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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0188433).
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches an assembly that can be transformed between a cigar cutter and a cigar rest, the assembly comprising:
a central body (20) housing an aperture (21), the aperture configured to receive a head of a cigar (Figures 1-2; Abstract);
a left blade unit (22,23,24) operably coupled to a left side of the central body; and
a right blade unit (22,23,24) operably coupled to a right side of the central body (Figure 1; See connections elements provided in Figure 1 showing coupling points with a connection means), wherein each of the left blade unit and the right blade unit comprises:
a frame (23); a cutting blade (22) mounted to the frame (Figure 2; Paragraph 0013); and
a handle (30) pivotally coupled to the frame through a hinge joint (32), wherein the hinge joint allows pivoting of the handle up to 90 degrees (Figure 2; Paragraph 0003, 0004; Examiner notes the specification does not appear to provide a special definition for the term “hinge joint”. The specification provides the hinge joint allows up to 90 degree rotation of the handles (Paragraph 0039). As such, the handle 30 has a hinge joint that allows for pivoting of the handle to at least 90 degrees as shown in Figure 2 of Yu).
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches method of cutting cigars, the method comprising: making an aperture (21) in a central body (20), the aperture configured to receive a head of a cigar (Figures 1-2; Abstract);
operably coupling a left blade unit (22,23,24) to a left side of the central body; and operably coupling a right blade unit (22,23,24) to a right side of the central body (Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0013), wherein each of the left blade unit and the right blade unit comprises:
a frame (23); a cutting blade (22) mounted to the frame (Figure 2; Paragraph 0013); and
a handle (30) pivotally coupled to the frame through a hinge joint (32), wherein the hinge joint allows pivoting the handle up to 90 degrees; inserting the head of the cigar into the aperture of the central body; and squeezing the two handles resulting in splicing of the head of the cigar (Paragraph 0015) by the two blades of the left blade unit and the right blade unit (Figure 2; Paragraph 0003-0004; Examiner notes the specification does not appear to provide a special definition for the term “hinge joint”. The specification provides the hinge joint allows up to 90-degree rotation of the handles (Paragraph 0039). As such, the handle 30 has a hinge joint that allows for pivoting of the handle to at least 90 degrees as shown in Figure 2 of Yu).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0188433) in view of Mathis (U.S. Patent No. 5,759,120).
Regarding claim 3, Yu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: pivoting the handles of the left blade unit and the right blade unit to be perpendicular to the central body (Figure 2); but does not provide placing the cigar on a top of the assembly.
Mathis teaches it is known in the art od cigar cutters to incorporate a cigar cutter (10) including placing a cigar (60) on a top of the cigar assembly (Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Yu to incorporate the teachings of Mathis to allow for the cigar to the placed on a top of the cigar assembly. Doing so provides the cigar with a support.
Regarding claim 4, Yu teaches the method of claim 3, wherein top surfaces of the two frames and the central body forms the top of the assembly (Yu Figure 1; Noting the left 23, 20 and 23 as the “top” surfaces when viewed as shown in Figure 1).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-M on pages 1-2 and A-F on Page 3 establish the state of the art with a variety of cigar cutters with a variety of handles and pivot mechanisms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 at 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 09/30/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724