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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) in view of Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067).
Regarding claim 1, Winton teaches a bolt cutter (Figure 1) comprising:
a head, the head comprising:
an upper jaw (15) comprising a first cutting blade (21)(Figures 1-2); and
a lower jaw (17) comprising a second cutting blade and a third cutting blade (24,25)(Figure 1);
a lower handle (12) coupled to the upper jaw and an upper handle (12) coupled to the lower jaw (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 7-50);
the lower jaw further comprising a channel (19) defined between the second cutting blade and the third cutting blade such that the second cutting blade is spaced from the third cutting blade (Figure 1).
Winton does not provide an opening defined in the front wall of the first end of the head, the opening connected to the channel and extending to a bottom surface of the channel.
Ronan teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting tools to provide a channel (29) with an opening (22) defined in the front wall of a first end of a head, the opening connected to the channel and extending to a bottom surface of the channel (Figures 1 and 2; Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Ronan to provide an opening defined in the front wall of the channel. In doing so, it allows for proper alignment of the blade within the channel as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 1, wherein, when the head is in a closed position, the first cutting blade is positioned in the channel between the second cutting blade and the third cutting blade (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 7-50).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 1, wherein, when the head is in a closed position, the first cutting blade contacts a bottom surface of the channel (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 7-50; Note the blades come together).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 1, the lower jaw further comprising a first cutout portion (27) positioned between the second cutting blade and the upper handle and a second cutout portion (28) positioned between the third cutting blade and the upper handle (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 5, wherein the first cutout portion and the second cutout portion are configured to receive a portion of a workpiece and resist movement of the workpiece out of a position between the lower jaw and the upper jaw (Figures 1, 6-7).
Regarding claim 16, Winton teaches a cutter comprising:
a first member extending along a longitudinal axis, the first member comprising: an upper jaw (15) comprising an upper blade (21) and a lower handle (12)(Figure 1); and
a second member coupled to the first member, the second member comprising:
a lower jaw (17) the lower jaw comprising:
a first end and a second end (Figure 1) and a channel (19) defined between the first lower blade and the second lower blade, the channel comprising a lowermost point, wherein a dimension of the channel is defined between the upper edge of the first lower blade and the lowermost point (Figure 1);
a first lower blade and a second lower blade (24, 25) and an upper handle (12) coupled to the lower jaw; wherein the upper blade, the first lower blade, and second lower blade together define a cutting portion (Figure 1).
Winton does not provide the opening in a front surface of the lower jaw; or wherein the channel connects to the opening and wherein the opening extends along an entirety of the dimension of the channel.
Ronan teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting tools to provide a channel (29) with an opening (22) defined in a front wall of a first end of a head, the opening connected to the channel and extending to a bottom surface of the channel (Figures 1 and 2; Paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Ronan to provide an opening defined in the front wall of the channel. In doing so, it allows for proper alignment of the blade within the channel as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Winton teaches the cutter of claim 16, further comprising: a first neck portion positioned between a distal portion of the lower handle and the upper jaw and a second neck portion positioned between a distal portion of the upper handle and the lower jaw (X1, X2), the second neck portion crossing over the first neck portion to define a neck (See annotated Figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) in view Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steiner (U.S. Patent No. 8,015,853).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 1, but does not provide a connecting plate coupled to each opposing side surface of both the upper jaw and the lower jaw by one or more fasteners.
Steiner teaches two handles (31) with an upper jaw (24 and a lower jaw (25) and a connecting plate (70,71) coupled to each opposing side surface of both the upper jaw and the lower jaw by one or more fasteners (68,69)(Figure 9; Col. 9, Lines 6-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Steiner to provide the upper and lower jaws with connecting plates and fasteners. In doing so, it allows for the desired and controlled movement of the jaws during use).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Winton teaches wherein the one or more fasteners are adjustable such that a position of the first cutting blade relative to the second cutting blade and the third cutting blade can be adjusted (Winton Figure 1 and Steiner Figure 9; Col. 9, Lines 6-23).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) as evidenced by Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) in view of Knight (U.S. Patent No. 6,752,054).
Regarding claim 9, Winton teaches a bolt cutter (Figure 1) comprising:
a head, the head comprising:
a first end and a second end, the second end positioned between the first end and a lower handle (12)(See Figure 1 noting the right edge of the blade being the first end, and the second end being received by the handle and connected via pin 16);
an upper jaw (15) comprising a first cutting blade (21)(Figure 1); and
a lower jaw (17) comprising: a second cutting blade (24) a third cutting blade (25) and a channel defined between the second cutting blade and the third cutting blade;
the lower handle (12) coupled to the upper jaw and an upper handle (12) coupled to the lower jaw; wherein, when the bolt cutter is in a closed position, the first cutting blade is positioned within the channel between the second cutting blade and the third cutting blade (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 7-50).
