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
Per the Request for Continued Examination filed 22 July 2026, the Amendment filed 24 June 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-16 are pending, of which claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 24 April 2026, except for an objection to the drawings repeated below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 5 recites, “wherein the second section is shaped” as a shape that is permitted to be “a circular shape”. Moreover, claim 1 recites that the tool feature is shaped to correspond to a shape of the removable rod such that the tool feature is configured to engage and rotate the removable rod. The Applicant has not illustrated a knife including a tool feature that is circular shaped to correspond to a circular shape of the removable rod such that the circular shaped tool feature is configured to rotate the circular shaped removable rod. Indeed, it is unclear how a circular aperture in a tool would drive rotation of a circular rod. Would not the tool simply spin around the rod without end edges of the aperture of the tool to engage the rod? Therefore, the second section shaped as a circle shape as encompassed by claim 5 (which also requires that the tool feature is shaped as a circle shape in view of claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. While it is true that the Applicant has not illustrated all the shapes set forth in claim 5, the Applicant has illustrated a second section and a tool feature with sufficient specificity to understand the inventive structure for all shapes recited in claim 5 except the circle shape.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-12, and 14-16 is/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 recites, “a mounting insert”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the Applicant intends the term “insert” to have its plain and ordinary meaning – i.e., something that is inserted. There is support in the present specification for Applicant using the term “insert” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning. In paragraph 29 of the present specification, the Applicant discloses, “The sheath 30 may also be constructed of a single part such as a plastic mold injected component with a threaded insert that acts a mounting provision for the rod 41.” In paragraph 33 of the present specification, the Applicant discloses, “a mounting provision may be directly inserted into a plastic mold injected sheath and use no other fasteners to couple the mounting provision to the sheath.” Thus, the Applicant does disclose use of the term “insert” in a manner consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning. However, there is also evidence that the Applicant does not intend the term “insert” to have a meaning consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning. Paragraph 41 of the present specification as amended describes, “The mounting provision 35, also referred to as a mounting insert 35”. This passage suggests that the terms “mounting provision” and “mounting insert” are synonymous, even though the term “provision” does not have a meaning requiring something that is inserted. This passage also suggests that the mounting provision “35” as illustrated in the present drawings can be considered as a mounting insert, despite not all mounting provisions “35” illustrated in the present drawings being inserted into another structure. Moreover, the present drawings fail to illustrate an embodiment of the sheath that is constructed as a single part without fasteners to couple the mounting provision to the sheath, such that the present drawings do not appear to illustrate any sheath as described in the quoted portions of paragraphs 29 and 33 cited above. Thus, if the term “insert” is provided with its plain and ordinary meaning, then the Applicant has not illustrated a “mounting insert” with the structure of paragraphs 29 and 33 that would be the basis of support for claim 1. The fact that the Applicant refers to a mounting insert as synonymous with a mounting provision, though, suggests that the term “insert” does not have the structural implications of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “insert”. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether any mounting provision can be considered as a mounting insert, in which case the term “insert” is being used in contradiction to its plain and ordinary meaning without providing any express alternative definition of “insert”, or whether the Applicant intends a “mounting insert” to be limited to a structure that is inserted into something consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the term insert. Put plainly, the examiner cannot determine whether the term “insert” is limited to something that is inserted. The examiner suggests overcoming this rejection by amending claim 1 to use terminology such as “a mounting provision” or “a mount”, rather than “a mounting insert”. (If the Applicant amends claim 1 to use new terminology, the Applicant should ensure that the present specification provides an antecedent basis for all claim terminology.)
