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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5)
because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “17” in paragraph [0021] and “19” in paragraph [0022].
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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A bifurcated
dual blade” should be –a bifurcated dule blade—and “Said bifurcated dual blade” should be –said bifurcated dual blade--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 6 is under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 6, the disclosure does not disclose that the spring urged button 26 extends through the frame engagement arm pair 22 of the bifurcated dual blade engagement spring 10. See Figs. 3-4 and 9 of the drawings. This rejection is applied in a case that “said frame” in claim 6 is a reference to the frame engagement arm pair of the bifurcated blade engagement spring as set forth in claim 1.
5. Claim 6 is 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. Regarding claim 6, “said frame” lacks antecedent basis. It should be noted that the handle has frame portions. However, the frame portions of the handle have not been set forth in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a frame engagement arm pairs of the dual blade engagement spring. However, claim 6 does not recite “said frame engagement arm pairs.” In addition, the spring urged button 26 does not pass through the frame engagement arm pairs 22. This is clearly shown in Figs. 3-4 and 9 of the current drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagstrom (WO 2017/194519 A1). Regarding claim 1, Hagstrom teaches an automatic opening folding blade knife 1 comprising, a handle portion 2 defining a recess into which a knife blade 3 is capable of retracting, A bifurcated dual blade engagement spring 5 retained within said handle portion 2, Said bifurcated dual blade engagement spring having elongated pairs of spaced parallel arms (7,14; 13), said arm pairs interconnected to one another defining a frame engagement arm pair 13 and a blade engagement arm pair (7, 14), blade engagement arm pair (7, 14) having interconnected end linkage 7 for direct transverse contact with said knife blade 3 when retracted within the handle recess (Fig. 6), a blade release (21, 22), registerable with said knife blade 3 (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Hagstrom teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade 3 has an apertured proximal end tang with locking and release notches (defined by notches 6) therein.
Regarding claim 3, Hagstrom teaches everything noted above including that the bifurcated dual blade engagement spring applies force on said blade adjacent to said blade release. See Figs. 4-5 in Hagstrom.
Regarding claim 4, Hagstrom teaches everything noted above including that the bifurcated dual blade engagement spring frame engagement arm pairs 13 have respective free ends (defined by the free end of the portion 13) in contact with said handle portion 2.
Regarding claim 5, Hagstrom teaches everything noted above including that the bifurcated dual blade engagement spring pairs of spaced parallel arms further comprises, a single continuous spring wire. See Figs. 4 in Hagstrom.
Regarding claim 7, Hagstrom teaches everything noted above including that the spring pairs of spaced parallel arms (7, 14; 13) are in spaced vertical (as shown in Fig. 4) overlying position to one another (as portion 13 is located below portion (7, 14) .
8. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Steigerwalt et al. (2006/0230620 A1), hereinafter Steigerwalt. Regarding claim 1, Steigerwalt teaches an automatic opening folding blade knife 10 comprising, a handle portion 12 defining a recess into which a knife blade 14 is capable of retracting, A bifurcated dual blade engagement spring (82, 84, 90, 92, 94, 95) retained within said handle portion 12, Said bifurcated dual blade engagement spring having elongated pairs of spaced parallel arms (82, 84, 90, 92), said arm pairs interconnected (by members 94, 96) to one another defining a frame engagement arm pair (82, 84) and a blade engagement arm pair (90, 92), blade engagement arm pair (90, 92) having interconnected end linkage 96 for direct transverse contact with said knife blade 14 when retracted within the handle recess (Fig. 5), a blade release 104, registerable with said knife blade 14 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Steigerwalt teaches everything noted above including that the knife blade 104 has an apertured proximal end tang with locking and release notches (112, 122) therein.
Regarding claim 3, Steigerwalt teaches everything noted above including that the bifurcated dual blade engagement spring applies force on said blade adjacent to said blade release.
Regarding claim 4, Steigerwalt teaches everything noted above including that the bifurcated dual blade engagement spring frame engagement arm pairs have respective free ends in contact with said handle portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagstrom in view of Westerfield (2013/0125403 A1). Regrading claim 6, as best understood, Hagstrom does not explicitly teach that the blade release registerable with said knife blade comprises, a spring urged button extending through said frame and said handle portion. However, Westerfield teaches a folding knife 10 including a blade release 100 registerable with a knife blade 14 comprises, a spring urged button 102 extending through a frame 12 and said handle portion 18. See Figs. 1-12 in Westerfield. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hagstrom’s folding knife with the release mechanism, as taught by Westerfield, in order to provide the knife with an additional locking mechanism to lock the blade in extended and retracted positions.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Flagg et al. (2006/0260137 A1), Cheng (6,810,588 B1), untranslated name (JP 6253866 B1), and Grice (7,676,932 B2) teach an automatic opening folding blade knife.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
August 28, 2025