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 .
Drawings
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, the “first portion height is less than or equal to the second portion height (Claim 1, lines 14-15)” 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.
Specification
The amendment filed May 21, 2025 and January 14, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding Para [0042] of the disclosure, the added material “the ceramic box cutter blade 200, includes first portion 202 extending between first edge 201 and boundary 205 and second portion 204 extending between second edge 203 and boundary 205. First portion 202 and second portion 204 each have a height, which is the measurement between boundary 205 and first edge 201 or second edge 203, respectively. In embodiments of the ceramic box cutter blade 200, the height of each portion 202, 204 may vary relative to the height of the other, with the height of first portion 202 being less than the height of second portion 204 or the height of first portion 202 being equal to the height of the second portion 204” is new matter. The original disclosure did not provide any details to “boundary 205” and there are no details in the disclosure that the drawings are to scale. There are inconsistencies between Figures 5 and 6 making it difficult for the Examiner to reasonably conclude 205 is a “boundary” rather than an additional ink line in the drawings (consistent with the shorter ink lines as set forth in Figure 5). For instance, if 205 is “a boundary,” which dotted line in Figure 6 (see Annotated Figure 1, below) is representative of reference character 205 or is boundary 205 not represented in Figure 6? Figure 6 provides additional dotted lines would could also serve as the “boundary 205” or merely be additional ink markings. At best, as shown in Figures 4 and 6, the cutting blade begins to taper at some point along the blade and there is a “first portion” above the taper and a “second portion” below the taper. Further, the original disclosure did not provide any details to the height of the second of the first portion being less than or equal to the height of the second portion. As previously stated, the drawings, alone, cannot be relied on to teach the specifics of this limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 are rejected 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 for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the ceramic box cutter blade 200, includes first portion 202 extending between first edge 201 and boundary 205 and second portion 204 extending between second edge 203 and boundary 205. First portion 202 and second portion 204 each have a height, which is the measurement between boundary 205 and first edge 201 or second edge 203, respectively. In embodiments of the ceramic box cutter blade 200, the height of each portion 202, 204 may vary relative to the height of the other, with the height of first portion 202 being less than the height of second portion 204 or the height of first portion 202 being equal to the height of the second portion 204” was not disclosed in such a way to reasonably convey that possession was had at the time of the invention and is new matter. The original disclosure did not provide any details to “boundary 205” and there are no details in the disclosure that the drawings are to scale. There are inconsistencies between Figures 5 and 6 making it difficult for the Examiner to reasonably conclude 205 is a “boundary” rather than an additional ink line in the drawings (consistent with the shorter ink lines as set forth in Figure 5). For instance, if 205 is “a boundary,” which dotted line in Figure 6 (see Annotated Figure 1, below) is representative of reference character 205 or is boundary 205 not represented in Figure 6? Figure 6 provides additional dotted lines would could also serve as the “boundary 205” or merely be additional ink markings. At best, as shown in Figures 4 and 6, the cutting blade begins to taper at some point along the blade and there is a “first portion” above the taper and a “second portion” below the taper. Further, the original disclosure did not provide any details to the height of the second of the first portion being less than or equal to the height of the second portion. As previously stated, the Examiner is not solely permitted to rely on the drawings.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,543,402 to Seager in view of US Patent No. 3,279,283 to Craig and in further view of US Patent Application Publication 20070101576 to Green.
In re claim 1, Seager teaches ceramic cutting blade (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first edge (see Annotated Figure 1, on Page 6, below);
a second edge (see Annotated Figure 1, on Pg. 6, below);
a boundary between the first edge and the second edge;
a first portion having a first thickness (see Annotated Figure 1 on Page 6, below) and a first height portion, wherein the first portion height is defined as a distance between the first edge and the boundary;
a second portion having second thickness and a second portion height (see Annotated Figure 1, below), wherein the second portion height is defined as a distance between the second edge and the boundary being defined by the ceramic blade changing in thickness from the first thickness to a second thickness;
a third edge (see Annotated Figure 1, on Pg. 6, below) that extends from a first end of a first edge to a first end of the second edge, and
a fourth edge (see Annotated Figure 1, on Pg. 6, below) that extends from a second end of the first edge to a second end of the second edge;
wherein said second edge is a pointed cutting edge (1);
wherein the ceramic blade is a single part, entirely ceramic unitary blade (Col. 2, lines 41-67) that tapers down in thickness from the boundary to the second edge, the boundary extending from the third edge to the fourth edge of the blade in a plane parallel to the first and second edges;
wherein a first intersection portion (Fig. 1) between said third edge and said second edge;
wherein a second intersection portion (Fig. 1) between said fourth edge and said second edge;
wherein the first intersection portion decreases in thickness from a first thickness to a second thickness in a direction moving from the third edge to the second edge (see Annotated Figure 1, below).