Claim 1 recites that the tool feature is shaped to correspond to a shape of the removable rod such that the tool feature is configured to engage and rotate the removable rod. However, claim 5 permits the second section to have “a circle shape”, and claim 4 requires that the second section is configured for the tool feature to attach to the second section and rotate the removable rod. Claim 1 is indefinite because the structure of the removable rod and the tool feature required by claim 1 is unclear, in particular when the second section is shaped as a circle shape. Since claim 1 requires that the tool feature configured to rotate the removable rod, yet claims 4 and 5 further add that the tool feature attaches to the second section, which can be circular, to rotate the removable rod, it is unclear how the tool feature rotates the removable rod. That is, if the tool feature and removable rod both have circular shapes, how does the tool feature rotate the removable rod as required by claim 1? Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether some special feature(s) is/are required of the tool feature and the removable rod, when each of these structures has a circle shape as permitted by claim 5, in order for rotation of a knife having a circular tool feature to produce rotation of a circular removable rod – it seems that the knife would simply rotate around the removable rod, with the removable rod staying stationary. Alternatively, is the final paragraph of claim 1 optional when the second section is shaped as a circle as permitted by claim 5? Alternatively still, does claim 5 improperly broaden claim 1? As yet another option, does the Applicant intend “circle shape” to have a broader than typical meaning, such that an oval or other rotationally symmetric shape can be considered a “circle shape”?
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, 3-5, 9-10, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206105922 U to Pang in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0007434 A1 to Kwok, KR 20060107166 A to Kim, and US Pub. No. 2019/0202075 A1 to Zhao, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 4,882,841 to Margolis and KR-20130000936-U to Seo Sang-gyu.
Regarding claim 1, Pang discloses a knife assembly (see Fig. 4), comprising:
a knife 66 (see Fig. 4);
a sheath (shown in Figs. 1-3 without any knife) including a first sheath side and a second sheath side (see the annotated Fig. below, where the first and second sheath sides are on opposing sides of the slot 23 in which a knife is receivable);
a mounting provision coupled to the first sheath side and the second sheath side (see the annotated Fig. below; note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘coupled to’ includes an indirection connection via intermediary parts), the mounting provision including a bore 33; and
a removable rod 8 (compare Figs. 2 and 3 to see the removability of the rod 8; see also the rod 8 in a removed condition in Fig. 6) configured engage the bore 33 (compare Figs. 3 and 4) and configured to start a fire in an undisclosed manner (see paragraph 24, describing the rod 8 as a fire stick).
PNG
media_image1.png
880
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Pang discloses that the removable rod includes at least a first section (a lower section relative to Fig. 6) and a second section (an upper section relative to Fig. 6), wherein the first section is for coupling with the mounting provision (compare Figs. 4 and 6) and the second section is non-threaded (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Pang discloses that the second section is shaped in a circle shape (see Fig. 2; however, see the modification of Pang in view of Zhao below).
Regarding claim 9, Pang discloses that the sheath is configured to receive and store the knife 66 (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Pang discloses that the removable rod 8 is configured to start a fire while the removable rod 8 remains engaged with the bore 33 (see Fig. 4; this feature is satisfied because the rod 8 is at least partially exposed even when engaged with the bore 33, such that the rod 8 is usable to start a fire; see also this feature being satisfied upon modification of Pang below).
Pang is silent regarding exactly what structure, if any, prevents the rod from becoming dislodged from the mounting provision. Also, Pang fails to disclose exactly how the rod starts a fire. As a result, Pang fails to disclose: that the mounting provision is a mounting insert (since Pang fails to disclose the mounting provision inserted into any other structure, such that the mounting provision cannot properly be considered as an ‘insert’); that the bore is internally threaded; and that the rod is configured to generate sparks to ignite fire when scraped on a hard surface; and that the knife includes a tool feature shaped to correspond to a shape of the removable rod such that the tool feature is configured to engage and rotate the removable rod to install and remove the removable rod from the mounting insert, as required by claim 1. Pang also fails to disclose: that the first section is threaded for coupling with the mounting insert as required by claim 3; that the second section is configured for the tool feature to attach to the second section and rotate the removable rod as required by claim 4; that the removable rod is made with at least one of ferrocerium, magnesium, praseodymium, and neodymium as required by claim 10; and that the internally threaded bore extends between opposite outer faces of the mounting insert to form a through-threaded section as required by claim 14. Pang further fails to disclose that the rod is configured to be scraped to generate sparks and that the rod is threadably engaged with the internally threaded bore as required by claim 16.
