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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Kohl (WO 2018/046141) does not have a hook that is “pivotably coupled to the base…” because only 514 and 506 are the ‘base portion’ in Kohl.
Putting aside whether the base portion is a claim term which excludes the portion of pole that the pivotable hook 850 is mounted to (the term “base portion” does not exclude a broader ‘portion’ encompassing the portion to which 850 is directly mounted) the claim requires the hook to be ‘pivotably mounted to the base portion…’and because 850 is mounted on pin 874, and held onto the whole assemblage via ring 838 on the whole end portion of the cutter (See figure 8A) the hook is “pivotably mounted to the base” exactly as claimed:
PNG
media_image1.png
813
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The record is and was clear that the “base portion” was remarked previously as 506/514 etc. For further clarity—the above gives a better sense of why Kohl is clearly anticipatory of the extremely broad recitations of “base portion” etc.
Further notes: applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2; and claim 9 to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2 as well. Applicant alleges that the rejections of claim 2 and 15 are therefore “moot” since they have been cancelled. This is incorrect—the issues of the subject matter of claims 2 and 15 are clearly still pending, as applicant incorporated them into claims 1 and 9.
Claim 15 previously specifically was drawn to either arrangement – where the hook was pivotable on the “base” OR the pole. At the time of filing, applicant clearly thought that both positions were claimable—that both positions were in the same inventive family, as both were distinctly claimed. This is further evidence that the exact positioning or mounting structure chosen is not an inventive matter, but the routine application of ordinary skill. Currently the breadth in both limitations means that both positions are still anticipated by Kohl—as ‘pivotably coupled’ does not exclude intermediate structures—this is merely highlighting that narrowing amendments are unlikely to result in patentable subject matter as the position change would likely still be obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kohl (WO 2018/046141) as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19 in the non-final action dated 12/16/2025 (incorporated by reference).
Regarding claims 1, 9, presently, see above annotation for clarity.
Each other clause pending is clearly identified as anticipated in the non-final action dated 12/16/2025, or is plainly evident in the figures of Kohl.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl (WO 2018/046141) as set forth above, and in view of Drake (US 2,537,882) and Beaudrie (US 2002/0030369) as applied in the non-final action dated 12/16/2025 (incorporated by reference).
Claim(s) 7, 10-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl (WO 2018/046141) as set forth above, in view of McLoughlin (US 2007/0094875) as applied in the non-final action dated 12/16/2025 (incorporated by reference).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl (WO 2018/046141) as set forth above, in view of McLoughlin (US 2007/0094875) as applied to claim 10, inter alia, above, and further in view of Schofield (Us 2011/0258859) as applied in the non-final action dated 12/16/2025 (incorporated by reference).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (the incorporation of claim 2 into claims 1 and 9 shift and modify the claims dependent therefrom; to the extent any rejection is modified in light thereof) 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 SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights