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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 12-4-2025 Amendment was received. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-15, 17-19 were amended.
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 1-16 and 19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1, “wherein the blade assembly is configured to pinch the strand between the leg and the top surface of the lid in the second channel,” is indefinite. The Examiner notes that the string/rope is not affirmatively claimed. As such, a string/rope with a diameter is not required by the claim. A “small” diameter rope would not be pinched where a “large” diameter rope would be pinched. As such, whether the claim is infringed depends on the diameter of an unclaimed rope. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 9, “wherein the ramp is configured to pinch the strand,”” is indefinite. As best understood, the function of punching requires a strand having a particular diameter and a particular space between the blade and ramp. Neither of these limitations are required by the claim, as the claim is directed to the tool and is not a “kit” claim requiring a particular sized workpiece. As such, a string/rope with a diameter is not required by the claim. A “small” diameter rope would not be pinched where a “large” diameter rope would be pinched. As such, whether the claim is infringed depends on the diameter of an unclaimed rope. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 12, “a blade assembly” in the preamble is indefinite. The body of the claim appears to require the surface of “a lid” in order to read on the claims; however the blade assembly is not part of the lid. The claims were examined as “A blade assembly on a lid, comprising:” in the preamble, and “a lid” being positively introduced in the body of the claim. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 12, “wherein the blade holder is further configured to pinch the strand between the leg and a top surface of the lid in the channel,” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure is being claimed. The claim is directed to the tool “a blade assembly” and does not require the workpiece: “a strand/string.” As such, a string/rope with a diameter is not required by the claim. A “small” diameter rope would not be pinched where a “large” diameter rope would be pinched. As such, whether the claim is infringed depends on the diameter of an unclaimed rope. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 15, “wherein the ramp is configured to punch the strand between the ramp and the top surface of the lid in the channel after the end portion of the strand is cut,” As best understood, the function of punching requires a strand having a particular diameter and a particular space between the blade and ramp. As such, a string/rope with a diameter is not required by the claim. A “small” diameter rope would not be pinched where a “large” diameter rope would be pinched. As such, whether the claim is infringed depends on the diameter of an unclaimed rope. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 19, “wherein the cutting apparatus is configured to retain, by the ramped surface, the strand in the second channel between the leg of the cutting apparatus and the top surface of the lid after an end portion of the strand is cut,” is indefinite. As best understood, the function of retaining requires a strand having a particular diameter and a particular space between the blade and ramp. A “small” diameter rope would not be retained where a “large” diameter rope would be retained. As such, whether the claim is infringed depends on the diameter of an unclaimed rope. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 8-11, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,172,841 to Friedman in view of US 1,169,052 to Nicholson.
In re Claim 1, Friedman teaches a string-cutting assembly (see Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a container configured to hold a spool of string within an interior volume of the container (see Figs. 1-2, container #66), wherein the container is substantially cylindrical (see Figs. 1-2);
a lid removably coupled to the container (see Figs. 1-2, #68), wherein at least the lid defines a first channel configured to guide a strand of the spool of string from within the interior volume to an exterior of the container (see Figs. 1-2, #72); and
a blade assembly (assembly #12 including blade #38) removably coupled to the lid (see Figs. 1-2, #86).
Friedman does not teach:
a leg, wherein the leg and a top surface of the lid form a second channel, wherein the leg at least partially defines an opening; and
a blade disposed within the opening, wherein the second channel is configured to guide the strand to the blade, and wherein the blade assembly is configured to pinch the strand between the leg and the top surface of the lid in the second channel after an end portion of the strand is cut.
However, Nicholson teaches that it is known to provide a removable blade assembly (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6) comprising:
a leg (see annotated Fig. 6, below), wherein the leg and a top surface of the lid form a second channel, wherein the leg at least partially defines an opening; and
a blade disposed within the opening (see annotated Fig. 6, below), wherein the second channel is configured to guide the strand to the blade (see Fig. 6 and annotated Fig. 6, below, showing the rope passing “behind” the assembly” and then “up” through the second channel/opening below the leg and through the opening to contact the blade),, and wherein the blade assembly is configured to pinch the strand between the leg and the top surface of the lid in the second channel after an end portion of the strand is cut (the Examiner note that bottom of the “leg” in Fig. 6 of Nicholson is angled and would pinch a strand with a certain diameter that is unclaimed – see Annotated Fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
620
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, cutting assemblies for strands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the cutting assembly on the lid of Friedman and replace it with the cutting assembly taught by Nicholson. Dong so is the substation of one known strand cutting assembly or another known strand cutting assembly to achieve the result of cutting a strand (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 4, modified Friedman, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the first channel has a width between approximately 2 mm and 4 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to change the channel size depending upon the diameter of the rope. A rope with a radius of 1mm would require a 2mm channel and a rope with a radius of 2mm would require a 4mm channel, etc.