Examiner’s Note, the first and second portion merely have to be capable of meeting at a boundary that is defined by the ceramic blade changing in thickness from the first thickness.
PNG
media_image2.png
4
8
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
523
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Seager teaches a ceramic cutting blade wherein a first portion height between the first edge and the boundary is relative to a second portion height between the second edge and the boundary, but does not teach the first portion height is less than or equal to a second portion height.
Craig provides a teaching in the art of blades of a first portion height (between 15 and 20) is less than a second height (between 17 and 20, which also includes boundaries 16 and 18), in cross-section as shown in at least Figure 1.
Note, Craig has been relied on to teach the first and second height portions, as it is similar to height portions of Applicant’s blade. Further, the claim language does not preclude there being additional boundaries as 16 and 18 of Craig.
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention for the first height portion of modified Seager to have a height less than second portion height as taught by Craig, which is an obvious design choice for shaping a blade, to maintain the strength of the blade, based on the material being cut.
Regarding claim 1, Seager teaches a ceramic cutting blade, but does not teach wherein a first intersection portion between said third and second edge is rounded, wherein a second intersection portion between the fourth edge and the second edge is rounded, wherein the rounded first intersection portion decreases in thickness from a first thickness to a second thickness in a direction moving from a third edge to a second edge, wherein the rounded first intersection portion extends from the third edge to the second edge and is entirely rounded from the third edge to the second edge, and therein the rounded first intersection portion decreases in width from the third edge to the second edge.
Referring to alternative embodiment to Figure 2, Green teaches a blade having a first intersection portion between said third edge and said second edge is rounded (Fig. 2), wherein a second intersection portion between said fourth edge and said second edge is rounded, wherein the rounded first intersection portion extends from the third edge to the second edge and is entirely rounded from the third edge to the second edge (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Seager with first and second intersection portions between the first and second edges and the third and fourth edges with a rounded shape as taught by Green to create a safer blade which reduces the threat of user injury (Para 0006, Green). Seager teaches the blade decreases in thickness in a direction moving from the first edge to the second edge; therefore, the modification of Seager in view of Green would permit the first rounded intersection portion to decrease in width from said third/fourth edge to said second edge and decrease in thickness from a first thickness to a second thickness.
In re claim 5, modified Seager teaches wherein the second cutting edge (1, Seager) that is a pointed cutting edge defines a continuously flat cutting edge.
In re claim 8, modified Seager teaches wherein said second edge is (capable of being) sharpened at an angle of 20 degrees (Col. 2, lines 29-34, Seager).
In re claim 11, modified Seager teaches wherein the second thickness tapers down between the boundary and the second edge to form the pointed cutting edge portion (2, Seager).
Regarding claim 2, Seager teaches a blade, but does not teach the ceramic cutting blade further comprises an engagement means configured to allow the ceramic cutting blade to connect with a cutting tool.
Embodiment to Figure 5 of Green teaches a blade having an engagement means (30) configured to allow the ceramic cutting blade to connect with a cutting tool.
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Seager with engagement means as taught by Green to prevent unwanted movement of the knife during use to maintain cutting accuracy and reduce user injury.
Regarding claim 6, Seager teaches a blade, but does not teach the second edge is longer than said first edge.
Embodiment to Figure 5 of Green teaches a blade having second edge is longer than said first edge (Para 0037).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the blade of Seager having a bottom edge longer than said top edge as taught by Green since square and parallelogram shaped blades are known equivalents (Para 0037, Green) and an obvious matter of design choice based on the intended use and desired cut of the blade.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seager in view of Green, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20040187314 to Johnson.
