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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claim(s) 16, 19-20, and 22-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nene (US 20120047751) . Regarding claim 16, Nene discloses A cutting tool, comprising: two blades (Figure 1, items 104 and 112 show two blades) , each having a cutting edge (Figure 1 shows each blade having an edge that face each other to cut) and being movable relative to one another in a cutting configuration to cut a material (Figures 2 and 3 show the cutting configuration where the blades are attached and configured to cut a material. The cutting configuration can be variable between fully closed and the angle at which the blades can separate) , wherein the cutting tool can be reversibly transferred from the cutting configuration to a sharpening configuration in which: the blades are separated from one another for sharpening and/or polishing the cutting edges by a sharpening or polishing device (paragraphs 0017-0019 describe that the blades can be separated from each other. The blades being sharpened or polished is a functional limitation provided in an apparatus claim and as such the structure must simply be capable of providing the function. As the blades are capable of being sharpened or polished, the limitations are met. See MPEP 2173.05(g)) , and each of the blades can be individually placed onto a level surface so that the blade is oriented at a constant working angle in relation to the level surface (Each of the blades is capable of being placed on a level surface to provide polishing or grinding, so this limitation is met) , or the blades are locked relative to one another (Figure 2 shows that the blades can be locked together via the key where sharpening can happen by opening the blades and grinding or polishing the cutting edges) . Regarding claim 1 9 , Nene discloses that at least one of the blades comprises at least three support sections which define a support plane upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface (The limitations simply require three sections to define a plane that the blade can be placed upon. As such, the two side edges and the back edge of 110 as shown in Figure 2 serve as the support sections that combine to form a plane of the top surface of the blade 110) , and wherein the three support sections do not lie on one line (Figure 2 shows that the two side edges on the left and right of 110 and the back edge above item 120 serve to define the plane and Figure 2 shows that none of them lie on the same line). Regarding claim 20, Nene discloses that at least one of the blades comprises a support section which defines a support plane upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface such that the cutting edge of the blade extends in a plane that is oriented at an angle of maximally 10 ° to the support plane . As described in the rejection of claim 19 above, the top surface of item 110 and 112 meets the limitations of the support plane. Figure 4 shows that the cutting edge (the surface where 110 and 102 meet) is parallel to the top surface 110 and as such the blade extends in a plane that is 0° to the support plane which is less than the maximum of 10°. Regarding claim 22, Nene discloses that at least one of the blades comprises a support section which defines a support plane upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface such that when projected onto the support plane (As described in the rejection of claim 19 above, the top surface of item 110 and 112 meets the limitations of the support plane) , the cutting edge of the blade, starting from an intersection with the other cutting edge, lies completely outside the other blade (Figures 1 and 2 show that when open in a sharpening configuration, the top surface of item 112 from where the two edges intersect to the tip does not overlap with the other blade 104). Regarding claim 23, Nene discloses that a support section which defines a support plane upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface (As described in the rejection of claim 19 above, the top surface of item 110 and 112 meets the limitations of the support plane) , and wherein a blade body of the blade rests on a handle of the other blade when in the sharpening configuration (As described in the rejection of claim 16 above, this is a functional limitation. As the two blades can be separated, it is possible to rest the blade body of one blade on the handle of the other during sharpening and no further structural limitations were required and as such the limitations are met). Regarding claim 24, Nene discloses that at least one of the blades comprises a support section which defines a support plane upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface (As described in the rejection of claim 19 above, the top surface of item 110 and 112 meets the limitations of the support plane) such that when projected onto the support plane, the support section lies below the blade (The directions of above and below are not provided, so because the support surface exists on one side of the blade, it is below the blade) and does not protrude above the blade or the cutting edge (Figures 1-4 show that the support section does not extend to the other side of the blade and as such does not project above the blade or cutting edge). Regarding claim 25, Nene discloses that each of the blades comprises the cutting edge at a first end and a handle at a second end (Figure 1 shows a cutting edge at 112 and 104 and a handle at 128 and 128’) , and wherein the handle or a back of the blade facing away from the cutting edge comprises a support section upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface . No structure is given to the support section other than that it is located on the handle and that the blade can be deposited on it in the sharpening configuration. Either of the surfaces of 128 and 128’ can be rested against a surface in a cutting configuration and there is no limitations given to what the stability required so any points of the handle can serve as the support section. Regarding claim 26, Nene discloses that the cutting tool is scissors (Figure 1) and the blades in the cutting configuration are arranged crosswise on an axis between the handle and the cutting edge of each blade and are rotatably mounted relative to one