is unclear. The phrase should be replaced with “handle being arranged on the proximal end”.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the center” and “the circumference”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. See proposed language in the next paragraph.
With regards to claim 1 line 15-16, the phrase “a direction in which the center of the finger ring points outward from the circumference” is unclear. The phrase should be replaced with “a direction starting at a center of the finger hole and extending outward to a circumference of the finger ring”.
With regards to claim 5, it is unclear what structures define projections of the finger hole. It is unclear what structures define projections of the knife blade. It is unclear what is meant by “do not coincide”. It is unclear if Applicant is attempting to disclose the finger hole is spaced from the knife blade? The specification needs to be amended in the same manner.
With regards to claim 5, the phrase “knife blade on the knife back” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for the knife blade to be on the knife back because the knife blade being on an opposite side of the knife body from the knife back that allows for the width direction to be defined.
With regards to claim 5, the phrase “opening of the first finger groove faces the knife blade” is unclear because claim 2 discloses the opening orientation changes. Also, it is unclear if this relationship is shown in the Figures. For example, the opening faces downward and not toward the knife blade. Further definition is needed.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the direction" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 9, the phrase “a projection of the finger ring coincides” is unclear. What structure defines a projection of the ring and it is unclear what is meant by coincides? The specification needs to be amended in the same manner.
With regards to claim 9, the phrase “a width direction” should be replaced with “the width direction”.
With regards to claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by “an abutting bevel is arranged at one end of the knife handle”. What structure defines the bevel? Is the handle beveled? The specification needs to be amended in the same manner.
With regards to claim 10, the handle end close to the finger ring and the handle end close to the knife back would both be the same handle end. It is also unclear what handle end is close to the finger ring and what handle end is close to the knife back as both ends can be considered close to both. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 10, claim 1 discloses the handle is on the proximal end of the knife body. It is unclear which handle end is the end connected to proximal end?
With regards to claim 10, it is unclear how the thickness is measured? The thickness should be defined in relation to the width direction and/or the length direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
13 February 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724