In re Claim 8, modified Friedman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the blade assembly comprises a fixture forming one or more grooves to hold the blade (see Nicholson, Fig. 5, slot #22 which receives blade #24), and wherein the fixture at least partially forms the second channel between a bottom surface of the fixture and a top surface of the lid (see Nicholson, Fig. 6, bottom surface of leg and surface #36 form the second channel).
In re Claim 9, Friedman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the fixture comprises a ramp on the bottom surface of the fixture at least partially forming the second channel (see Nicholson, Figs. 1 and 6 the bottom of #19), and wherein the strand is pinched between the ramp and the top surface of the lid in the second channel after the portion of the strand is cut (a strand with a particular diameter would be capable of being pinched between the ramp of #19 in Nicholson and the top surface of the lid in Friedman, see Friedman Figs. 1-3 in view of Nicholson, Figs. 1 and 4-6).
In re Claim 10, modified Friedman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the blade is oriented in the blade assembly such that a cuffing edge of the blade substantially faces away from the second channel (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6, blade #24 in view of Applicant’s figures).
In re Claim 11, modified Friedman, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising: a bracket removably coupled to the container (see Friedman, Fig. 2, #10/100), wherein the string-cutting assembly is to be supported by a support structure via the bracket (see Friedman, Fig. 2, #102/98 interact #110/108 to support the string cutting assembly by bracket #10/100).
In re Claim 17, Friedman teaches a system (see Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a canister configured to house a spool of string (see Figs. 1-2, container #66);
a lid removably coupled to the canister, wherein at least one of the canister or the lid form a first channel (see Figs. 1-2, #72); and
a cutting apparatus removably coupled to the lid (see Figs. 1-2, assembly #12 including blade #80),
Friedman does not teach the cutting apparatus comprises:
a leg, wherein the leg and a top surface of the lid form a second channel, wherein the leg at least partially defines an opening of the cuffing apparatus, and wherein the leg comprises a ramped surface facing the top surface of the lid; and
a blade disposed within the opening, wherein the first channel is configured to guide a strand of string from the spool disposed within the canister to the second channel, wherein the second channel is configured to guide the strand of string between the leg and the top surface of the lid to the opening, and wherein the opening is configured to guide the strand of string to the blade.
However, Nicholson teaches a leg (see annotated Fig. 6, above), wherein the leg and a top surface of the lid form a second channel (see annotated Fig. 6, above), wherein the leg at least partially defines an opening of the cuffing apparatus(see annotated Fig. 6, above), and wherein the leg comprises a ramped surface facing the top surface of the lid (see Nicholson Fig. 1, in view of Fig. 6); and
a blade disposed within the opening (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6, #24), wherein the first channel is configured to guide a strand of string from the spool disposed within the canister to the second channel (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6), wherein the second channel is configured to guide the strand of string between the leg and the top surface of the lid to the opening (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6), and wherein the opening is configured to guide the strand of string to the blade (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6).
In the same field of invention, cutting assemblies for strands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the cutting assembly on the lid of Friedman and replace it with the cutting assembly taught by Nicholson. Dong so is the substation of one known strand cutting assembly or another known strand cutting assembly to achieve the result of cutting a strand (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 19, modified Friedman, in re Claim 17, teaches wherein the cutting apparatus is configured to retain, by the ramped surface, the strand in the second channel between the leg of the cutting apparatus and the top surface of the lid after and end portion of the strand is cut (the examiner notes that the strand is not claimed, and neither is a diameter of the strand. In order to read on the claim a certain sized diameter of strand is required. As best understood, a there is a strand with a diameter that will be retained by the surface #19 of Nicholson in Figs. 1/6).
