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
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9-29-25.
The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s explanation of why groups A and B should be grouped together. The election of Groups A and B is a proper election.
Information Disclosure Statement
Both of the I.D.S.’s have been considered. However, the I.D.S. received 10-27-25 has a reference lined through because the number is incorrect. There needs to be seven numbers after the slash (in this case, another 0). Applicant does not need to do anything because the reference has been considered and has been cited on the PTO-892.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Item 11 (It is noted that use of 11a and 11b in the Figures does not cover item 11. Either 11 is replaced with “11a, 11b” in the specification or 11 must be added to at least one Figure.).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract utilizes the legal phraseology “comprising”.
Also, the phrase “(Figure 1)” should be deleted.
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 1-12 and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1 line 4, the phrase “blade at a first pivot point” is unclear. The connection cannot be “at” itself as the pivotal connection defines the first pivot point. The phrase should be replaced with “blade defining a first pivot point”. Claim 18 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 lines 5-6, the phrase “blade at a second pivot point” is unclear for the same reasons given above. The phrase should be replaced with “blade defining a second pivot point”. Claim 18 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 lines 7-8, the phrase “blade at a third pivot point” is unclear for the same reasons given above. The phrase should be replaced with “blade defining a third pivot point”. Claim 18 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 line 11, the phrase “first handle is pivotally connected to the second handle at an adjustable fourth pivot” is unclear in light of the switch arrangement disclosure later in the claim. As written, the handles are pivotally connected and separately the tool has the switch arrangement which is not supported. The switch arrangement is the structure that adjustably/pivotally connects the handles. The phrase should be replaced with “first handle is pivotally connected to the second handle via a switch arrangement that defines an adjustable fourth pivot”. The phrase “the cutting tool further comprises a switch arrangement”, on line 16, then should be replaced with “the switch arrangement”. Claim 18 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 1 lines 19-20, the phrase “first apertures at the proximal pivot point” is unclear for the same reasons given above. The phrase should be replaced with “first apertures defining the proximal pivot point”.
With regards to claim 1 lines 20 and 22, both occurrences of the word “activated” are unclear. What structure allows for parts of the switch to be considered activated? Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 1 lines 21-22, the phrase “second apertures at the distal pivot point” is unclear for the same reasons given above. The phrase should be replaced with “second apertures defining the distal pivot point”.
With regards to claim 4, distances between the second point and the fourth point and the third point and the fourth point do not appear to be identical in Figures 3 and 4. They do appear to be identical in Figures 1 and 2. Adding the phrase from claims 2 and 6 “when the cutting tool is in a fully closed position” appears to overcome the issue.
With regards to claim 7, as written, the housing is unrelated to the switch, the switch parts, and the pins which is not supported. Claim 7 needs to disclose the switch parts and the pins are in the housing because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 9, the term “bottom” is unclear without an orientation disclosed. The tool is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where the wall would not be considered a bottom. Terms that are true regardless of orientation should be used (i.e. outer wall).
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the corresponding shock absorber" and “the fully closed position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
With regards to claim 18, the switch arrangement disclosure is unclear. As written, the switch arrangement does not engage the protrusions of the blade which is not supported. If the switch arrangement does not engage the protrusions, how is the switch arrangement comprised by the tool?
With regards to claim 18, the it is unclear what structure define the proximal pivot point and the distal pivot point. As written, the proximal pivot point and the distal pivot point are in addition to or unrelated to the pins and apertures which is not supported. The first pin passing through both of the first apertures define the proximal pivot point and the second pin passing through both of the second apertures define the distal pivot point. Without the interaction between the pins with their respective apertures, the distal and proximal pivot points cannot exist.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art incorporates a cutting tool with the blades respectively having protrusions with first and second apertures, the handles, the three pivot points respectively between the blades and the blades and handles, and a switch arrangement with a switch and pins defining an adjustable fourth pivot point that is either a proximal pivot point or a distal pivot point respectively with the apertures. Ballard (3,422,532) is considered close prior art as it was utilized in the international Search Reports provided by Applicant. While Ballard does incorporate an adjustable pivot between the handles, Ballard does not have any structure that can represent a switch arrangement with a switch and two pins defining the proximal and distal pivot points respectively with the apertures as claimed.
Conclusion
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 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.
17 December 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724