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
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a frame lock component” and “a liner lock component” (both cited in claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objection
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claim 1, line 4, “knife hiding space” should read --a knife hiding space--.
(2) In claim 3, line 7, “One” should read --one--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) In claims 1-7, it is unclear how the axis unlocking mechanism 4 is capable of unlocking the folding knife (shown as a blade 3 in Fig.4) or allowing a “locking mode” as required by claim 3. The axis unlocking mechanism 4 is disclosed as comprising a bottom 40, a spring 41, an axis nail 42, a support cylinder 43 and a locking component 44. However, there is no description of how those parts 40,41,42,43,44 of the axis unlocking mechanism 4 positively interacting with the folding knife/blade 3 to allow locking and unlocking of the folding knife/blade 3.
(2) In claim 1, line 14, the description of “after being separated from the knife hiding space” is misleading, and it appears the proper description is --after being rotated out of the knife hiding space--.
(3) In claim 1, lines 14-15, the description of “the axis unlocking mechanism is loosened” is not understood. What does it mean by “is loosened”? How is the axis unlocking mechanism 4 loosened?
(4) In claim 2, lines 5-6, “said button can be embedded into said first through hole” does not agree with Fig.4. By definition, “embed” is “fix to a surrounding mass”. However, from the figure, it appears said button 40 is not embedded/fixed to said first through hole 10 but is movable into and out of the first through hole 10.
(5) In claim 2, lines 9-10 do not agree with Fig.4. As shown in the figure, the bottom end of the spring 41 is not “sleeved” to the top side wall of the support cylinder 43 but abuts against a top end surface of the support cylinder 43. In other words, the figure does not show the spring 41 extending into a space/gap between the axis nail 42 and the support cylinder 43.
(6) In claim 3, lines 7-8, it is not clear how the contact portion is pressed into contact with the bottom end of the axis nail. As shown in Fig.4, the contact portion 412 cannot be pressed into contact with the bottom end of the axis nail 42. It is the axis nail 42 that is movable downward by pressing on the button 40 against the spring 41 to move the bottom end of the axis nail 42 into contact with the contact portion 412.
(7) In claim 3, lines 10-12, it is not understood how the lock brake plate 441 is slidably embedded in the sunken groove 21 and then is matched with the second knife handle 2 in a locking mode. The lock brake plate 441 shown in Fig.4 does not appear to be slidably embedded in the sunken grooved 21. Further, it is not understood how the lock brake plate 441 “matched with” the second knife handle 2 in a locking mode. It is unclear what constitutes the locking mode.
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 1-7 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 1, the term “A center axis button combined liner unlocking folding knife device” is confusing. A center axis button combined with what? What does it mean by “liner” unlocking folding knife? It is suggested the preamble of claim 1 be changed to read --A folding knife--. Claims 2-7 should be amended accordingly.
(2) In claim 1, line 3, it is not understood what “a frame lock component or a liner lock component” is and should be deleted.
(3) In claim 1, lines 6 and 7, “the front end” has no clear antecedent basis and should read --a front end--.
(4) In claim 1, line 8, “a folding knife” should read agree with Fig.1 which shows a knife comprising a knife blade 3. It is suggested “a folding knife” be changed to --a folding blade--. Lines 9, 12 and 15 of claim 1 and claims 2 and 7 should be amended accordingly.
(5) In claim 1, line 9, “it also comprises” is unclear and should be deleted.
(6) In claim 1, line 13, “the circumferential direction” has no clear antecedent basis and should read --a circumferential direction--.
(7) In claim 2, line 6, “the longitudinal direction” and “the side wall” have no clear antecedent basis and should be changed to --a longitudinal direction-- and --a side wall--, respectively.
(8) In claim 2, lines 7-8, “the top end” and “the lower surface” have no clear antecedent basis and should be changed to --a top end-- and --a lower surface--, respectively.
(9) In claim 2, lines 8-9, “the bottom end” and “the top side wall” have no clear antecedent basis and should be changed to --a bottom end-- and --a top side wall--, respectively.
(10) In claim 2, line 13, “the end” lacks antecedent basis and should read --an end--.
(11) In claim 2, line 14, “the outer side wall” has no antecedent basis and should read --an outer side wall--.
(12) In claim 3, line 3, “the end” is vague and indefinite.
(13) In claim 3, lines 3 and 4, “the upper surface” and “the lower surface” lack clear antecedent basis and should read --an upper surface-- and --a lower surface--, respectively.
