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Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 9-5-25.
Applicant's election with traverse is not found persuasive because the knife can be made utilizing an alternate method which includes cutting and/or grinding to create the shape of the blade-side member.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 3, item 3b. Paragraph [0038] appears to be the location where “3b” should be added.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
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 8 and 10-12 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.
With regards to claim 8 and the specification, the curving process is unclear. The blade-side member has two different curves. Figure 1 shows one sets of curves while Figure 3 shows another set of curves. Paragraph [0035] discloses the blade-side member 3 is curved along its spine-side edge to be joined to the spine-side member. Paragraph [0038] discloses the vertexes but does not explicitly state that they are formed from the curving process. Paragraph [0039] discloses a method of performing pressing on the blade-side member several times. The specification fails to provide any insight on the curving process. How is the blade-side member curved and how are the Figure 1 curves and the Figure 3 undulations formed via the curving process. Is there only one curving process or is there two different curving processes? Does the curving process have multiple different processes to end up with the Figure 1 curves and the Figure 3 curves? Also, it is unclear if the paragraph [0035] curving is the same curving process as the curving that may form the vertexes in paragraph [0038]. It is unclear if the curving process or process of paragraphs [0035] and [0038] are the same as the performing pressing of paragraph [0039]. The curving process needs to be further explained so it is clear what structures are and are not formed and how the structures are formed via the curving processed.
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 8 and 10-12 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 8, the “curving process” is unclear. It is unclear if the curving process that makes the undulating shape the same or a different process that the allows for the blade-side member to be curved along its spine-side edge to be joined to the spine-side member. If the blade-side member is not first curved along its spine-side edge, how can the joining process in the next paragraph take place? Basically, it is unclear what structures are formed via the curving process.
With regards to claim 8, the phrase “a viewed from a direction where a cutting edge is to be formed” is indefinite. If the cutting edge can be seen, then that sight line can be a direction of the cutting edge. Since the edge can almost be seen in all directions, the direction limitation is indefinite. Also, as written, there is no cutting edge that has been formed. If there is no cutting edge, how can it have a direction associated therewith? Further definition is needed. Claim 11 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 8, “a grinding and polishing process step of performing at least one of grinding and polishing” is unclear. If only one of the grinding or polishing takes place, how can the step be considered a “grinding and polishing process” is one of the grinding and polishing did not take place?
With regards to claim 8, the phrase “materials are exposed on at least one of a front surface and a back surface of the blade-side member” is unclear. Claim 8 now discloses an “undulating shape”. As written, the front and back surface are unrelated to the undulating shape which is not supported. The claim needs to disclose that the front and back surfaces are the structures that have been curved to form the undulating shape so it is clear.
With regards to claim 8, the disclosure that the blade-side member is thinner than the spine-side member is unclear. It is unclear how this “thin” is measured. What structures of the members are being compared?
With regards to claim 8, the phrase “the thickness” is unclear. It is unclear if this “thickness” is measuring the same member structures as the structures that allow for the blade-side member to be considered thinner than the spine-side member?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the thickness". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 10, it is unclear what does and does not define a center line. Any line in any direction that extends through a portion of each of the members that can be considered a center, can be a center line. That means any line can be considered a center line including perpendicular lines which are not supported. The center lines need to be further defined because there is only one set of center lines that are supported.
With regards to claim 10, both occurrences of the phrase “a thickness direction” are indefinite. It is unclear if these thickness directions represent the same or different directions than the “thinner” and “thickness” limitation of claim 8? As written, the claim 10 thickness directions represent additional thicknesses to those disclosed in claim 8 which is nots supported. Each member is 3-dimensional and extends in all directions thereby defining an infinite amount of thickness directions. Claim 11 has the same issues.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear if the vertexes represent the same or a different structure than the structures defining the undulating shape of claim 8. As written, the vertexes are in addition to the undulating shape which is not supported.
With regards to claim 11, a line passing through a center between the lines connecting the vertexes can be a line in any direction making the limitation indefinite. The line passing through the center would be parallel to the vertex connecting lines?
With regards to claim 12, the etching step is unclear. Claim 8 discloses an undulating shape and front and back surfaces. As written, the etching is performed on a portion of the blade-side member that is not the front and back surfaces defining the vertexes of the undulating shape which is not supported.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10-12 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 including JP 2018-143309 (utilized in the International Search Report), incorporate a method of manufacturing a knife with all of the specific grinding and polishing steps so that the different metallic materials are exposed on at least one surface of the blade-side member, the blade-side member before the curing process is thinner than the spine-side member, and the thickness of the blade-side member after the curving but before the grinding and polishing is equal to the spine-side member in combination with the remaining limitations. There appears to be no justification to modify the above-mentioned reference, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in the independent claims.
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.
22 January 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724