In re Claim 20, modified Friedman, in re Claim 17, teaches wherein the blade is oriented in the blade assembly such that a cuffing edge of the blade substantially faces away from the second channel (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6, blade #24 in view of Applicant’s figures).
Claims 2-3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,172,841 to Friedman in view of US 1,169,052 to Nicholson, and further in view of US 20012/0091249 to Crossett.
In re Claim 2, modified Friedman, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the first channel is defined at least in part by a first cutout in a rim of the lid.
However, Crossett teaches that it is known in the art of dispensing workpieces of a strand shape, to provide an the opening or first channel defined by a cutout in a rim of the lid (see Crossett, Fig. 1-3, #40/30).
In the same field of invention, dispensers for strand shaped workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the dispenser any reasonable shape including having channels defined by a cut out in a rim of the lid, as taught by Crossett. Doing so is the substation one know hole orientation/position for another known hole orientation/position to achieve the results of dispensing a strand type workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 3, modified Friedman, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein the first channel is further defined by a second cutout in a side of the container (see Crossett, Figs. 1-3, #30/40), and wherein the first cutout and the second cutout are aligned when the lid is removably coupled to the container (see Fig. 3).
In re Claim 18, modified Friedman, in re Claim 17, does not teach wherein the first channel is defined by a first cutout in a rim of the lid and a second cutout in a side of the canister, and wherein the first cutout and the second cutout are aligned when the lid is removably coupled to the canister.
However, Crossett teaches that it is known in the art of dispensing workpieces of a strand shape, to provide an the opening or first channel defined by a cutout in a rim of the lid (see Crossett, Fig. 1-3, #40). and a second cutout in a side of the canister (see Crossett, Figs. 1-3, #30), and wherein the first cutout and the second cutout are aligned when the lid is removably coupled to the canister (see Crossett, Fig. 3).
In the same field of invention, dispensers for strand shaped workpieces, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the dispenser any reasonable shape including having channels defined by a cut out in a rim of the lid, as taught by Crossett. Doing so is the substation one know hole orientation/position for another known hole orientation/position to achieve the results of dispensing a strand type workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,172,841 to Friedman in view of US 1,169,052 to Nicholson, and further in view of US 2004/0200332 to Chen.
In re Claim 5, modified Freidman, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the blade assembly is removably coupled to the lid by two or more fasteners (see Freidman, Fig. 2, #86/94), and a first fastener (see Fig. 2, #94), the first fastener configured to receive a second fastener (see Freidman, Fig. 2, fastener #94 receives fastener #86); however, Freidman does not teach wherein the lid comprises a first fastener embedded in a top surface of the lid.
Chen teaches that it is known to provide fasteners embedded in the structure that the fastener is located in (see Chen, Fig. 1, threaded holes #27 that receive fastener #55). In the same field of invention, attachment of blades/edges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide threads in the structure in which fasteners are inserted, as taught by Chen. Doing so allows the assembly without the need for nuts which can be lost or misplaced, and prevent the assembly of the tool if the nuts are lost.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,172,841 to Friedman in view of US 1,169,052 to Nicholson, and further in view of US 2004/0200332 to Chen, and further in view of US 1,784,258 to Tynan.
In re Claim 6, modified Freidman, in re Claim 5, does not teach wherein the second fastener passes through a hole formed in the blade to secure the blade assembly to the lid.
However, Tynan teaches that it is known in the art of dispensing strands to provide a cutting structure where a threaded fastener/screw/bolt passes through a hole formed in the blade to secure the blade to the assembly (see Tynan, Figs 1-4, and 7, #24/23).
In the same field of invention, cutting structures for strands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to extend the fastener, i.e. provide a longer fastener, of Nicholson that secures the blade, by extending that fastener’s length into the lid, as Tynan teaches using the fastener the secures the blade to secure the blade assembly to the overall assembly. Doing so is the substation of one known cutting structure for another known cutting structure to achieve the result of cutting a strand (see MPEP 2143, I, B). This would reduce fasteners required, thus saving the cost of a single fastener.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,172,841 to Friedman in view of US 1,169,052 to Nicholson, and further in view of US 2009/0072074 to Tsai.
In re Claim 7, modified Friedman, in re Claim 1, teaches the blade assembly on the top surface of the lid; however, the blade is not disposed within a recess formed in the top surface of the lid.
However, Tsai teaches that it is known in the art to provide a recess in which the blade is located (see Tsai, Fig. 2, #14/21/20/30, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to locate the blade assembly of Nicholson in a recess on the lid of Friedman, as taught by Tsai. Doing so lowers the cutter, which avoids hurting the users (see Tsai, Para. 0030).
Claims 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,169,052 to Nicholson in view of US 5,172,841 to Friedman.
In re Claim 12, Nicholson teaches a blade assembly, comprising:
a blade holder configured to removably coupled (see Figs. 4-6) wherein the blade holder comprises a leg at least partially defining an opening (see annotated Fig. 6, below); and
a blade retained within the blade holder (see Figs. 4-6, blade #24), wherein the blade holder at least partially forms a channel to guide a strand of string to the blade (see annotated Fig. 6, below), and wherein the blade holder is further configured to pinch the strand between the leg and a top surface of the lid in the channel after an end portion of the strand is cut (see Fig. 6, in view of Fig. 1 – the examiner notes that the blade assembly does not required the strand. What is being claimed is the tool and not the workpiece. As best understood, a certain size strand would be pinched with the structure disclosed in Nicholson – as such, the structure of Nicholson reads on the claims – see annotated Fig. 6, below in view of Annotated Fig. 1, above).
PNG
media_image3.png
426
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nicolson is silent as to the blade holder being coupled to a lid.
However, Friedman teaches that it is known to couple a strand cutter to a lid (see Friedman, Figs. 1-2). In the same field of invention, cutting devices for strands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the cutter of Nicholson to a lid of a strand dispenser as taught by Friedman. Doing so assures the user that when dispensing the strand there is a cutter available, thus saving time and allowing more cuts to occur in a given time period. In other words, attaching the cutter to a strand dispenser assures the user that there is a mechanism to cut the strand at all time.
In re Claim 14, modified Nicholson, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the blade holder forms one or more grooves to hold the blade (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6, grooves in which blade #24 is located), and wherein the blade holder is configured to at least partially form the channel between a bottom surface of the blade holder and a top surface of the lid (see Nicholson Fig. 1 and 4-6 in view of Friedman Figs. 1-2).
In re Claim 15, Nicholson, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the blade holder comprises a ramp on the bottom surface of the blade holder at least partially forming the channel (see Nicholson, Figs. 1 and 6 the bottom of #19), and wherein the ramp is configured to pinch the strand between the ramp and the top surface of the lid in the channel after the end portion of the strand is cut (a strand with a particular diameter would be capable of being pinched between the ramp of #19 in Nicholson and the tp surface of the lid in Friedman, see Friedman Figs. 1-3 in view of Nicholson, Figs. 1 and 4-6).
In re Claim 16, modified Nicholson, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the blade is oriented in the blade assembly such that a cuffing edge of the blade substantially faces away from the second channel (see Nicholson, Figs. 4-6, blade #24 in view of Applicant’s figures
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,169,052 to Nicholson in view of US 5,172,841 to Friedman and further in view of US 1,784,258 to Tynan.
In re Claim 13, modified Nicholson, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the blade assembly is configured to removably couple to the lid by a fastener (see Friedman, Figs. 1-2, #86) passing through a hole formed in the blade (see Friedman, Fig. 1-2).
However, Tynan teaches that it is known in the art of dispensing strands to provide a cutting structure where a threaded fastener/screw/bolt passes through a hole formed in the blade to secure the blade to the assembly (see Tynan, Figs 1-4, and 7, #24/23).
In the same field of invention, cutting structures for strands, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to extend the fastener, i.e. provide a longer fastener, of Nicholson that secures the blade, by extending that fastener’s length into the lid, as Tynan teaches using the fastener the secures the blade to secure the blade assembly to the overall assembly. Doing so is the substation of one known cutting structure for another known cutting structure to achieve the result of cutting a strand (see MPEP 2143, I, B). This would reduce fasteners required, thus saving the cost of a single fastener.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Friedman does not anticipate the amended independent Claims. The Examiner agrees. However, as discussed above, Friedman in view of Nicholson or Nicholson in view of Friedman anticipate the independent claims.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claims apparatus are directed to the structure of a cutting device and do not affirmatively claim a strand or a diameter of the strand. As such, the structure of the cutting device is being claimed. The structure of Nicholson is capable of pinching a strand, and therefore reads on the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 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 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724