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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 24 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 22 August 2025, although the amendments have raised new issues under 35 USC 112 as set forth below.
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 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.
Claim 1 at line 7 recites, “guide the detent pin, with the groove, between one or more positions”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear how a groove can guide a detent pin “between one” position as encompassed by the claim. The definition of ‘between’, in the context of claim 1, is from one to another. However, if there is only one position, it is unclear how the detent pin can be guided “between” the one position. Does the claim necessarily require at least two positions despite the plain language of “one or more positions”? Or, does the claim not include the “between” requirement when there is only a single position? For example, in US Pat. No. 9,364,957 B2 to Lake, it is unclear whether detent pin 112 can be considered as guided “between” one position when the pin 112 is received in the groove 124 (see Figs. 4a and 4b). That is, is a detent pin being received in a groove sufficient for the detent pin to be guided “between” one position? Since the term “between” appears to necessitate more than one position of the detent pin, but since the claim expressly contemplates there being only one position for the detent pin, it is unclear how to interpret the claim to reconcile this issue.
Claim 6 at line 7 recites, “the mounting surface” of the blade chassis assembly. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 6 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether any surface of the blade chassis assembly can be considered as the mounting surface, or whether the mounting surface is limited to a surface of the blade chassis assembly having some particular characteristic(s). As another example, it is unclear whether the claim is implicitly limiting the blade chassis assembly to having a single mounting surface, since if there are two mounting surfaces (such as a first mounting surface spaced apart from a second mounting surface by a channel) it would be unclear which of the two mounting surfaces is referring to by “the mounting surface”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0366387 A1 to Schuft in view of US Pat. No. 11,999,073 B2 to Horne and US Pub. No. 2014/0047718 A1 to Fellows et al.
Regarding claim 1, Schuft discloses a knife assembly (of knife 10; see Fig. 1), comprising:
a removable blade 14 (see paragraph 44 disclosing the ‘removable’ feature);
a blade chassis 16 (the chassis 16 includes components attached thereto, including the spring 40) that couples with the removable blade 14 (see Fig. 1), including:
a spring 40 configured to couple to the removable blade 14 (see Figs. 2 and 3; see also paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 3, Schuft discloses that the spring 40 comprises a middle section 64 to actuate the spring 40 (see Figs. 1 and 3A; note that ‘to actuate the spring’ is merely an intended use of the middle section; as disclosed by Schuft, the middle section 64 actuates the spring 40 to perform a blade retaining function by engaging with the blade 14; alternatively, the middle section 64 is ‘to actuate the spring’ because a user can press the middle section 64, which is exposed as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3A, to bias the middle section 64 into an unlocking position).
Regarding claim 5, Schuft discloses that the spring 40 is fixed on a first end of the blade chassis 16 (see the rivet 50 at a first end – i.e., a distal end – of the chassis 16 in Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Schuft discloses a skinning knife 10 (see the Title disclosing the ‘skinning’ functionality), comprising:
a blade 14;
a handle 12;
a blade chassis assembly (including chassis 16 and structures attached thereto including spring 40) attached to the handle 12 (see Fig. 1), the blade chassis assembly including:
a spring 40;
a boss 44 extending outward from the mounting surface 46 of the blade chassis assembly (see Fig. 10) to secure the blade 14 to the mounting surface 46 in the blade chassis assembly (see Figs. 1 and 10; the boss is “to secure a blade” by extending through an aperture 35 in the blade 14).
Regarding claim 8, Schuft discloses that the blade 14 is removable (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 9, Schuft discloses that the blade chassis assembly is configured to fold within the handle 12 (see the embodiment of Fig. 28 and paragraph 47; the structure of the blade chassis assembly is the same in the embodiment of Fig. 28 as in the earlier cited embodiment as evidenced by the use of duplicate reference characters between the embodiments).
Regarding claim 10, Schuft discloses that blade chassis assembly is rigidly attached to the handle 12 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 11, Schuft discloses that the spring 40 includes a middle section formed as a folded hem (see the annotated Fig. 3 below showing the portion of the middle section of the spring 40 that is formed as a folded hem; per the present application at paragraph 28, the spring being ‘bent outward from the body of the spring and then folded back over’ is sufficient for the spring to form a folded hem).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
1101
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Schuft discloses that the spring 40 includes a middle section formed as a folded hem (see the annotated Fig. 3 above showing the portion of the middle section of the spring 40 that is formed as a folded hem; per the present application at paragraph 28, the spring being ‘bent outward from the body of the spring and then folded back over’ is sufficient for the spring to form a folded hem).