another such that the handles and the cutting edges of each blade are opposite one another (Figures 1-4 show the blades being rotated and mounted to each other through the key and show the cutting edges of 104 and 112 facing each other) , wherein the cutting tool comprises at least one support section upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface (The protrusion 120 can serve as the support section as it is possible for the blade to be held against it for sharpening) , the support section protruding along the axis and formed as part of the axis or detachably coupled to the cutting tool (Figures 2 and 3 show the tab 120 being arranged on the rotational axis of the scissors). Regarding claim 27, Nene discloses that the axis for transferring the cutting tool between the cutting configuration and the sharpening configuration is detachable from at least one of the blades, so that the blades are separable from one another or lockable in a different configuration relative to one another . Paragraphs 0017-0019 describes that the two blades are separable from each other with the tab 120 being mounted on one of the blades. Thereby, the axis is detachable from the other of the blades or lockable when engaged. Regarding claim 28, Nene discloses that the axis has a detachably couplable screw bolt and a matching cap nut, or the axis is attached to one of the blades and forms a male part of a bayonet lock which is detachably coupled to a female part of the bayonet lock on the other of the blades . Figures 1-4 show that the tab and recess form a male and female part of a bayonet lock between the two blades. Regarding claim 29, Nene discloses that each of the blades includes a blade body comprising the cutting edge, wherein the blade body of one blade at least partially overlaps or contacts the handle of the other blade in the sharpening configuration (The limitations do not describe in what direction the two overlap each other and Figure 2 shows the interference portions 124 and 124’ align with each of the opposing blades, they overlap each other when viewed from the side of the handle) , and wherein each of the handles has a handle opening, and the blade body of one blade at least partially covers the handle opening of the other blade in the sharpening configuration (Again, when viewed from the side, the blade body and handles would cover the openings if viewed from a side angle with the blades open to sharpen. Alternatively, with the blades separated for the sharpening configuration, the blades can be placed over each other for sharpening as the blades are capable of being moved independently. Such positioning limitations for sharpening are functional limitations and as the structure was provided and the blades are capable of being moved independently, the limitations are met) . Regarding claim 30, Nene discloses that the blades in the cutting configuration are reversibly transferable between an open position in which the material can be arranged between the cutting edges (Any orientation of Figures 1-2 that shows a gap between the two blades 112 and 104 or an orientation where the blades are separated and not perfectly aligned meets the limitation of an open position as material can be placed between them) and a closed position in which the cutting edges lie directly on top of one another (Figures 3-4_ , and wherein the cutting tool in the open position can be transferred to the sharpening configuration by locking the blades (As described above, the open position can exist with the blades separated and the sharpening configuration can exist with the blades attached or detached. Because of this, it is possible for the blades to be moved from the open position with the blades detached to a sharpening configuration with the blades attached by locking the blades together with the key 108. The BRI of “locked” does not require the two items to be immovable relative to each other and simply requires them to be fixed to one another). Regarding claim 31, Nene discloses that the cutting edges in the sharpening configuration define an opening angle in the range of 135 ° to 180 ° . As described above, positioning limitations for sharpening are functional limitations and as the structure was provided and the blades are capable of being moved independently, the limitations are met. Because the blades can be separated and moved independently during the sharpening configuration, any opening angle between the cutting edges can be provided and are disclosed by the prior art. Without requiring the sharpening configuration of this claim to have the blades attached to each other, the limitations do not require the two blades to be attached. Regarding claim 32, Nene discloses that the blades are magnetically or mechanically locked in the sharpening configuration . Figures 1-4 show that the blades are mechanically locked to each other through the key. As described above, the sharpening configuration can exist while the blades are attached to each other and as such the blades in the sharpening configuration are locked to each other. The BRI of “locked” does not require the two items to be immovable relative to each other and simply requires them to be fixed to one another. Regarding claim 33, Nene discloses that the blades can be detached from each other and coupled to each other in a different arrangement for transferring the cutting tool from the cutting configuration to the sharpening configuration . Paragraphs 0017-0019 describes that the two blades are separable from each other with the tab 120 being mounted on one of the blades. Regarding claim 34, Nene discloses that blade bodies of the blades in the sharpening configuration are oriented in different, non-parallel planes, transversely or perpendicularly to one another . As described above, positioning limitations for sharpening are functional limitations and as the structure was provided and the blades are capable of being moved independently, the limitations are met. Because the blades are separated from each other, they can be oriented in any way relative to each other in the sharpening configuration and disclose the non-parallel plane orientation. Claim(s) 36 -38 and 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Noguchi (JP 2010149272) . Regarding claim 36, Noguchi discloses A method for sharpening and/or polishing a cutting tool including