In general, Kwok teaches a structure for mounting an accessory 30 to a knife 1 using a mounting insert 31 (see Fig. 10). Turning to claimed features, Kwok teaches that the mounting insert 31 includes an internally threaded bore (see the bore of the insert 31 having threads 31A in Fig. 1). [Claim 1] Kwok teaches that the accessory 30 attached to the insert mounting 31 includes a first section (see the threaded section generally indicated at 32B in Fig. 10) that is threaded for coupling with the mounting insert 31 (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 38) [claim 3], that the internally threaded bore extends between opposite outer faces of the mounting insert 31 to form a through-threaded section (see Fig. 10; the outer faces of the insert 31 of Kwok are opposite faces in an axial direction of the bore of the insert 31 – these faces are ‘outer’ faces of the insert 31 itself; the through-threaded section is defined by threads 31A in Fig. 10) [claim 14], and that the accessory 30 is threadably engaged with the internally threaded bore (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 38) [claim 16]. While the accessory of Kwok is not a fire-starting rod, it is regardless known in the art to attach a fire-starting rod to a mounting provision using a threaded connection (see Margolis discloses a threaded connection for fire-starting rod 48; see Figs. 4 and 8 and col. 3, lines 16-17). Moreover, while the mounting provision of Kwok is not part of a sheath, it is regardless known in the art to provide a threaded connection between a mounting provision of a sheath and an accessory that is removably attachable to the sheath (Seo Sang-gyu discloses a threaded connection for an accessory 3 to a mounting provision 2 of a sheath 1; the threaded connection is between elements 6 and 7). A threaded engagement between the rod and the mounting provision is able to retain the rod in a desired storage position (see, e.g., Margolis at col. 4, lines 3-8), thus reducing the likelihood of the rod inadvertently falling out of the mounting provision.
Therefore, since Pang is silent regarding any structure that retains the rod within the mounting provision, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mounting provision of Pang with a mounting insert having an internally threaded bore and to provide the first section of the removable rod of Pang (which is the section already disclosed by Pang as engaging the mounting provision) with threads for threadable engagement between the first section of the removable rod and the mounting insert in view of the teachings of Kwok. This modification is advantageous because it provides a secure connection between the rod and sheath, reducing the likelihood that the rod will fall out of the sheath and become lost, such that the rod is securely retained within the mounting provision. Moreover, as further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, it is already known in the art to provide a removable fire-starting rod with a threaded connection (see Margolis), and it is already known in the art to provide a mounting provision of a sheath with a threaded connection for engagement with a removable accessory (see Seo Sang-gyu). As such, this modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art discloses each claimed element as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided the mounting provision of Pang with a mounting insert having an internally threaded bore and could have provided the first section of the rod of Pang with threads for engagement with the mounting insert by known methods (Margolis is evidence of a known method for providing a first section of a removable fire-starting rod with threads; Seo Sang-gyu is evidence of a known method for providing a mounting provision of a sheath with an internal threaded bore), and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (no function of Pang is changed – prior to modification Pang allowed for engagement between the rod and the mounting provision of the sheath, and the modification merely provides a specific and known type of engagement – in particular, a threaded connection – between the rod and the mounting provision). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, especially since Seo Sang-gyu teaches mounting an accessory to a mounting provision of a sheath with a threaded connection and since Margolis teaches mounting a removable fire-starting rod with a threaded connection.
Next, Kim teaches a fire rod 23 usable with a knife 12 (see Fig. 1). Turning to claim features, Kim teaches a fire starting rod 23 that is configured to generate sparks to ignite fire when scraped on a hard surface (see page 4 of the English language translation of Kim disclosing that rod 23 is a magnesium ignition rod; note that a rod of magnesium is one configuration of the rod disclosed in the present application to cause the rod to be configured to generate sparks to ignite first when scraped on a hard surface per paragraph 29 of the present application; alternatively, the flint portion 23b of the rod 23 of Kim satisfies this requirement) [claim 1 and also relevant to claim 16]; and that the removable rod 23 is made with magnesium (see page 4 of the English language translation of Kim) [claim 10]. Kim teaches that the configuration of its fire starting rod is advantageous because it is able to start a fire even if the rod becomes wet (see the first paragraph at page 3 of the English translation of Kim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the generically disclosed fire starting rod of Pang to have the configuration disclosed by Kim (i.e., to include magnesium and a flint portion) because this configuration enables the rod to start a fire even if the rod becomes wet. This modification is advantageous even though Pang teaches a waterproof ring 16 because the fire starting rod can still become wet when not in the mounting provision, such as if a user drops the rod in wet ground or if rain is falling while the user has removed the rod. Furthermore, this modification potentially results in a simplified tool because the waterproof ring of Pang may no longer be necessary following this modification.