Winton does not provide, wherein, when the bolt cutter is in the closed position, a longitudinally facing outer surface of the first cutting blade defines an outermost front surface at the first end of the head.
Ronan provides evidence it is known to have a cutting tool with a channel (29) having a longitudinally facing outer surface (51) of a blade holder defining an outermost front surface at a first end of a head (See Figures 1 and 2 noting an open and closed position noting alignment of a blade (40) within the channel (29) of a lower jaw).
Knight teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting tools, to provide when a handheld cutting tool is in the closed position, a longitudinally facing outer surface (F1) of a first cutting blade (42) defines an outermost front surface at a first end of a head (See annotated Figure 5 below and Figure 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Knight to provide the blade (in a closed position) with a longitudinally facing outer surface of a first cutting blade defining an outermost front surface at a first end of a head. In doing so, it allows for contact of the upper blade with the lower blade as desired to cut a variety of materials.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) as evidenced by Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) in view of Knight (U.S. Patent No. 6,752,054) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wilhelm (U.S. Patent No. 6,892,460).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Winton teaches all of the elements of the bolt cutter of claim 9, but does not provide a workpiece holding structure positioned on the lower jaw.
Wilhelm teaches a plier type cutting tool (Abstract) with handles (4, 5) and an upper jaw (2) and a lower jaw (3) wherein the lower jaw includes a concave workpiece holding structure (11)(Figures 1 and 6; Col. 3, Lines 23-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Wilhelm to provide a workpiece holding structure. In doing so, it allows for further workpiece support during use.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 10, wherein the workpiece holding structure is a curved cutout surface (Winton Figure 1; and Wilhelm Figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 11, wherein the curved cutout surface is concave relative to the upper jaw (Winton Figure 1; and Wilhelm Figures 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 11, wherein the curved cutout surface has a first longitudinal length and the lower jaw has a second longitudinal length, and wherein the first longitudinal length is less than the second longitudinal length (Winton Figure 1; and Wilhelm Figures 1 and 6).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) as evidenced by Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) in view of Knight (U.S. Patent No. 6,752,054) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Carlson (U.S. Patent No. 2,382,292).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Winton teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except; the head further comprising a bearing positioned within an opening defined between the upper jaw and the lower jaw.
Carlson teaches it is known in the art of handheld pivoting tools to incorporate an upper and lower jaw (26,27) including a bearing (34) positioned within an opening between the upper and lower jaws (Figure 1)(Page 2, Col. 1, Lines 10—26; Examiner notes element 34 to be a “bearing” pivot pin, thus reading upon the language of a bearing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Carlson to provide the head with a bearing. In doing so, it allows for a greater force to be applied while pivoting the upper and lower jaw members during use.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) as evidenced by Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) in view of Knight (U.S. Patent No. 6,752,054) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lombardi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0133989).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 9 but does not provide wherein the lower jaw and the upper handle and the upper jaw and the lower handle are each formed from a single, integral piece of material.
Lombardi teaches it is known to have a handheld pivoting cutting members with an upper and lower handle including respective upper and lower jaws formed of a single integral material (Paragraphs 0018-0019).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue integral components which are known to be useful for a particular pivoting/cutting function. There are a finite number of possible orientations which pertain to a handheld pivotable cutting devices and allow for the pivot providing the cutting function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable material and component combination in an attempt to provide an improved pivot/cutting function for the device, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) in view of Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Wilhelm (U.S. Patent No. 6,892,460).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Winton teaches the cutter of claim 16, but does not provide a workpiece holding structure, wherein the workpiece holding structure is configured to receive a portion of a workpiece and resist movement of the workpiece out of a position between the lower jaw and the upper jaw.
Wilhelm teaches a plier type cutting tool (Abstract) with handles (4, 5) and an upper jaw (2) and a lower jaw (3) wherein the lower jaw includes a concave workpiece holding structure (11)(Figures 1 and 6; Col. 3, Lines 23-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Wilhelm to provide a workpiece holding structure. In doing so, it allows for further workpiece support during use.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) in view of Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Carlson (U.S. Patent No. 2,382,292).
Regarding claim 19, Winton teaches the cutter of claim 16, (See Figures 1-5 noting cross section and shape) but does not provide wherein the upper blade has a triangular cross-sectional shape.
Carlson teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting devices to provide an upper blade (26) with a triangular cutting edge (Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Carlson to provide varied blade/jaw shapes. In doing so, it allows for a variety of different materials to be cut as desired.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) in view of Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lombardi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0133989).
Regarding claim 20, Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 16 but does not provide the cutter of claim 16, wherein the first member and the second member are each formed from a single, integral piece of material.
