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 .
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 4, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 744,064 to Goldin.
In re claim 4, Goldin teaches a folding knife comprising
a handle (A), a spacer (K) disposed on an inner surface of the handle, a flexible backbone (N) disposed on an inner surface of the spacer, and a blade (B) disposed on the inner surface of the spacer, wherein the flexible backbone (N) is engaged with the blade (B), wherein a lock aperture (as shown in at least Figure 2) is provided in the spacer, and at least a portion of a lock clasp (E) is disposed through the lock aperture, wherein the inner surface of the handle (A) covers the lock aperture, thereby preventing the lock clasp (E) from extending beyond the inner surface of the handle, wherein a lock groove (D) is disposed on the blade to receive at least a portion of the lock clasp (E), and at least a portion of the lock clasp slides within the lock groove.
In re claim 5, characterized in that the lock aperture (as shown in at least Figure 2) includes a locking through-hole (Pg. 1, lines 45-55) and unlocking through-hole (Pg. 1, lines 36-44), wherein the locking through-hole and unlocking through-hole are connected (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 7, characterized in that the spacer comprises a first spacer portion (K, left) and a second spacer portion (K, right), wherein the first spacer portion is connected to the second spacer portion by a connecting pin (see Annotated Figure 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 8, characterized in that the flexible backbone (N) includes a connecting pin aperture (as shown in at least Figure 1), wherein the connecting pin (as shown in above in Annotated Figure 1) passes through the connecting pin aperture.
In re claim 9, characterized in that the handle includes a first handle portion (A, left) and a second handle portion (A, right), wherein the first handle portion and the second handle portion are disposed on outer surfaces of the first spacer portion (K) and the second spacer portion (K), respectively.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 0,744,064 to Goldin in view of US Patent No. 9,815,213 to Duey or US Patent Application Publication No. 20230126401 to Shimanoff et al.
In re claim 1, Goldin teaches a folding knife comprising:
a handle (A) comprising a first handle portion (as shown in at least Figure 2) and a second handle portion (as shown in at least Figure 2);
a spacer (K) disposed between the first and second handle portions (as shown in at least Figure 2), the spacer comprising a first spacer portion and a second spacer portion (as shown in at least Figure 2), wherein the first spacer portion is disposed against an inside surface of the first handle portion (A, left, as shown in at least Figure 2), and the second spacer portion is disposed against an inside surface of the second handle portion (A, left, as shown in at least Figure 2);
lock apertures (as shown in at least Figure 2, Pg. 1, lines 24-32) disposed in the first and second spacer portions, each lock aperture comprising a locking through-hole (Pg. 1, lines 45-55) and an unlocking through-hole (as shown in at least Figure 2, Pg. 1, lines 36-44), wherein the locking through-hole of the lock aperture in the first spacer portion is aligned with the locking through-hole of the lock aperture in the second spacer portion (as shown in at least Figure 2), wherein the unlocking through-hole of the lock aperture in the first spacer portion is aligned with the unlocking through-hole of the lock aperture in the second spacer portion, wherein the inside surface of the second handle portion (A, left) covers the lock aperture in the first spacer portion (as shown in at least Figure 2), and wherein the inside surface of the second handle portion (A, right) covers the lock aperture in the second spacer portion;
a blade (B) disposed between and rotationally connected to the first and second spacer portions (K), the blade having a lock groove (D);
a lock clasp disposed between the first and second handle portions, the lock clasp comprising:
a lock rod (E) configured to be received and slide within the lock groove of the blade;
a first portion disposed at a first end of the lock rod and received in the lock aperture in the first spacer portion (K), wherein the inside surface of the first handle portion (A, right) that covers the lock aperture prevents the first portion from extending beyond the inside surface of the first handle portion; and
a second portion disposed at a second end of the lock rod opposing the first end and received in the lock aperture in the second spacer portion, wherein the inside surface of the second handle portion (A, left) that covers the lock aperture prevents the second portion from extending beyond the inside surface of the second handle portion, wherein the first portion is received in the lock aperture (as shown in at least Figure 2) in the first spacer portion (K),and the second portion is received in the lock aperture in the second spacer portion (K), and
wherein the first portion is operable to slide between the locking through-hole in the lock aperture of the first spacer portion (K) as the lock rod (E) slides with the lock groove (D) of the blade, and wherein the second portion is operable to slide between the locking through-hole in the lock aperture of the second spacer portion as the lock rod slides with the lock groove of the blade (Pg. 1, lines 24-35),
wherein the blade (B) is constrained by the lock rod from rotating with respect to the first and second spacer portions when the first and second portions of the lock clasp are received in the locking through-holes of the lock apertures (Pg. 1, lines 24-35), and wherein the blade is operable to rotate with respect to the first and second spacer portions when the first and second portions of the lock clasp are unlocked (Pg. 1, lines 39-55).
