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
Drawing Objection
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral “214” has been used to designate different elements as “a sloped surface” (in Fig.2A) and “a concave recess” (in Figs.2A and 2B).
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.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Reference numeral “214” has been given different designations as “a sloped surface” and “a concave recess”. See paragraphs [0038], [0040], [0044] and [0045].
(2) At line 10 of paragraph [0035], at line 5 of paragraph [0036], at line 13 of paragraph [0057] and at line 9 of paragraph [0062], “proud to” should read -- beyond--. See Fig.6B.
(3) In paragraph [0040], lines 4 and 7, the use of the term “extrusion” to describe element 220 shown in Fig.2A is misleading. As shown in the figure, there is a concave recess 214 formed on a first sidewall 216 of the body 210, and a protrusion 220 formed on a second sidewall 218 of the body 210. It is suggested “extrusion” be changed to --protrusion-- for supporting a pinkie of a user’s hand. Paragraphs [0029], [0035], [0059] and [0061] should be amended accordingly.
(4) In paragraph [0047], line 14, “second surface 211” should read --second surface 212--.
(5) In paragraph [0047], line 15, “body 310” should read --body 210--.
(6) In paragraph [0051], line 7, “first extension 116” should read --first extension 117--.
(7) In paragraph [0051], line 8, “first extension 216” should read --first extension 217--.
(8) In paragraph [0051], line 8, “second extension 118” should read --second extension 119--.
(9) In paragraph [0051], line 9, “second extension 218” should read --second extension 219--.
(10) In paragraph [0054], line 10, “proud” should read --downward--. See Fig.6B
(11) In paragraph [0057], line 11, “actuator assembly further includes a cutting edge” is incorrect. The phrase should read --blade further includes a cutting edge--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 13, “actuator assembly further including a cutting edge” is incorrect. The phrase should read --blade further including a cutting edge--.
(2) In claim 1, line 15, “proud to the first surface” is vague and should read --beyond the first surface--. Note Fig.6B.
(3) In claim 6, line 2, “a front edge” is vague and should be changed to --a front edge of the body--.
(4) In claim 8, line 4, “the second sidewall … including an extrusion” does not make sense. The phrase should read --the second sidewall … including a protrusion--. Note item (3) of the above objection to the specification.
(5) The scope of claim 9 is confusion. While the preamble calls for the apparatus (e.g., a sub-combination), the main body of the claim clearly recites a hanger plate as part of the claim combination. It is suggested the preamble be changed to --The apparatus of claim 1 in combination with a hanger plate, wherein:--.
(6) In claim 10, line 12, “proud to the first surface” is vague and should read --beyond the first surface--. Note Fig.6B.
(7) In claim 15, lines 2-3, “an extrusion disposed at a second sidewall” does not make sense. The phrase should read --a protrusion disposed at a second sidewall--. Note item (3) of the above objection to the specification.
(8) In claim 16, lines 2 and 3, “a front edge” and “an intermediate edge” are vague and should read --a front edge of the body-- and --an intermediate edge of the body--, respectively.
(9) In claim 19, line 12, “proud to the first surface” is vague and should read --beyond the first surface--. Note Fig.6B.
(10) The scope of claim 20 is confusion. While the preamble calls for the apparatus (e.g., a sub-combination), the main body of the claim clearly recites a hanger plate as part of the claim combination. It is suggested the preamble be changed to --The apparatus of claim 19 in combination with a hanger plate, wherein:--.