In re claim 12, modified Seager teaches the first cutting edge has a thickness, but does not teach the first thickness in the range of 0.7-2.0 millimeters.
Johnson teaches a cutting blade having a first edge thickness of less than 1.5 millimeters (Para 0018), which is within the claimed range of 0.7-2.0 millimeters.
Applicant admits one having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate numerous other widths may be used (Pg. 7, Para 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to fabricate the blade of modified Seager blade to have a first thickness of less than 1.5 millimeters as taught by Johnson to maintain cutting a desired material of minimal to moderate thickness and hardness (Para 0004) and preventing the blade from damage while in use.
Regarding claim 10, modified Seager teaches a ceramic cutting blade has a first edge thickness, but does not teach first edge having a thickness of 1.27 millimeters.
Johnson teaches a blade having a thickness of less than 1.5 millimeters, which is inclusive of the claimed thickness of 1.27 mm (Para 0018).
Applicant admits one having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate numerous other widths may be used (Pg. 7, Para 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to fabricate the blade of modified Seager having a thickness of less than 1.5 millimeters, as taught by Johnson to maintain cutting a desired material of minimal to moderate thickness and hardness (Para 0004) and preventing the blade from damage while in use. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of modified Seager would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to dimension the modified blade of Seager in view of Figure 2 of Green to have a specific thickness to cut the desired material while reducing the risk of the blade breaking or chipping during cutting, which is a design need based in the art of cutting blades. Based on the teachings provided by Johnson, the Examiner concluded the thickness modified Seager maintains the desired shape and creates a hard blade to cut a desired material without breaking or chipping during cutting.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Johnson provided a teaching of a specific thickness of less than 1.5 millimeters. Based on the teachings of Johnson, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the thickness, proportionate to the blade body, to perform the intended cutting operation. The value of less than 1.5 mm as taught by Johnson, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various values above and below the less than 1.5 mm before arriving at the thickness which allows the integrity of the blade to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Johnson, that the modified blade of Seager could have a thickness as set forth by Johnson, since the thickness of less than 1.5mm would not jeopardize the intended cutting purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of providing the blade with thickness of less than 1.5mm would still permit the blade to perform its intended cutting operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Johnson teaches a thickness of less than 1.5 mm being applied to a cutting blade, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various radius of curvatures above and below the values of less than 1.5 mm as taught by Johnson to find the thickness that did not jeopardize the integrity of the blade while still providing a blade that cuts the desired material without breaking or chipping the blade.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to the specification; however, the 112, first paragraph rejection been maintained. The subject matter reciting “the first portion height is less than or equal to the second portion height” is new matter per the amendments to the specification filed May 21, 2025. Per MPEP 608.04(a), “Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter.” The subject matter to the first portion height being less than or equal to the second portion height was not originally disclosed and applicant is not permitted to add such matter, per the amendments filed May 21, 2025 and January 14, 2026. The Examiner is not permitted to rely solely on the drawings, if there are no details that the drawings are to scale. As stated above, Para [0042] with respect to the boundary edge and the relationship to the first height being less than or equal to the second height introduced new matter as these are specific structural relationships that were detailed after the original filing of the application that are not clearly shown in the drawings. Figures 4-6 have various inconsistencies including where the “boundary” edge is located as line 205 in Figure 4 is inconsistent with the lines in the cross section of Figure 6.
Applicant argues Craig does not teach a first portion height being less than or equal to a second portion height since the claim defines specific start and end points relative to the other features of the cutting blade.
The claimed subject matter requires the blade to have a first height less than or equal to a second height with respect to the boundary. The “boundary” as defined by the instant application raises ambiguity and the drawings are inconsistent. The instant application is attempting to define the height of the blade above and below the taper of the blade, which was not originally supported. As best understood by the Examiner, Seager teaches a cutting blade having a first height portion defined between the first edge and the boundary and a second height portion defined between the second height portion and the boundary. Craig also teaches a cutting blade having a first height portion defined between the first edge and the boundary and a second height portion defined between the second height portion and the boundary. Craig teaches additional transitional surfaces 16 and 18 between boundary edge 20 and cutting edge 17; however, the claims do not preclude additional structures from being present in the prior art. After further consideration, the pending rejection to Seager in view of Craig has been maintained.
PNG
media_image4.png
268
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724