(14) In claim 3, line 8, “the bottom end” lacks clear antecedent basis and should read --a bottom end--.
(15) In claim 4, line 4, “the peripheral annulus” lacks clear antecedent basis and should read --a peripheral annulus--.
(16) In clam 5, line 3, “the end” is indefinite. It is suggested after “handle”, --in the direction away from said axis unlocking mechanism-- be added. Also, “thereon”, at line 4 of the claim, should be deleted.
(17) In claim 6, line 2, “said screws” has no antecedent basis. It is suggested “said screws are two” be changed to --said at least one screw comprises two screws--.
(18) In clam 7, line 2, “second knife handle” and “folding knife” should read --said second knife handle-- and --said folding blade--, respectively.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
2. Claim limitation “an axis unlocking mechanism” (cited in claim 1) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder “an axis unlocking mechanism” coupled with functional language “when pressed, the folding knife is unfolded to be in a straight state” and “when loosened, the folding knife can be rotated into the knife hiding space” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “unlocking mechanism” is a generic placeholder and is not recognized as the name of a structure but is merely a substitute for the term "means".
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see page 6, line 22 to page 7, line 22 of the specification) that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 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.
2. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 7are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,901,439, hereinafter “Boyd”).
Regarding claim 1, Boyd discloses knife (20, see Fig.2) comprising:
a first knife handle (23) and a second knife handle (24); a knife hiding space (27) formed between the first knife handle (23) and the second knife handle (24), a first through hole (43) formed in a front end of the first knife handle (23), and a second through hole (42) formed in a front end of the second knife handle (24);
a folding blade (21);
an axis unlocking mechanism (29), and the folding blade (21) rotatably arranged between the first through hole (43) and the second through hole (42) via the axis unlocking mechanism (29);
when the axis unlocking mechanism (29) is pressed, the folding blade (21) is unfolded to be in a straight state in a rotating way along a circumferential direction after being rotated out of the knife hiding space (27, see Fig.2); conversely, when the axis unlocking mechanism (29) is loosened (e.g., not locking the blade), the folding blade (21) can be rotated into the knife hiding space (27, see Fig.1) along the circumferential direction.
It is noted that the claimed axis unlocking mechanism (4) has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification. Here, Boyd’s axis unlocking mechanism (29) is deemed to be functional equivalent to that of disclosed and achieves the clamed function and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 5, the end of Boyd’s first knife handle (23) in the direction away from said axis unlocking mechanism (29) is screwed to the end of said second knife handle (24) in the direction away from said axis unlocking mechanism (29) by at least one screw (36, the far-right one as seen in Fig.1).
Regarding clam 6, the two screws (26) at the right end (as seen in Fig.1) of each of the first knife handle (23) and the second knife handle (24) are the claimed two screws that are in the direction away from said unlocking mechanism (29) as compared to the other two screws that are closer to said unlocking mechanism (29).
Regarding claim 7, Boyd further teaches having the folding blade (21) made of steel (see column 3, lines 62-63), and the handle sides (23,24) formed of brass (see column 3, line 65). However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Boyd by using a well-known and commercially available material such as steel to form Boyd’s first knife handle (23) and second knife handle (24) for its durability and availability. The term “integrated part” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. It is noted that “integral” is not necessarily restricted to one-piece article, and is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as a fastener or welding. In re Kohno, (CCPA) 157 USPQ 275; In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, CCPA 1973. In Boyd as modified, the first knife handle (23), the second knife handle (24) and the folding blade (21) are an integrated part made of steel.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2. Clams 2-4 contain allowable subject matter because none of the prior art of record taken alone or in combination thereof shows or fairly suggests a folding knife equipped with the specifically claimed structure for an axis unlocking mechanism of the folding knife.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Nos. 3,942,249; 4,670,984 and 5,964,035 each shows a folding knife equipped with an axial unlocking/locking mechanism.
U.S. Patent No. 4,541,175 is cited to show a folding knife (10) having two screws (52) at one end (e.g., a right end as seen in Fig.1) for fastening two handle halves (16,42) of the knife (10) together.
U.S. Patent No. 47,231,718 shows a folding knife having a blade lockable in multiple positions.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0075037 shows a folding knife (10) comprising an axial unlocking mechanism (22,32,48,50) that is pressable to unlock/lock a blade (14) of the knife (10) for allowing the blade (14) to extend to an in- use position (see Fig.12) and to retract to a storage position when not in use (see Fig.11).
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