Lombardi teaches it is known to have a handheld pivoting cutting members with an upper and lower handle including respective upper and lower jaws formed of a single integral material (Paragraphs 0018-0019).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue integral components which are known to be useful for a particular pivoting/cutting function. There are a finite number of possible orientations which pertain to a handheld pivotable cutting devices and allow for the pivot providing the cutting function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable material and component combination in an attempt to provide an improved pivot/cutting function for the device, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) as evidenced by Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) in view of Knight (U.S. Patent No. 6,752,054) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Carlson (U.S. Patent No. 2,382,292).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Winton teaches the cutter of claim 9, (See Figure 1 noting the channel shape) but does not provide wherein the lower jaw has a triangular cross-sectional shape defined in a front wall of the lower jaw and wherein the triangular opening is connected to the channel (See Ronan Figures 1-2 noting the front wall opening connected to a channel with a shape).
Carlson teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting devices to provide a lower jaw (27) with a triangular cross-sectional shape (Figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Carlson to provide varied blade shapes. In doing so, it allows for a variety of different materials to be cut as desired.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winton (U.S. Patent No. 3,159,913) as evidenced by Ronan (U.S. Patent No. 2014/0290067) in view of Knight (U.S. Patent No. 6,752,054) as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Winton teaches the bolt cutter of claim 9 and but does not provide wherein when the bolt cutter is in the closed position the first cutting blade engages a bottom surface of the channel and is fully received within the channel.
Ronan teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutters to provide a pivotable blade wherein in the closed position, a cutting blade engages a bottom surface of a channel and is fully received within the channel (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0037-0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Winton to incorporate the teachings of Ronan to provide the cutting edge with engagement of the bottom surface of a channel. In doing so, it allows for a variety of different materials to be cut completely through as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues (Pages 1-6 claims 1 and 16) specifically “Applicant respectfully traverses this ground of rejection because the articulated reasoning for the proposed modification of Winton by Ronan to disclose "an opening defined in the front wall of a first end of a head, the opening connected to the channel and extending to a bottom surface of the channel" as allegedly taught by Ronan is not supported by the prior art or otherwise by technical analysis in the Office Action”. Examiner notes the cited paragraph in the rejection to provide the rationale of proper blade alignment as recited in the rejection above. Specifically “The shallow channel 29 (See FIG. 2) has a depth that is defined by interior sidewalls 21 of the first handle member 11 opposing sections that extends from the inwardly extending surfaces upward to the cradle portions 19a. Note that this depth will allow the cutting edge 41 (See FIG. 2) of the non-standard blade 40 to bottom out in the channel after a work piece (not shown) has been entirely cut all the way through. Furthermore, the channel will allow the bottom end 52 and the angled forward end 51 of the blade holder to freely move and bottom out in the channel 29 when a work piece (not shown) has been cut through without any interference”. By utilizing the front opening provided in Ronan, the modification to Winton allows for proper alignment of the top portion of the blade, through the front opening allowing for variable movement of the blade to take place while cutting through the entirety of a workpiece.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner notes there may only be two options for the front portion of the lower jaw, either open within the channel as provided in Ronan, or closed as provided in Winton. As the prior art provides both options, and a rationale within Ronan for doing so, the prior art meets the current limitations.
-Applicant’s further arguments concerning claims 7-8 (page 6) are noted and addressed above with regard to claim 1.
-Applicants arguments concerning claim 9 are noted but not persuasive. Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses this ground of rejection because the articulated reasoning for the proposed modification of Winton and Ronan by Knight lacks rational underpinning and therefore fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. As shown in the Examiner's Annotated FIG. 5 of Knight (reproduced below) the "longitudinally facing outer surface" F1 does not itself appear to be in contact with a cutting surface of blade 68 when the tool is closed”.
Examiner notes that the prior art of Winton, when in the closed position does not meet the limitations of having a longitudinally facing outer surface of the first cutting blade defining an outermost front surface at the end of the head due to the closed nature of the cutting head within the provided channel. The prior art of Ronan provides evidence that it is known to have both an open-ended channel and a front outer facing surface allowing for proper alignment of the blade within the channel during use. The prior art of Knight further provides two cutting blades in the closed position, wherein the top blade has a longitudinally outer surface that defines an outermost facing surface. Both pieces of art provide it is known to have such a feature, whether it is for alignment of the blades during use as noted by Ronan, or providing an open-ended cutting face to allows for variation in size and shape of the workpiece to be cut. Thus, the modified device of Winton, in view of Ronan and Knight provide for the claimed limitations as provided in the rejection above.
Applicants arguments concerning claims 10-13, 14,15,18,19,20 and 21 are noted. However, as they rely on arguments previously addressed, the response to address the concerns have not been duplicated.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 Eiseman can be reached at 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 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 08/14/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
08/26/2026
Prosecution Insights