(11) In claim 20, lines 9 and 10, “a front edge” and “an intermediate edge” are vague and should read --a front edge of the body-- and --an intermediate edge of the body--, respectively.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
2. Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 contain allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 12,290,949 to Abrams which shows
an apparatus (20) comprising:
a body (22) including a first surface (S1, e.g., the bottom surface thereof, see Fig.2 as annotated below) and a second surface (S2, e.g., the top surface thereof, see Fig.1 as annotated below), the first/bottom surface (S1) being substantially planar, disposed an average distance (e.g., the average height “H” of the body 22) from the second/top surface (S2), and having an average length (“L” of the first/bottom surface S1, see the annotated Fig.2) and an average width (“W’ of the first/bottom surface S1, see the annotated Fig.2), the average length (L) being greater than the average width (w), the first/bottom surface (S1) defining a first opening (30, see the annotated Fig.2) and the second/top surface (S2) defining a second opening (22B, see Fig.1), the first opening (30) and the second opening (22B) in fluid communication with each other;
PNG
media_image1.png
525
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
512
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an actuator assembly (24,32, see Fig.3) removably coupled to the body (22), at least a portion (24) of the actuator assembly (24,32) being disposed within the second opening (22B, see Fig.1), the actuator assembly (24,32) having a storage configuration (see Fig.5) and a cutting configuration (see Fig.7); and
a blade (UB) including a surface (see Fig.5) having a plane oriented in a direction of the average length (of the first/bottom surface S1), the plane being substantially normal to the first/bottom surface (S1), the blade (UB) further including a cutting edge (CE, see Fig.5 as annotated below) that is configured to be disposed between the first surface (S1) and the second surface (S2) while the actuator assembly (24,32) is in the storage configuration (see Fig.5) and that is configured to be disposed beyond the first/bottom surface (S1) while the actuator assembly (24,32) is in the cutting configuration (see Fig.7 as annotated below) substantially as claimed except Abrams’ average distance (H) is greater than the average width (W) rather than having and the average width (W) greater than the average distance (H), and Abrams’ blade (UB) is not coupled to the actuator assembly (24,32).
PNG
media_image3.png
484
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
476
844
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Official notice is taken of the fact that it is common knowledge that increasing contact surface increases the stability of an apparatus. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Abram by having the average width (W of the first/bottom/contact surface S1) greater than the average distance (H of the body 20 of the apparatus 20) so that the area of the first/bottom surface is greatly increased thus making the apparatus (20) more stable during use.
However, it would not have been obvious to modify Abrams by having “the blade (UB) coupled to the actuator assembly (24,32)” as required by claim 1. To the contrary, Abrams’ actuator assembly (24,32) and blade (UB) are separated by a safety slide (26, see Fig.5). Upon moving the safety slide (26) toward the rear end (23) of the body (22, see Fig.6), an aperture (26A) of the safety slide (26) aligns with a distal end (24C) of the actuator (24) so that a downward force (50, see Fig.7) can be applied to move the blade to a cutting position. In other words, Abrams’ actuator assembly (24,32) is spaced from the blade (UB) when not in use but is movable toward and engages a blade holder (40) that holds the blade (UB) thus moving the blade (UB) to a cutting position (see in Fig.7). There is no teaching/suggestion/motivation to have Abrams’ blade (UB) coupled to the actuator assembly (24,32) as required by claim 1.
Similarly, Independent claims 10 and 19 both requiring “a cutting member coupled to the actuator assembly” also defines over the Abrams reference for the same reasons set forth.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 2,018,149 shows a cutting tool comprising an actuator assembly (16,18) and a blade (14) coupled to the actuator assembly (16,18), wherein the actuator assembly (16,18) moves the blade (14) between a store position (see Fig.6) and an in- use position (Fig.2).
U.S. Patent No. 3,893,238 shows a cutting tool comprising a body (see Fig.3) equipped with concave recesses (46).
U.S. Patent No. 6,671,968 shows a cutting tool having a dome-shaped body (see Fig.1).
U.S. Patent No. 6,880,250 shows a cutting tool having a blade (20) coupled to an actuator assembly (14, see Fig.2).
U.S. Patent No. 9,650,065 shows a cutter (800) having a blade (830) movable by an actuator assembly (825, see Fig.8B).
U.S. Patent No. 10,773,370 shows a knife (see Fig.1) having a body equipped with concave recesses (13,15) and a protrusion (14) for receiving a user’s fingers.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0224861 shows a knife comprising an actuator assembly (58) for moving a blade (54), wherein the actuator assembly (58) having a recessed outer surface (70, see Fig.5).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0001570 teaches providing a blade holder of a knife and a housing of the knife with magnets to reduce undesired movement between the two (see paragraph [0062], lines 1-3).
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