Still, Pang, as modified above, fails to disclose that the knife includes a tool feature shaped to correspond to a shape of the removable rod such that the tool feature is configured to engage and rotate the removable rod to install and remove the removable rod from the mounting insert, as required by claim 1, and that the second section is configured for the tool feature to attach to the second section and rotate the removable rod as required by claim 4. Note, however, that Kwok contemplates use of a tool to install and removable an accessory from a mounting insert (see Fig. 10 of Kwok – the accessory 30 includes a hex receiver, and a hex receiver is known in the art as for coupling with a hex driver for rotatably removable and installation of a threaded object).
Zhao teaches a knife 100 having a blade 116 that includes tool features 136a and 136b shaped to correspond to shapes of rotatably removable structures such that the tool features 136a and 136b are configured to engage and rotate the removable structures (see Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraph 80).
Therefore, in view of Pang, as modified, including a removable rod that is rotatably engaged with a threaded bore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the knife of Pang, as modified, with a tool feature that corresponds to a shape of the second section of the removable rod such that the tool feature is configured to attach to the second section and rotate the removable rod to install and remove the removable rod from the mounting insert in view of the teachings of Zhao. This modification is advantageous because it allows the knife to perform an additional function, in particular functioning to install and remove the removable rod. Zhao teaches that providing a knife with a tool feature that engages a rotatable object is advantageous in order to enhance the versatility of the knife (see, in particular, the title of Zhao). As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, Kwok contemplates configuring a second section of an accessory, where the accessory threadably engages with a mounting insert, with a structure to engage a tool for rotationally driving the accessory. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation of success because Kwok contemplates configuring a second section of an accessory for engagement with a rotation driving tool. Thus, this modification is further advantageous because threaded connections can be difficult to engage and disengage by hand, and this modification provides a tool for rotationally engaging and disengaging the removable rod. This advantage is present in the prior art from Kwok’s teaching of a hex receiver on its accessory. Finally, Zhao teaches providing multiple tool features of different sizes. Since Pang, as modified, already includes a need to rotationally install and remove the threaded removable rod, in providing the blade of Pang, as modified, with multiple tool features, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to configure at least one of the tool features to engage with the threaded removable rod of Pang, as modified, because the removable rod is a threaded structure whose installation and removal is aided by a tool. This modification includes, if necessary, shaping the second section of the removable rod to rotationally engage with the tool feature, since corresponding shapes allow for the tool feature to engage and rotationally drive the second section of the removable rod. As a final note, one of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, such that one of ordinary skill in the art is able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)). As such, to the extent that the mounting insert of Pang, as modified, needs to be repositioned for the removable rod to be accessible by the tool feature of the knife, such repositioning is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang as modified by Kwok, Kim, and Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 2,217,100 to Burns.
Regarding claim 11, Pang, as modified, discloses that the knife 66 includes a surface (see Fig. 4 of Pang; the surface can be, e.g., a surface of the blade of the knife 66).
Pang, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose a material from which the blade of the knife is made, and as such Pang, as modified, does not explicitly disclose that the surface of the knife is a hard surface as required by claim 11. (For examination purposes, “hard” is interpreted as being satisfied by any material harder than a material of the removable rod that generates sparks.)
Zhao, though, teaches constructing a knife blade from a hard material, including carbon steel or tool steel (see paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct at least the blade of the knife of Pang, as modified, from carbon steel or tool steel in view of the teachings of Zhao. This modification is advantageous because carbon steel and tool steel are hard materials that provide a long lasting cutting edge of a blade. That is, a blade dulls by use over time. The harder the blade, the slower the rate of dulling. As such, this modification is advantageous to enhance the lifespan of the blade and/or to increase the duration of time required between sharpenings. Note also that claim 11 is not a method claim and does not require any step of scraping the removable rod against the hard surface of the blade.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang as modified by Kwok, Kim, and Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 2,217,100 to Burns.