In re claim 2, further comprising a flexible backbone (N) secured between the first and second spacer portions (K), the flexible backbone having a flexible end portion (F) that engages the blade in a region that is adjacent to a point at which the blade is rotationally connected to the first and second spacer portions (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 3, wherein the lock clasp has a weight, and the first and second catch portions are operable to slide in the lock apertures under only the weight of the lock clasp (Pg. 1, lines 36-55).
In re claim 4, Goldin teaches a folding knife comprising
a handle (A), a spacer (K) disposed on an inner surface of the handle, a flexible backbone (N) disposed on an inner surface of the spacer, and a blade (B) disposed on the inner surface of the spacer, wherein the flexible backbone (N) is engaged with the blade (B), wherein a lock aperture (as shown in at least Figure 2) is provided in the spacer, and at least a portion of a lock clasp (E) is disposed through the lock aperture, wherein the inner surface of the handle (A) covers the lock aperture, thereby preventing the lock clasp (E) from extending beyond the inner surface of the handle, wherein a lock groove (D) is disposed on the blade to receive at least a portion of the lock clasp (E), and at least a portion of the lock clasp slides within the lock groove.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, it has been interpreted, the locking pin extends through a groove in spacers (K, as shown in at least Figure 2), which corresponds to the groove in the handle (Pg. 1, lines 20-22) to permit locking and unlocking of the blade; however, in the event one may argue the spacers (K) of Goldin do not provide corresponding locking grooves, Duey teaches a folding knife arrangement having handles (19), spacers (17,21), and a locking pin (202) which extends through a locking and unlocking through hole (222,224) of each spacer. The handles cover the through holes of each of the spacers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the spacers of Goldin with locking through-holes and unlocking through-holes as taught by Duey for the locking pin to extend through and engage the handles to maintain proper strength of the handle plates during opening and closing of the knife to prevent user injury.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Goldin teaches a locking rod, but does not teach the locking rod having a first catch disposed at a first end of the lock rod and a second catch disposed at a second end of the lock rod.
Duey teaches a locking rod having a first catch (214) disposed at a first end of the lock rod (202) and a second catch (216) disposed at a second end of a lock rod.
Shimanoff teaches a lock rod (118) having a first catch (182, left) disposed at a first end of the lock rod (118) and a second catch (182, right) disposed at a second end of a lock rod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the locking pin of Goldin with a catch on each of the first and second ends as taught by Duey or Shimanoff which is advantageous for increasing lateral stability and anchoring the pin to the frame preventing it from drifting (over time and throughout use).
The rejection of claims 7 and 8 below are an alternative rejection.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 0,744,064 to Goldin in view of US Patent No. 9,815,213 to Duey or US Patent Application Publication No. 20230126401 to Shimanoff et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 8,286,357 to Huang.
In re claim 7, characterized in that the spacer comprises a first spacer portion (K, left) and a second spacer portion (K, right), wherein the first spacer portion is connected to the second spacer portion by a connecting pin (see Annotated Figure 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 8, characterized in that the flexible backbone (N) includes a connecting pin aperture (as shown in at least Figure 1 and in Annotated Figure 2, above), wherein the connecting pin (as shown in above in Annotated Figure 1) passes through the connecting pin aperture.
In the event one may argue, Goldin does not teach a flexible backbone includes a connecting pin aperture connecting a first and second spacer and a connecting pin passing through the connecting aperture, Huang teaches a folding knife having a flexible backbone (146) with a connecting pin (54) passing through a first and second spacer (24a,24b) and a connecting pin aperture (50, in the flexible backbone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to provide the flexible backbone of Goldin with a connecting aperture and pin arrangement as taught by Huang which are advantageous for providing structural alignment between the spacers and handles.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed December 8, 2025 have been obviated by the claims filed January 30, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights