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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant’s submission filed on March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 1, line 9, “the spine including the reinforcing part has a thickness” is unclear. The phrase should read --the joined spine and reinforcing part has a thickness--.
(2) In claim 1, line 10, “”a thickest position” is vague and should read --a thickest position thereof--.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-283383 (cited in the 12/03/2025 PTO-892 with English translation) in view of Spiegel (U.S. Patent No. D643,260).
Regarding claim 1, JP ‘383 discloses a kitchen knife (1) comprising:
a blade (2) with a cutting edge (C, see Figs.3 and 4 as annotated) at a first end surface on a first side (e.g., a bottom side as seen in the figures) of the blade (2); and
PNG
media_image1.png
702
1094
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a reinforcing part (5) provided in such a manner as to extending extend along a spine (S) that is at a second end surface of the blade (2) on a second side (e.g., an upper side as seen in the figures) of the blade (2) opposing the first side, and configured to reinforce the blade (2) in a thickness direction,
wherein the reinforcing part (5) is made of a metallic member (e.g., “carbon steel” or “titanium material”, see paragraphs [0005] and [0014] of the English translation) and joined to the spine (S), and
wherein the metallic member (e.g., “carbon steel” or “titanium material”) is different from metal (e.g., “stainless steel”, see paragraphs [0004] and [0008] of the English translation) forming the blade (2) substantially as claimed except JP ‘383 fails to show the joined spine and reinforcing part has a thickness three times or more than a thickness of the blade (2) at a thickest position thereof.
Spiegel shows a kitchen knife (see, Fig.1 as annotated below) comprising a blade (B) and an attached part (P) joined to a spine (S) of the blade (B),
PNG
media_image2.png
420
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the joined spine (S) and attached part (P) has a thickness (T1, see Fig.5 as annotated) in a thickness direction of the spine (S) that is three times or more than a thickness (T2) of the blade (B) at a thickest position.
PNG
media_image3.png
522
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify JP ‘383 by having the thickness of the joined spine (S) and reinforcing part (5) three times or more than the thickness of the blade (2) at its thickest position so that the joined spine (S) and reinforcing part (5) has the function of a finger guard as taught by Spiegel.
Regarding claim 3, JP ‘383 shows the reinforcing part (5) includes a fitting groove (see Fig.4) fitted to the spine (S) and formed in such a manner as to extend along the spine (S).
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-283383 (cited in the 12/03/2025 PTO-892 with English translation) in view of Spiegel (U.S. Patent No. D643,260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Randall (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0376692).
Regarding claim 4, the reinforcing part (5) of JP ‘383 is made of the metallic member (e.g., “carbon steel” or “titanium material”, see paragraphs [0005] and [0014] of the English translation) and is joined to the spine (S) to extend along the spine (S) as claimed except JP ‘383 is silent about how the spine (S) of the metal blade (2) and the metallic reinforcing part (5) are joined to each other.
Randall teaches joining two metallic components (21d,31) by welding (see paragraph [0040], lines 1-2 and paragraph [0046], lines 19-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify JP ‘383 by joining the metallic reinforcing part (5) and the spine (S) of the metal blade (2) by a well-known method such as Randall’s welding for the predictable result of permanently joining the two together.
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-283383 (cited in the 12/03/2025 PTO-892 with English translation) in view of Spiegel (U.S. Patent No. D643,260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ezoe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0198766).
Regarding claim 8, the kitchen knife (1) of JP ‘383 as modified shows all the claimed limitations except it does not explicitly mention the blade (2) has a blade length of equal to or greater than 100 mm.
Ezoe shows a kitchen knife (see Fig.1) having a blade length of greater than 100 mm (e.g., 140 mm, see paragraph [0054], lines 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify JP ‘383 by selecting a blade length of greater than 100 mm suitable for a kitchen knife as taught by Ezoe.
5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-283383 (cited in the 12/03/2025 PTO-892 with English translation) in view of Spiegel (U.S. Patent No. D643,260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view JP 2005-198972 (cited in the 09/06/2023 IDS with English translation).
Regarding claim 9, the kitchen knife (1) of JP ‘383 as modified shows all the claimed limitations, and further the blade (2) is made of metal (e.g., “stainless steel”, see paragraphs [0004] and [0008] of the English translation) except it is silent about the thickness of the blade (2).
JP ‘972 shows a kitchen knife (1) comprising a blade (5) having a thickness of about 0.5 mm - 1.0 mm (e.g., less than 2.5 mm as required by claim 9, see paragraph [0011], line 1 of the English translation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify JP ‘383 by having the blade (2) with a thickness of less than 2.5 mm suitable for use in the kitchen knife as taught by JP ‘972.
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-283383 (cited in the 12/03/2025 PTO-892 with English translation) in view of Spiegel (U.S. Patent No. D643,260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Prommel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0067860, hereinafter “Prommel”).
Regarding claim 11, the kitchen knife (1) of JP ‘383 as modified shows all the claimed limitations except it is silent about the weight of the blade (2).
Prommel teaches kitchen knives can come in different sizes (see Fig.1 and claim 6), thus different weights.
In view of Prommel’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify JP ‘383 by selecting a size having a desirable weight, including the claimed equal to or less than 200 g, for a particular cutting task based on an intended food preparation than on any inventive concept.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 11 have been considered but are moot in light of the above new ground(s) of rejection.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724