Pang, as modified, discloses that the mounting insert is coupled to the first and second sheath sides (see the annotated Fig. of Pang provided above, along with the modification of Pang in which the mounting provision of Pang is provided with a mounting insert). However, Pang, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose how the mounting provision is attached to the sheath. As a result, Pang, as modified, fails to disclose that the mounting insert includes a set of U-channel legs that overlap outer surfaces of the first sheath side and the second sheath side, and wherein a plurality of fasteners extend through the U-channel legs and through the first sheath side and the second sheath side to secure the mounting insert to the sheath as required by claim 12.
Burns teaches a connection structure where an attachment 5 that is attached to a base structure (the base structure being the knife of Fig. 1) includes a set of U-channel legs 6 that overlap outer surfaces of the base structure (see Figs. 1-3), and wherein a fastener 10 extends through the U-channel legs 6 and through the base structure to secure the attachment 5 to the base structure (see Figs. 1-3).
Since Pang, as modified, is silent with respect to how the mounting provision is attached to the sheath, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mounting provision of Pang, as modified, with a set of U-channel legs that overlap the outer surfaces of the sheath (i.e., the first sheath side and the second sheath side), and where a fastener extends through the U-channel legs and through the sheath (including the sheath sides) to secure the mounting provision to the insert in view of the teachings of Burns. This modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The prior art discloses each claimed element as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided the mounting provision of Pang with a connection to the sheath that includes the mounting provision having U-channel legs that overlap the outer surfaces of the sheath and extending a fastener through the legs and the sheath by applying the connection structure of Burns to the application of Pang. In combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (the mounting provision of Pang, as modified, remains coupled to the sheath; the connection structure of Burns continues to connect an attachment to a base structure). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, since it is apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, as mechanical engineer, the connection structure of Burns is applicable to a variety of applications.
Finally, regarding claim 12 requiring a plurality of fasteners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Pang, as modified above, with a plurality of fasteners instead of merely one in order to increase the strength of the connection between the mounting provision and the sheath. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide more than one fastener, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Providing multiple fasteners is advantageous over providing a single fastener to increase the strength of a connection.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang as modified by Kwok, Kim, and Zhao as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 1,507,737 to James, US Pat. No. 1,595,542 to Bundy, and US Pat. No. 1,030,756 to Yakligian.
Pang, as modified, fails to disclose that the through-threaded section is configured to permit installation of the removable rod from either a first side or a second side of the mounting insert as required by claim 15.
However, it is well known in the field of hand-held tools to provide a mounting provision with the ability to permit installation of an accessory from either of a first side or a second side of the mounting provision. As evidence for this proposition, the examiner cites three references where a mounting provision allows for installation of a tool from either of a first side or a second side of the mounting provision. In James, a mounting provision 7 permits installation of an accessory handle 1 at either of a first side or a second side (left and right sides relative to Fig. 5). In Bundy, a mounting provision 1 permits installation of an accessory (the accessory shown in Fig. 4) at either of a first side or a second side (a left side or a right side relative to Fig. 3; see page 1, lines 54-60). In Yakligian, a mounting provision A & B permits installation of an accessory C at either of a first side or a second side (i.e., a top side or a bottom side relative to Fig. 2).
Therefore, since providing a mounting provision with the option to mount an accessory at either side of the mounting provision is old and well-known in the art (see the evidence of three references above), it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to configure the mounting insert of Pang, as modified, to permit installation of the removable rod from either a first side or a second side of the mounting insert. This modification is advantageous to offer a user options with respect to which side of the mounting insert the removable rod is attached, and thus increasing the likelihood that the mounting of the removable rod to the sheath will conform to user needs. The needs of different users vary, and this modification makes the sheath more appealing to users having different needs by allowing different users to select the mounting position of the removable rod.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. That is, the examiner relies on the newly cited Zhao reference for teachings related to the knife including a tool feature having features now recited in claim 1. The Applicant’s arguments fail to address a further modification of Pang in view of Zhao as set forth herein, and thus the arguments are moot.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights