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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 11/26/2025 in which claims 1-9 are pending, and claims 1, 3, and 9 are currently amended.
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 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suetsugu (CN 113043335) in view of Echelman et al. (U.S. Patent 9,828,117), herein referred to as Echelman.
In regards to claim 1, Suetsugu discloses a cutter machine, comprising: a first blade (10); a second blade (20) configured to rotate relative to the first blade; a base member (a handle of blade 20; not shown) supporting the first blade and the second blade; a screw member (40 bolt) including a head portion (bolt head 46) and a shaft portion (41) extending from the head portion which is a proximal end of the shaft portion and threaded with an outer thread, wherein the screw member (40) fastens the first blade (10) and the base member (handle of blade 20) to each other by having the outer thread screwed with an inner thread (e.g. of 30); a looseness restraint member (60) attached to the shaft portion and configured to be pressed by the head portion (46) to restrain loosening of the screw member; and a fall-off restraint member (70 or alternatively circular plate 43) attached to the shaft portion on a distal side of the shaft portion relative to the looseness restraint member and configured to restrain the looseness restraint member (60) from moving relative to the shaft portion in a direction from a proximal side to the distal side of the shaft portion.; wherein the looseness restraint member (60) comprises a plate portion extending along a substantial truncated conical shape increasing in diameter from the proximal side to the distal side of the shaft; and a plurality of teeth disposed on an outer circumference of the plate portion, each of the plurality of teeth protruding in a direction along which the plate portion extends and each of the plurality of teeth is arranged along the outer circumference of the plate portion.
Suetsugu does not disclose the highlighted limitations wherein the restraint member has a plurality of teeth extending along the outer circumference of the plate portion. Attention is directed to the Echelman tensioning apparatus which while being outside of the shear and cutting art is pertinent to the nut/bolt clamping fasteners. Echelman discloses that it is known to substitute a lock nut for any nut known in the art, among them “including a hex nut, jam nut, wing nut, cap nut, acorn nut, tee nut, square nut, prevailing torque lock nut (i.e., a non-reversible lock nut), k-lock or kep nut, two-way reversible lock nut, coupling nut, slotted nut, or castle nut” (see col. 16, lines 5-10). A kep nut is a nut having an attached washer with teeth which resists loosening dur to vibration or movement. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the nut of Suetsugu with a kep nut as taught by Echelman. Locking nuts, including lock nuts and kep-nuts are recognized art equivalents used to resist loosening of threaded fasteners. Substituting one known locking fastener for another therefore represents the substitution of known equivalents to obtain the predictable results of preventing loosening of the fastener, which would have been within the routine skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See KRS International CO. v Teleflex Inc.
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Suetsugu discloses wherein the looseness restraint member (nut member 60) comprises: a first surface facing to the proximal side of the shaft portion; and a second surface facing to the distal side of the shaft portion, and a shape of the first surface when viewed from the proximal side of the shaft portion and a shape of the second surface when viewed from the distal side of the shaft portion are different from each other (see Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Suetsugu discloses wherein the fall off restraint member is an elastic member (thin circular plate 43) having a substantial ring shape and an inner diameter of the fall off restraint member when the fall off restraint member is unloaded (e.g. the blades are disassembled) is smaller than an outer diameter of the shaft portion (43 cannot pass over second bolt portion 42, and therefore the inner diameter is smaller).
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Suetsugu discloses wherein the first blade or the base member comprises: a through-hole through (shaft hole 15) which the shaft portion (41) is configured to pass; a contact surface (bottom surface of 11 or top surface of 10) configured to contact the looseness restraint member (60; fig. 4); and a recess (11) disposed along a periphery of the through-hole (15) and configured to allow at least a part of the fall-off restraint member (70) to retreat to an inner side relative to the contact surface.
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Suetsugu discloses wherein the recess (11) is smoothly connected to the contact surface (bottom surface of 11 or top surface of 10).
In regards to claim 7, the modified device of Suetsugu discloses wherein the fall-off restraint member (70) is attached to the shaft portion (41) with the fall-off restraint member (70) compressed outward in a radial direction of the shaft portion (fig. 4).
In regards to claim 8, the modified device of Suetsugu discloses wherein the fall-off restraint member (70) is hidden by the looseness restraint member (60) when viewed from the proximal side of the shaft portion.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suetsugu (CN 113043335) in view of Echelman et al. (U.S. Patent 9,828,117), herein referred to as Echelman and in further view of Blomberg et al. (U.S. Patent 2,709,300). The modified device of Suetsugu does not disclose that the hand shears are electric and therefore does not disclose a motor shaft connected to the second blade, and an electric motor configured to rotate the electric shaft, wherein the electric motor being driven, the first blade and the second blade are rotated relative to each other to perform a cutting operation. Bloomberg sets forth several embodiments, wherein hand shears (see e.g. fig. 4) can be adapted to a conventional power drill having a motor in order to provide a powered shearing mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provided a motor and output shaft to drive the shears of Suetsugu as taught by Blomberg rather than rely on hand power in order to automate the cutting operation and reduce the manual effort require to operate the shears, thereby improving cutting efficiency. Additionally, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
In regards to claim 9, the modified device of Suetsugu discloses wherein the fall-off restraint member (70) is an elastic member having a substantial ring shape (fig. 3), the first blade or the base member comprises: a through-hole (15 or 25) through which the shaft portion (41) is configured to pass; a contact surface (11s) configured to contact the looseness restraint member (70); and a recess (11) disposed along a periphery of the through-hole (15) and configured to allow at least a part of the fall-off restraint member to retreat to an inner side relative to the contact surface, the recess is smoothly connected to the contact surface (11s), the cutter machine further comprises: a motor shaft connected to the second blade (as modified by Blomberg); and an electric motor (as modified by Blomberg) configured to rotate the motor shaft, by the electric motor being driven, the first blade and the second blade are rotated relative to each other to perform a cutting operation, the fall-off restraint member (70) is attached to the shaft portion with the fall-off restraint member compressed outward in a radial direction of the shaft portion, and the fall-off restraint member (70) is hidden by the looseness restraint member (60) when viewed from the proximal side of the shaft portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724