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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14 readable) in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged. As indicated in the remarks section of the 11/26/2025 Restriction Requirement, method claim 20 is a parallel claim to claim 1 and will be examined with claim 1.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-14 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 4, “a second scale” is vague and should read --a second handle scale of the knife--.
(2) In claim 6, line 4, “the second scale comprises a fourth hook” is incorrect. The phrase should read --the first handle scale comprises a fourth hook--.
(3) In claim 6, lines 6-7, “the third and fourth handle scales” has no antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the first and second handle scales--.
(4) In claim 6, line 8, “the first and third hooks” should read --the first and second hooks--. Note the first hook and the second hook are shown in Fig.5 as hooks 418 and 422, respectively, and are oriented toward a first/left end of the knife 500.
(5) In claim 6, line 9, “the second and fourth hooks” should read --the third and the fourth hooks--. Note the third and the fourth hook are shown in Fig.5 as hooks 424 and 420, respectively, and are oriented toward a second/right end of the knife 500.
(6) In claim 8, line 5, “tang” is vague and should read --the tang-- since it refers to the one previously cited.
(7) The scop[e of claims 11-14 is vague. While the preamble of the claims calls a knife (e.g., a subcombination), the main body of the claims clearly recites a knife sheath as part of the claim combination. Thus, the scope of the claims is unclear.
(8) In claim 14, “a first dimple” and “a second dimple” are vague. Are they in addition to “a dimple” cited at line 13 of claim 13? It is suggested “a dimple”, at line 13 of claim 13, be changed to 00at least one dimple--, and “the blade”, cited at line 1 of claim 14, be changed to --the at least one dimple--.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1, 7-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gringer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,930,830, hereinafter “Gringer”).
Regarding claim 1, Gringer discloses a knife (see Fig. 3) having removable handle scales (12,22), the knife comprising:
a blade (80) having a cutting edge (82) and a tang (T, see Fig.3 as annotated below), the tang (T) having one or more apertures (88) formed therein;
PNG
media_image1.png
812
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first handle scale (22) removably coupled to a second handle scale (12), wherein the first and second handle scales (22,12) are arranged on opposing sides of the tang (T) and releasably coupled to each other through the one or more apertures (88) in the tang (T),
wherein the first handle scale (22) comprises a scale release actuator (34) that is biased (via a resilient arm 32) at least partially through an opening (35) in the second handle scale (12) such that the first and the second handle scales (22,12) are locked together until the scale release actuator (34) is depressed.
Regarding claim 7, when in a depressed position, Gringer’s scale release actuator (34) is configured to allow the second handle scale (12) to be removed from the tang (T), and wherein removal of the second handle scale (12) enables the first handle scale (22) to be removed in a direction perpendicular to a face of the tang (T).
Regarding claim 8, Gringer’s first handle scale (22) further comprises a tower (28) that is shaped and sized to partially pass through one of the one or more apertures (88) in the tang (T), and wherein the tower (28) is positioned against an end of the one of the one or more apertures (88) to allow at least one of: removal of the first handle scale (22) in a direction perpendicular to the face of tang (T), based at least in part on the removal of the second handle scale (12) from the tang (T); and prevent the first handle scale (22) from sliding rearward in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis through the knife.
Regarding claim 9, Gringer’s scale release actuator (34) comprises a user interface member (“M”, defined by upper surfaces of upwardly extending protrusions “P”, see Fig.2 as annotated below) positioned atop a spring (32, e.g., a resilient arm).
PNG
media_image2.png
370
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Gringer’s spring (32) comprises a flexible arm (32), wherein the flexible arm (32) is arranged at an angle between the user interface member (M) and the first handle scale (22), and wherein the flexible arm (32) biases the user interface member (M) such that at least a portion of the user interface member (M) extends into the opening (35) in the second handle scale (12).
Regarding claim 11, at least a portion of Gringer’s blade (80) is configured to be received within a knife sheath (50), the knife sheath (50) comprising: a sheath body (50); and one or more engagement features (52,54) configured to interface with the blade (80) to releasably hold at least the portion of the blade (80) within the sheath body (50).
Regarding claim 20, Gringer discloses a method for forming a knife assembly comprising:
forming a blade (80, see Fig.3) having a cutting edge (82) and a tang (T, see the annotated Fig.3), the tang (T) having one or more apertures (88) formed therein;
arranging a first handle scale (22) on a first/bottom side of the tang (T), wherein the first handle scale (22) comprises a scale release actuator (34);
arranging a second handle scale (12) on a second/top, opposing side of the tang (T), wherein the second handle scale (12) comprises an opening (35) that is shaped and sized to receive at least a portion of the scale release actuator (34); and
releasably coupling the first handle scale (22) to the second handle scale (12) using the one or more apertures (88) in the tang, wherein the releasable coupling further comprises biasing (via a resilient arm 32) the scale release actuator (34) at least partially through the opening (35) in the second handle scale (12) such that the first and the second handle scales (22,12) are locked together until the scale release actuator (34) is depressed.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gringer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,930,830, hereinafter “Gringer”) .
Regarding claim 2, while Gringer’s one or more apertures (88) as seen in Fig.3 are not rectangular in shape, however, Ginger does suggest that the shape and dimensions of the apertures (88) can be altered (see column 6, lines 20-24) so long as they correspond to inserts (28) for securing the handle scales (12,22) together. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Gringer by making the apertures (88) rectangular as desired as along as they correspond to the inserts to perform the requisite function of securing the handles scales (12,22) together.
Regarding claim 3, to further modify Gringer by having a shape and dimensions of at least one of the one or more apertures (88) coinciding with a known standard such as the M-LOK standard (note M-LOK slot/aperture size having a slot length 1.62 in, a slot width 0.63 in, and a corner radius 0.12 in) would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, since the standard chosen depends more upon an obvious matter of preference than on any inventive concept.
Regarding claim 4, Gringer’s one or more apertures (88) comprise three apertures (88).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 5, 6 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2. Claims 5-6 define over the Griner reference (U.S. Patent No. 7,930,830) in which Gringer’s first handle scale (22) comprises a first hook (30, see Fig.2) that is shaped and sized to partially pass through at least a first of the one or more apertures (88) in the tang (T), and wherein the second handle scale (12) comprises a second hook (20). However, Gringer’s second hook (20, see Fig.2) does not partially pass through at least the first of the one or more apertures (88) in the tang (T, see the annotated Fig.3). Gringer’s second hook (20, see Fig.2) of the slot (18, see Fig.3) of the second handle scale (12) is on one side of the blade (80, see Fig.2) rather than partially pass through the first of the one or more aperture (88) through which the first hook (30, see Fig.2) passes.
3. Claims 12-14 define over the Gringer reference (U.S. Patent No. 7.930,830) in which Gringer’s shield (50) does not comprise the specifically claimed structure.
Prior Art Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 12,251,849 shows a knife comprising a fixed blade (14) having a blade tang (22) sandwiched between two handle scales (16,18) of the knife.
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