two blades each having a cutting edge (Figure 3, items A1 and A2) , where the blades can be moved relative to one another in a cutting configuration of the cutting tool for cutting a material (Figure 3 shows scissors with handles which can have a cutting configuration when the blades are rotated about the axis and closed) , the method comprising: transferring the cutting tool from the cutting configuration to a sharpening configuration in which: the blades are separated from each other and can each be individually placed onto a level surface so that the blade is oriented at a constant working angle in relation to the surface, or the blades are locked relative to one another (Figures 3 and 5 show the blades being locked to one another with a pin extending through both of them. The BRI of “locked” does not require the two items to be immovable relative to each other and simply requires them to be fixed to one another) ; sharpening and/or polishing at least one of the cutting edges in the sharpening configuration with a sharpening or polishing device (Figures 3 and 5 show the blades being sharpened on a grind wheel) ; and transferring the cutting tool from the sharpening configuration to the cutting configuration (As these are scissors and are capable of rotating relative to one another, they can be transferred back to a cutting configuration after sharpening) . Regarding claim 37, Noguchi discloses that the blade with the cutting edge to be sharpened and/or polished is supported on the other blade . Figures 3 and 5 show the blades are in contact with one another and thereby supported on one another when sharpening. Regarding claim 38, Noguchi discloses that the blade with the cutting edge to be sharpened and/or polished is supported on the handle of the other blade . The limitations do not define where the handle starts or ends so the handle is being interpreted as any part of the blade on the other side of the connecting axis from the cutting edge. As can be seen in Figures 3 and 5 the blade and handle points contact each other when connected and the blade is supported on the handle of the blade. Regarding claim 40, Noguchi discloses that the blade with the cutting edge to be sharpened and/or polished is held lying stably on the level surface so that the blade is oriented with its cutting edge at a working angle in the range from 10 ° to 80 ° to the level surface . Figures 2 and 6 show the working angle being about 45 degrees but clearly between 10 and 80 degrees. Regarding claim 41, Noguchi discloses that the cutting edge to be sharpened and/or polished is held in abutment against a sharpening or polishing surface of the sharpening or polishing device, and the sharpening or polishing device is thereby moved along the cutting edge alternately in a first direction and in a second, opposite, direction, or repeatedly in one of the first direction or the second direction . Paragraph 0060 describes that the blades are moved back and forth against the buffing wheel in a horizontal direction. Regarding claim 42, Noguchi discloses that sharpening and/or polishing at least one of the cutting edges comprises sharpening and/or polishing both of the cutting edges, sequentially, and wherein the positions of the blades are exchanged between the sharpening and/or polishing of one cutting edge and the sharpening and/or polishing of the other cutting edge, such that in each case the blade not being sharpened and/or polished supports the blade that is being sharpened and/or polished in the sharpening configuration. Figures 3 and 5 show sharpening the blades one at a time with the other being capable of being sharpened. As such, the blades are shifted between sharpening one and then sharpening the other. Claim(s) 36 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita (JP 2006281334) . Regarding claim 36, Yamashita discloses A method for sharpening and/or polishing a cutting tool including two blades each having a cutting edge, where the blades can be moved relative to one another in a cutting configuration of the cutting tool for cutting a material (Par. 0032) , the method comprising: transferring the cutting tool from the cutting configuration (Par. 0032 describes a cutting configuration where the two are attached) to a sharpening configuration (Par. 0012 describes the disassembled sharpening configuration) in which: the blades are separated from each other (Par. 0012) and can each be individually placed onto a level surface so that the blade is oriented at a constant working angle in relation to the surface (Figures 1-3 show each blade being individually placed on the surface 47) , or the blades are locked relative to one another; sharpening and/or polishing at least one of the cutting edges in the sharpening configuration with a sharpening or polishing device (Figure 1, described in paragraphs 0012-0014) ; and transferring the cutting tool from the sharpening configuration to the cutting configuration (Par. 0032) . Regarding claim 40, Yamashita discloses that the blade with the cutting edge to be sharpened and/or polished is held lying stably on the level surface so that the blade is oriented with its cutting edge at a working angle in the range from 10 ° to 80 ° to the level surface . Paragraph 0017 describes that the angle of sharpening can be 30 to 40 degrees which lies completely within the range claimed. Regarding claim 41, Yamashita discloses that the cutting edge to be sharpened and/or polished is held in abutment against a sharpening or polishing surface of the sharpening or polishing device, and the sharpening or polishing device is thereby moved along the cutting edge alternately in a first direction and in a second, opposite, direction, or repeatedly in one of the first direction or the second direction . Paragraphs 0012-0014 describe moving at least one of the blades along the sharpening surface repeatedly to sharpen the blade. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nene (US 20120047751) . Regarding claim 21, Nene discloses the limitations of claim 16 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Nene does not explicitly disclose that at least one of the blades comprises a support section which defines a support plane upon which the blade can be stably deposited in the sharpening configuration on the level surface such that the cutting edge of the blade has a distance in the range of 5 to 50 mm from the support plane . Regarding the distance between the cutting edge and the support plane , The Applicant has not disclosed that having the distance be in the range of 5 to 50 mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and thus it appears that the orientation provided by the design of Nene would perform equally well with the specified structure as claimed by applicant. The specification of the instant application has not provided any criticality to the specific measurement claimed ( the specification only provides the specific range and does not provide any importance or criticality to the range ). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the shape of the blade and cutting edge to have the distance of the cutting edge be in the range of 5 to 50 mm from the support plane as claimed and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it would allow the structure to have a specific design and orientation for sharpening or cutting of material. Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nene (US 20120047751) in view of Noguchi (JP 2010149272) . Regarding claim 35 , Nene discloses the limitations of claim 16 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Nene does not explicitly disclose the sharpening jig and required structure. Nene and Noguchi are analogous prior art because both describe scissor structures. Noguchi teaches a sharpening jig with which each of the blades of the cutting tool can be arranged on the level surface in an assembled or disassembled state of the cutting tool (Figures 3 and 5 show the scissors in the assembled state being placed against the level surface of the wheel) , such that the blade is oriented at a working angle in the range of 10 ° to 80 ° to the surface (U) (Figures 2 and 6 show the working angle being about 45 degrees but clearly between 10 and 80 degrees) , wherein the sharpening jig is fixedly connected to the cutting tool at least in the cutting configuration and/or is adjustable relative to at least one of the blades for transferring the cutting tool into the sharpening configuration (Figures 1-5 show the blades and jig being adjustable relative to each other to provide the sharpening configuration). The jig of Noguchi provides a low cost polishing apparatus (abstract) that is compatible with assembled scissors and allows for a constant angle of polishing for the scissor blades while also allowing anyone to easily obtain the angle (Par. 0010). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the jig of Noguchi with the scissors of Nene because the jig of Noguchi provides a low-cost polishing apparatus (abstract) that is compatible with assembled scissors and allows for a constant angle of polishing for the scissor blades while also allowing anyone to easily obtain the angle (Par. 0010). Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nene (US 20120047751) in view of Yamashita (JP 2006281334) . Regarding claim 35 , Nene discloses the limitations of claim 16 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Nene does not explicitly disclose the sharpening jig and required structure. Nene and Yamashita are analogous prior art because both describe scissor structures. Noguchi teaches a sharpening jig with which each of the blades of the cutting tool can be arranged on the level surface in an assembled or disassembled state of the cutting tool (figure 3 shows the blades being arranged on the surface 47 in a disassembled state) , such that the blade is oriented at a working angle in the range of 10 ° to 80 ° to the surface (U) (Paragraph 0017 describes that the angle of sharpening can be 30 to 40 degrees which lies completely within the range claimed) , wherein the sharpening jig is fixedly connected to the cutting tool at least in the cutting configuration and/or is adjustable relative to at least one of the blades for transferring the cutting tool into the sharpening configuration (Figures 1-4 show attaching the blades to the mount which transfers them into a sharpening configuration) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 17-18 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to claim 17, there is no structure provided in Nene or any of the found prior art that shows a support surface that gives a working angle of 10 to 80 degrees relative to the blade. As can be seen in Nene, the top surface of the blade is not angled relative to the blade and even so, the top surface is a part of the blade and cannot be angled to itself. While the lug 108 could be considered the support surface, the lug is only provided with 90 or 0 degree angles relative to the blade. No other prior art was found with a structure that could meet the limitations of claim 16 while also providing a compliant support surface to meet the angular limitations. Further, Paragraph 0021 of the specification of the instant application provides criticality to this angle and as such any design choice rejection would be improper. With regards to claim 18, there is no structure provided in Nene or any of the found prior art that shows a support surface that has a maximum protrusion in the range of 20 to 90 percent of the maximum width of the blade. This orientation is not shown in Nene and the measurements are not provided and not completely clear that any protrusion of the support plane would meet these limitations. As the drawings cannot be taken to scale, they cannot be relied upon for this specific comparison. Further, Paragraph 0012 of the specification of the instant application provides criticality to this measurement and as such any design choice rejection would be improper With regards to claim 39, no prior art was found that supported the sharpening blade on the back side of the blade relative to the cutting edge. Noguchi shows the blade to be sharpened being supported on the cutting edge and Yamashita does not show the blade being supported on the other blade in any way. Such an orientation would require the blades to be separated and then used in supporting configuration that was not found. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9164 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nathan Wiehe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-8648 . 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. /THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745