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Claims 4, 5, 8-11, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Portions of the election was made with traverse and without traverse in the reply filed on 10-16-25.
The specification does not appear to associate the subject matter of claims 4, 5, 8-11, and 20 with the elected species embodiment. While there is support for these limitations there is no support that the elected embodiment incorporates the structure for these limitations.
Applicant's election with traverse is not found persuasive because the previous Office action listed the distinctness between the groups. This distinctness creates the search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3, 6, 7, and 12-17 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 claims 1 and 13-15, the words “lower” and “underside” are indefinite. The tool is handheld and is capable of achieving an infinite number of orientations including orientations where the edge would not be considered a lower or an underside. In the orientation below, the entire second end would be an upper edge or above all other tool structures. These words should be replaced with terms that are true regardless of orientation or deleted.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, claim 1 previously discloses a “pivot” and claim 2 introduces a “first pivot” which, as written, is in addition to the claim 1 pivot. It is unclear if there is more than one pivot disclosed for the intended use gripping of the tool.
With regards to claims 7 and 14-16, all of these claims depend from claim 1 and have issues with antecedent basis. It is believed that claim 7 should depend from claim 6 as it discloses the phrase “the second pivot” introduced in claim 6. It is believed that claims 14 and 15 should depend from claim 13 as they disclose the phrase “the at least one cutting blade” introduced in claim 13. It is believed that claim 16 should depend from claim 6 as it discloses the phrase “the second bulbous” introduced in claim 6. These claims will be respectively interpreted as they depend from claims 6 and 13.
With regards to claims 2 and 7, the phrase “the elongated body weighted to have a centre of gravity” is unclear. It is unclear if the claim requires additional “weights” to satisfy the “body being weighted” limitation or if the “weight” of subject matter of claims 1 and 2 is what allows for the body to be “weighted”. There does not appear to be any support for additional weights. Further definition is needed.
The terms “near” and “close to” in claim 3, 7, and 12 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term terms “near” and “close to” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Using Applicant’s Figure 6, bulbous portion 53 can be considered near and close to hook 35.
With regards to claim 7, the phrase “centre of gravity is relatively forward of the second pivot” is indefinite. The position of the centre of gravity is dependent upon the indefinite unclaimed grip by the user. The user may grip the tool in a way where there is no first and/or second pivot. If the user chooses to grip the tool in way where there is no pivots formed, how can the centre of gravity be forward of something that does not exist? The pivots cannot be comprised by the tool as the user’s grip is required to define the pivots making them indefinite and all limitations that depend from the intended grip indefinite as well.
With regards to claims 13-15, the phrase “the cutting blade has at least one cutting blade” in claim 13 is unclear. The phrases “the at least one cutting blade includes a lower concave/convex curved blade” in claims 14 and 15 is unclear. It is unclear how a blade can have another blade and then that blade have a curved blade? The blade clearly has multiple cutting edge and it is unclear if the intent was to claim the cutting edges of the blade. With regards to claims 14 and 15, claim 1 previously disclosed a “cutting edge”. It is unclear if claims 14 and 15 were supposed to further limit the claim 1 “cutting edge” or if the intent was to disclose an additional cutting edge. Either of which would be proper.
With regards to claim 16, as discussed above, the grip of the tool is not positively claimed and is an indefinite intended use of the tool. It is unclear how the second bulbous portion allows the user to grip the handle relatively away from a centre of gravity is the user’s hand engages both the second bulbous and the centre of gravity. Applicant is attempting to further define the tool by using the indianite grip of the user.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemifard (4,387,510) in view of EP 0451381. See Figure below for Examiner added reference labels to EP 0451381.
It is noted that the disclosed gripping of the tool to form the pivots is considered an intended use of the tool and is not positively claimed. The tool cannot comprise how the user grips the tool as the user may not grip/use the tool as intended.
