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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fleming (US 3439419).
Regarding claim 1, Fleming shows a knife unit (Figures 1-3), the knife unit comprising:
a knife (12) comprising a strip-shaped body having two flat sides (two opposite lateral sides of the blade, Figure 1) facing away from one another;
a knife housing (16, 18, Figure 1) comprising a channel (14 for receiving the blade 12) in which the knife is movably arranged in a longitudinal direction between a rest position and an extended position (an exposed position, see the specification for extended and retracted positions of the blade 12),
wherein the knife extends from the knife housing in the extended position, and
wherein the knife housing comprises a plurality of projections (ribs 58, 40, 42, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70) in the channel on each of opposing surfaces (inner surfaces) of the channel facing the sides of the knife (Figures 2-3),
wherein the plurality of projections on each of the opposing surfaces are spaced apart from one another in the longitudinal direction along a common straight line (see Figures 2-3, all ribs are spaced apart along the longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 2, Fleming shows that the knife is entirely located inside the knife housing in the rest position (see Figures 2-3. Please notes that the blade has many sections that can be broken and removed if it is needed).
Regarding claim 4, Fleming shows that the opposing surfaces of the channel comprise two planar surfaces (there are many planar surfaces in Figures 4-5) that face one another.
Regarding claim 5, Fleming shows that the knife (blade) is metal (based on MPEP 608.02, section IX, drawing symbols, the blade is made by metal and see Col. 4, line 11 “the cutting blade 12 comprises an elongated strip of steel”).
Regarding claims 6-7, Fleming shows that the cutting edge is formed on an end of the knife (the cutting edge of the blade extends until the tip) and wherein the cutting edge is arranged transverse to the longitudinal direction (see ended edge of the blade, Figure 6 since as the claim is written, it is unclear whether the cutting edge is a sharpen edge or not. The ended edge of the blade can be used to cut a soft material).
Regarding claim 8, Fleming shows that a coupling structure (88, 86, Figure 6) is disposed on the knife (during coupling the blade), which is configured for connection to a driving device (80, Figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 11, Fleming shows that line contacts or point contacts are established between the plurality of projections and the sides of the knife (Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 14, Fleming shows that the common straight line is oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction (Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 15, Fleming shows that the knife housing is part of an exchangeable cartridge (as it is written, it is unclear what a part of the cartridge is, therefore, the housing 16,18 is part of an exchangeable cartridge).
Regarding claim 16, Fleming shows one or more of the two flat surfaces of the knife and one or more of the plurality of projections directly contact one another such that the one or more of the plurality of projections guide the knife within the channel (see Figures 2-4).
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.
Claims 3, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming in view of Owens (US 5406707 A).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Fleming shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the projections are rounded elevations on the surfaces or nubs.
Owens shows a knife unit (Figure 1) including a housing (2 halves 16, 18) and a knife (blade 14), wherein the housing has a channel for receiving and sliding the blade. Wherein the channel has projections are rounded elevations on the surfaces or nubs (40, see Figure 10. With regards to the “nubs”, it is unclear what the size and shape of the nub is, therefore, the rounded ribs 40a, b in Figures 5-6 can be considered as nubs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the ribs of Fleming to be rounded elevations or nubs, as taught by Owens, in order to allow the blade to be reduced a friction and smoothly slid within the channel. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement known technique to improve similar devices for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the modified knife unit of Fleming shows that a distance between two nubs arranged opposite from one another is larger than a thickness of the knife measured between the sides of the knife (this is inherently limitation because the nubs are on each side of the knife), however, it is unclear whether a difference between the distance and the thickness of the knife is between 0.1mm to 1.0mm or not.
Since As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the distance and the thickness of the knife is between 0.1mm to 1.0mm, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the “distance and the thickness of the knife is between 0.1mm to 1.0mm” of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges for guiding the blade and preventing loosening the blade during sliding in into handle and out from the handle.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming in view of Dovel (US 11642801).
Regarding claims 6-7, this is an alternative rejection if one argues that Fleming’s blade does not have a transverse cutting edge, Fleming shows all of the limitations as stated above including the cutting edge is formed on an end of the knife (the cutting edge of the blade extends until the tip), however, the cutting edge is NOT arranged transverse to the longitudinal direction.
Dovel shows a sliding blade (Figure 8) into a handle and out from the handle (Figures 7A, 7C) having a transverse cutting edge (see the 1st and 3rd blades in Figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the blade of Fleming for a blade having a transverse cutting edge, as taught by Dovel to achieve the predictable result and allow the blade to be used different orientations and cutting purposes. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result, as per MPEP 2143, section I, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. See new ground rejections above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 4/29/2026
Prosecution Insights