Schuft fails to disclose:
that the blade chassis includes a detent pin; and that the knife assembly includes a locking mechanism, including a groove, that is configured to guide the detent pin, with the groove, between one or more positions; and the locking mechanism configured to move to a first position to obstruct a movement of the spring to prevent decoupling of the removable blade from the blade chassis, as required by claim 1;
that the locking mechanism is further configured to move to a second position to permit the movement of the spring to allow decoupling of the removable blade from the blade chassis as required by claim 2;
that the locking mechanism is configured to move in a rotational path as required by claim 4;
that the blade chassis assembly includes a detent pin, and that the blade chassis assembly includes a lock, including a groove, configured to prevent movement of the spring to avoid disengagement of the blade from the blade chassis assembly by guiding the detent pin, with the groove, to a first position of one or more positions, as required by claim 6; and
that the lock is further configured to allow the spring to disengage from the blade in the blade chassis assembly when the detent pin is in a second position of the one or more positions as required by claim 7.
In general, Horne teaches a mechanism for replacing a removable blade 80 of a knife assembly 10 that includes an enhanced safety feature because two operations are used to release the blade (see col. 1, lines 47-50). Turning to claimed features, Horne a blade chassis 30 that includes detent receivers (see the annotated Fig. 1 below), and that the knife assembly 10 includes a locking mechanism 60, including a detent (see the annotated Fig. 1 below), that is configured is configured to engage with one of the detent receivers in one or more positions (see Fig. 1, where there are two positions in which the detent engages with the detent receivers); and the locking mechanism 60 is configured to move to a first position (a position where tab 61 blocks movement of end 56 of spring biased arm 54; see col. 6, lines 19-24) to obstruct a movement of the spring biased arm 54 to prevent decoupling of the removable blade 80 from the blade chassis 30 (see col. 6, lines 19-24). [Claim 1] Horne teaches that the locking mechanism 60 is further configured to move to a second position (shown in Fig. 1; see also col. 6, lines 25-27) to permit the movement of the spring biased arm 54 to allow decoupling of the removable blade 80 from the blade chassis 30 (see Fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 16-18 and col. 6, lines 25-27). [Claim 2] Horne teaches that the locking mechanism 60 is configured to move in a rotational path (see col. 6, lines 32-35 describing a rotational path as an option for movement of the locking mechanism 60). [Claim 4] Horne teaches that a blade chassis assembly 30 includes detent receivers (see the annotated Fig. 1 below), and that the blade chassis assembly 30 includes a lock 60, including a detent, configured to prevent movement of the spring biased arm 54 to avoid disengagement of the blade 80 from the blade chassis assembly 30 (see col. 6, lines 19-24; the blade chassis assembly including chassis 30 and structures attached thereto), by guiding the detent, with the detent receivers, to a first position of one or more positions (see Fig. 1, where the first position is when the detent is engaged with the right of the two detent receives, and col. 6, lines 19-24) [Claim 6]. Horne also teaches that the lock 60 is further configured to allow the spring biased arm 54 to disengage from the blade 80 in the blade chassis assembly 30 when the detent is in a second position of the one or more positions (see Fig. 1 and col. 6, lines 16-18 and col. 6, lines 25-27). [Claim 7] Horne teaches a structure that reduces the likelihood of inadvertent blade releasing, since Horne teaches that its release mechanism is a two-part release (see col. 1, lines 47-50). That is, instead of merely having to press one button, Horne’s release mechanism requires both releasing a locking mechanism and also urging a spring biased arm to release the blade. The two operations being required to release the blade reduce the likelihood of inadvertent blade releasing, relative to a mechanism that releases a blade with a single push since a single push is more likely to happen inadvertently.
PNG
media_image2.png
488
994
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade chassis assembly of Schuft with a locking mechanism (also referred to as a lock) as taught by Horne, where the locking mechanism is movable between a first position in which the locking mechanism obstructs movement of the spring of Schuft and a second position in which the locking mechanism does not obstruct movement of the spring of Schuft, and where the locking mechanism includes a detent that is engageable with one of two detent receivers of the blade chassis assembly in order to retain the locking mechanism in one of its two positions. This modification is advantageous to enhance safety since two actions are required by a user to release a blade. As such, this modification enhances the security of retention of the blade by the blade chassis assembly compared to the structure of Schuft prior to modification. Further, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Schuft and Horne together disclose each claimed element as explained above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided the knife of Schuft with the locking assembly of Horne by the method taught by Horne of providing the locking mechanism on the blade chassis at a position to selectively block movement of a blade retaining arm, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (the spring of Schuft continues to be operable to retain or release the blade, and the locking mechanism of Horne continues to provide a secondary release feature that must be actuated to release the blade). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable, since the locking mechanism of Horne, when provided on the knife of Schuft, continues to operate to require a two-part release of a blade of a hand knife by being movable to selectively block actuation of a first blade release part. Put more simply, this modification is merely the improvement of Horne applied to a different style of blade retaining mechanism as taught by Schuft.
Still, Schuft, as modified by Horne, teaches a different configuration of a detent structure for retaining the locking mechanism (also referred to as the lock) in one of two positions than that required by claims 1, 6 and 7. In particular, Schuft, as modified by Horne, fails to disclose:
that the blade chassis includes a detent pin, that the locking mechanism includes a groove, and that the locking mechanism is configured to guide the detent pin with the groove, between the one or more positions as required by claim 1;
that the blade chassis assembly includes a detent pin, and that the lock includes a groove, where the groove guides the detent pin to the first position as required by claim 6; and
that the detent pin is the structure in the second position when the lock allows the spring to disengage from the blade as required by claim 7.
Further, the detent structure of Horne incorporated into Schuft as discussed above is disclosed in use with a linearly sliding locking mechanism rather than a rotating locking mechanism (although Horne does disclose that the locking mechanism can be configured in a rotating manner at col. 6, lines 32-35; Horne, though, does not explicitly disclose the detent structure of the locking mechanism when the locking mechanism is a rotating locking mechanism).
In general, Fellows teaches a knife assembly 10 having a detent structure that is operable to hold a rotating member 12 in one of multiple positions (compare Figs. 3 and 6). Turning to claimed features, Fellows teaches a chassis 40.1 relative to which the rotating member 12 rotates, where the chassis 40.1 includes a detent pin 48, and the rotating member 12 includes a groove 54 (see Fig. 3, where the groove 54 is contained within and defined, in part, by the rotating member 12, such that the rotating member 12 ‘includes’ the grooves 54 because the groove 54 is contained within the rotating member 12), and the rotating member 12 is configured to guide the detent pin 48 with the groove 54 (see Figs. 3-6), between one or more positions (see Figs. 3 and 6 showing two positions of the detent pin 48). [Claim 1] Fellows further teaches that the chassis 40.1 includes the detent pin 48, and that the rotating member 12 includes the groove 54 (see Fig. 3 and the discussion above with respect to Fellows’ teachings in relation to claim 1), where the groove 54 guides the detent pin 48 to a first position (see Fig. 3, where the first position is when the detent pin 48 is in notch 30, where a comparison between Figs. 3 and 4 illustrates how the groove 54 guides the detent pin 48 into notch 30) [Claim 6]. Fellows also teaches that the detent pin 48 is movable to a second position (in notch 33; see Fig. 6) in which the rotating member 12 is retained by the detent pin 48 (see Fig. 6). [Claim 7] Fellows teaches a detent structure that maintains a rotating member in either of two desired positions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the chassis and locking mechanism (a.k.a., the lock) of Schuft, as modified by Horne, with a detent pin and a groove, respectively, where the groove guides the detent pin between one or more positions in which the locking member is held relative to the chassis, in view of the teachings of Fellows. This modification is advantageous because Schuft, as modified by Horne, contemplates the locking mechanism being a rotating mechanism (see Horne at col. 6, lines 32-35), but Schuft, as modified by Horne, only discloses a detent structure configured for a sliding mechanism (see Horne at Fig. 1). Thus, given that Schuft, as modified by Horne, desires a detent structure for the locking mechanism, and that Schuft, as modified by Horne, contemplates a rotating locking mechanism, Schuft, as modified by Horne, has a need for a detent structure suitable to hold a rotating locking member in either of the first position and the second position. Fellows’ detent structure is configured to hold a rotating member in either of a first position and a second position, and thus Fellows’ detent structure fills a gap in the disclosure of Schuft, as modified by Horne. As such, this modification is advantageous to provide a detent structure that cooperates with a rotating locking mechanism as contemplated by Schuft, as modified by Horne. (Note that this modification includes providing Schuft, as modified by Horne, with the detent structure having features taught by Fellows as discussed above instead of the detent structure including the detent and detent receivers illustrated in Fig. 1 of Horne.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the Applicant asserts that “a locking mechanism” as recited in claim 1 should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because “persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function”. This argument is moot in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1. Since claim 1 requires that the locking mechanism includes a groove that guides a detent pin between one or more positions, the claim recites sufficient structure to perform a locking function. As such, “a locking mechanism” as recited in claim 1 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 6 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Schuft in view of Horne have been considered but are not persuasive. First, in response to Applicant’s argument that neither Schuft nor Horne discloses a detent pin and groove, this argument is moot in view of the rejections above, which rely on Fellows for its disclosure of a detent pin and groove. Second, in regards to Applicant’s argument that providing Schuft with a locking mechanism as taught by Horne “would require substantial redesign that changes the principle of operation”, this argument is not persuasive because the Applicant fails to identify any operation of Schuft that is changed. In the modification of Schuft, the blade remains lockable or releasable, and the modifications merely provide additional security to the existing lock of Schuft. The principle of operation is thus not changed – the knife of Schuft continues to be useable for cutting operations and the blade of the knife continues to be replaceable. Since the principle of operation of the knife of Schuft is not changed, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724