With regards to claims 1, 13, and 14, Hashemifard discloses the invention including a cutting tool (title) having a continuous elongated body having a handle at a first end (24) and at a second opposing end a cutting blade with a cutting edge capable of being in a lower position (12), and a connecting part therebetween (14), the cutting blade has at least one cutting blade capable of being in an orientation that allows for the blade to extend along an elongated underside of the tool (concave curved edge of 12), and the at least one cutting blade includes a lower concave curved blade (concave curved edge of 12).
With regards to claims 1, 2, and 6, Hashemifard fails to disclose the handle includes at least a first bulbous portion which allows the user to be capable of holding the tool as claimed in claims 1 and 2 to form a pivot/first pivot, the handle has a second bulbous portion further along the cutting tool than the first bulbous portion, the second bulbous portion is capable of acting as a stop and which allows the user to be capable of holding the tool as claimed in claims 1, 2, and 6 to form a second pivot
EP 0451381 teaches it is known in the art of cutting tool handles to incorporate at least a first bulbous portion (1b) which allows the user to be capable of holding the tool as claimed in claims 1 and 2 to form a pivot/first pivot, the handle has a second bulbous portion further along the cutting tool than the first bulbous portion (2b), the second bulbous portion is capable of acting as a stop and which allows the user to be capable of holding the tool as claimed in claims 1, 2, and 6 to form a second pivot (2b). Such a modification allows for the handle of the cutting tool to be more ergonomic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided Hashemifard with a handle with bulbous portions, as taught by EP 0451381, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
186
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 7, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemifard (4,387,510) in view of EP 0451381 as applied to claims 1, 2, and 6 above, and further in view of Liu (2018/0169877). See Figure above for Examiner added reference labels to EP 0451381.
It is noted that the word “centre” is an alternate spelling for the word “center”. The disclosure is clear what is meant.
With regards to claim 17, Hashemifard in view of EP 0451381 disclose a connection between the first and second bulbous portions forms a grip capable of allowing for the grip disclosed in claim 17 and being capable of preventing the tool from sliding out of the hand of the user when performing the intended function (c in EP 0451381 above).
However, with regards to claims 3, 7, 12, and 16, Hashemifard in view of EP 0451381 while it is known that Hashemifard in view of EP 0451381 would have a centre of gravity, both references are silent on any details of the centre of gravity would be and, therefore, fail to disclose the elongated body weighted to have a centre of gravity near a longitudinal middle of the body and capable of being relatively forward of the second pivot, a centre of gravity close to the first bulbous portion, and the second bulbous is capable of allowing the user to grip the handle away from the centre of gravity and perform the intended use of claim 16.
Liu teaches it is known in the art of cutting tool handles to incorporate an adjustable center of gravity (abstract, paragraph [0002]). Applying an adjustable centre of gravity to Hashemifard in view of EP 0451381 allows for the elongated body to be weighted (abstract, paragraph [0002]) to have a centre of gravity near a longitudinal middle of the body and capable of being relatively forward of the second pivot (the user can make the centre of gravity in any reasonable location including near the middle), a centre of gravity close to the first bulbous portion (the user can make the centre of gravity in any reasonable location including close to the first bulbous portion), and the second bulbous is capable of allowing the user to grip the handle away from the centre of gravity and perform the intended use of claim 16 (the user can make the centre of gravity in any reasonable location including away from the second bulbous portion). Such a modification allows for the centre of gravity of the cutting tool to be changed based on the user’s preferences. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided Hashemifard with a handle with bulbous portions, as taught by EP 0451381, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashemifard (4,387,510) in view of EP 0451381 as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Capps (3,241,236). See Figure below for Examiner added reference label to Capps.
With regards to claim 15, Hashemifard in view of EP 0451381 disclose the invention but fail to disclose the at least one cutting blade includes a lower convex curved blade.
Capps teaches it is known in the art of cutting tool with a hooked shaped cutting edge to incorporate a convex curved blade capable of being in lower position (cv). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have provided Hashemifard in view of EP 0451381 with a convex curved blade, as taught by Capps, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
PNG
media_image3.png
582
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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: 7:30 am-3:30 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, Adam J Eiseman can be reached on (571)270-3818. 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.
03 November 2025
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724