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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 29 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 26 November 2025, except for various claim objections repeated below.
Additionally, the “first and second cutting parts” as recited in claim 1 are recited with sufficient structure for performing a cutting operation to avoid interpretation under 35 USC 112(f).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at lines 4-6 recites, “a connecting part having a rear end that is hinge-coupled to an upper end of the pair of handles by a second hinge, and having front ends that are hinge-coupled to each other by a first hinge”. This recitation should read – a connecting part having a rear end, the rear end [[that]] is hinge-coupled to an upper end of the pair of handles by a second hinge, and the connecting part having front ends that are hinge-coupled to each other by a first hinge – to reduce the run-on nature of the recitation and more clearly state that it is the rear end, rather than the connecting part, that is required to be hinge-coupled to the upper end, and also to more clearly state that it is the connecting part that has the front ends.
Claim 1 at lines 9-10 recites, “an elastic member extending the pair of handles that urges that pair of handles apart from each other”. This recitation should read -- an elastic member extending between the pair of handles that urges the [[that]] pair of handles apart from each other –.
Claim 2 at line 8 recites, “which is”. This recitation should refer to the first curved surface cutting protrusion by name, rather than using the pronoun “which”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at lines 7-8 recites, “the connection part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 1 indefinite. While claim 1 previously introduces, “a connecting part”, claim 1 does not previously introduce any “connection part”. Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim includes a typographical error, where the “connecting part” and the “connection part” are required to be one and the same. Alternatively, it is unclear whether “the connection part” is required to be a newly introduced structure, in view of no “connection part” being previously introduced. Alternatively still, it is unclear whether one of the connecting part and the connection part is permitted to be a subset of the other, such as the connecting part being one portion of the connection part. The intended interpretation is unclear in view of the present specification, where there are two elements ‘104’, such that the Applicant may be intending to claim: (1) both of the ‘connecting part’ and the ‘connection part’ as a same one of the elements ‘104’, (2) ‘a connecting part’ as one of the elements ‘104’ and the ‘connection part’ as the other of the elements ‘104’, or (3) ‘a connecting part’ as one of the elements ‘104’ and the ‘connection part’ as both of the elements ‘104’ in the aggregate.
Claim 1 at lines 10-11 recites, “an oblique cutting blade formed at a remaining portion of the cutting part where the curved surface cutting blade is not formed”. This recitation is indefinite because multiple cutting parts and multiple curved surface cutting blades are previously introduced, such that it is unclear which cutting part is referred to by “the cutting part” and which curved surface cutting blade is referred to by “the curved surface cutting blade”. For example, it is unclear whether the claim encompasses the oblique cutting blade of the first cutting part being formed at a remaining portion of the first cutting part where the curved surface cutting blade of the second cutting part is not formed. Since the claim does not specify which particular ‘cutting part’ and which particular ‘curved surface cutting blade’ are being described, arguably the claim encompasses either of the cutting parts and either of the curved surface cutting blades. The examiner suggests reciting that the first cutting part includes a first curved surface cutting blade and a first oblique cutting blade, and that the second cutting part includes a second curved surface cutting blade and a second oblique cutting blade, so that the Applicant can then later refer to a specific one of the cutting blades and a specific one of the curved surface cutting blades.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion of features including “a first curved surface cutting blade” as recited in claim 2 at line 6 and “a first oblique cutting blade” as recited in claim 2 at line 11 is required and/or permitted. Claim 1 already requires that the first cutting part comprising “a curved surface cutting blade” and “an oblique cutting blade”. Claim 2 appears to introduce an additional curved surface cutting blade and an additional oblique cutting blade for a variety of reasons. First, claim 2 uses “a” to introduce each of the blades. Second, claim 2 uses the term “first” to describe each of the blades, and the blades of claim 1 are not introduced as “first blades”. Third, claim 2 requires that the blades are comprised by “a first bite”, whereas the similarly named blades of claim 1 are comprised by the first cutting part, rather than a first bite (moreover, claim 2 requires that the first bite is “detachably installed on the first cutting part”, so claim 2 does not consider the first bite to be a subset of the first cutting part). On the other hand, interpreting claim 2 as introducing additional blades does not appear intended in view of the present specification. For example, in the present drawings, the blades on the first cutting part are limited to the blades defined by the first bite. Thus, interpreting claim 2 in view of the present specification suggests that the ‘first curved surface cutting blade’ and the ‘first oblique cutting blade’ are intended to be one and the same as the ‘curved surface cutting blade’ and the ‘oblique cutting blade’ as recited in claim 1. As such, it is unclear whether claim 2 is introducing new blades, or referring to blades already introduced in claim 1, such that claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether double inclusion of features including “a second curved surface cutting blade” as recited in claim 3 at line 5 and “a second oblique cutting blade” as recited in claim 3 at line 8 is required and/or permitted. Claim 1 already requires that the second cutting part comprising “a curved surface cutting blade” and “an oblique cutting blade”. Claim 3 appears to introduce an additional curved surface cutting blade and an additional oblique cutting blade for a variety of reasons. First, claim 3 uses “a” to introduce each of the blades. Second, claim 3 uses the term “second” to describe each of the blades, and the blades of claim 1 are not introduced as “second blades”. Third, claim 3 requires that the blades are comprised by “a second bite”, whereas the similarly named blades of claim 1 are comprised by the second cutting part, rather than a second bite (moreover, claim 3 requires that the second bite is “detachably installed on the second cutting part”, so claim 3 does not consider the second bite to be a subset of the second cutting part). On the other hand, interpreting claim3 as introducing additional blades does not appear intended in view of the present specification. For example, in the present drawings, the blades on the second cutting part are limited to the blades defined by the second bite. Thus, interpreting claim 3 in view of the present specification suggests that the ‘second curved surface cutting blade’ and the ‘second oblique cutting blade’ are intended to be one and the same as the ‘curved surface cutting blade’ and the ‘oblique cutting blade’ of the second cutting part as recited in claim 1. As such, it is unclear whether claim 3 is introducing new blades, or referring to blades already introduced in claim 1, such that claim 3 is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2010/0313428 A1 to Mocanu.
Regarding claim 1, Mocanu discloses a device 100 for cutting and bending a bone fixing plate to be fixed to a bone (consistent with MPEP 2111.02, in the present case the body of claim 1 fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states an intended use of the invention, in particular “cutting and bending a bone fixing plate”, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, such that “the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction” in accordance with Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020); still, even if the preamble is considered as a limitation, the device 100 of Mocanu is for cutting a bone fixing plate to be fixed to a bone per paragraphs 1-3, and furthermore the device 100 of Mocanu is usable to bend a bone fixing plate, such as by exerting a bending moment onto the plate while the plate is clamped between elements 135 and 140), the device 100 comprising:
a pair of handles 115 rotatably connected to each other by a third hinge (see the annotated Fig. 1 below and paragraph 15; see also the Response to Arguments section below for additional discussion of this issue);
a connecting part 125a having a rear end that is hinge-coupled to an upper end of the pair of handles by a second hinge (see annotated Fig. 1 below; note that ‘an upper end of the pair of handles’ requires only a single upper end that can be an end of one of the handles, since the upper end is of the pair of handles in the aggregate; see also the Response to Arguments section below for additional discussion), and having front ends that are hinge-coupled to each other by a first hinge (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the ‘first hinge’ defines pivot point 130);
first and second cutting parts 120b and 120a, respectively, disposed on the front ends of the connection part (it is unclear what part is referred to as the connection part; however, see the connection part formed jointly by connecting parts 125a and 125b in Fig. 1) for cutting the fixing plate into a predetermined shape (see Fig. 1; see also paragraph 18), each of the first and second cutting parts 120b and 120a comprising a curved surface cutting blade 210B and 205B, respectively, formed in a circular shape (see Fig. 2A; note that consistent with the present specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘a circular shape’ encompasses a portion of a circular shape, in view of the inventive ‘curved surface cutting blades’ not being full circles) and an oblique cutting blade (Mocanu discloses three options, each of which satisfies the ‘oblique cutting blades’: as a first option, the oblique cutting blades of the first and second cutting parts 120b and 120a are blades 150, which blades 150 extend obliquely relative to a longitudinal axis of the entire device 150, such that the blades 150 are properly considered as ‘oblique’ cutting blades; as a second option, the oblique cutting blades are identified in annotated Fig. 2 below, and these blades are each oblique relative to a respective one of the reference surfaces identified below, noting that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘oblique’ includes neither perpendicular nor parallel, having no right angle, and diverging from a given straight line or course – each of the blades identified in the annotated Fig. 2 below satisfies all of these alternative definitions of ‘oblique’, where the blades diverge from a straight line along the respective reference surface; as a third option, the oblique cutting blades are blades 210A and 205A in Fig. 3A, where these blades 210A and 205A are oblique blades relative to blades 210B and 205B in view of angle 305; any one of these three options satisfies the requirement of each of the cutting parts comprising ‘an oblique blade’; while the examiner recognizes that each of these three options for the ‘oblique cutting blades’ as disclosed by Mocanu differs structurally from the ‘oblique cutting blades’ as illustrated in the present drawings, claim 1 broadly describes the cutting blades as any blades that are ‘oblique’ relative to any other conceivable structure, rather than specifically structurally describing the oblique cutting blades – the examiner suggests further reciting the geometries of the inventive ‘oblique cutting blades’ to overcome Mocanu) formed at a remaining portion of the cutting part where the curved surface cutting blade is not formed (see Fig. 2 for the first two options of the ‘oblique cutting blades’; see Fig. 3A for the third option of the ‘oblique cutting blades’); and
an elastic member extending the pair of handles 115 that urges that pair of handles 115 apart from each other (see the annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
797
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
799
1395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mocanu discloses a first bite 140 detachably installed on the first cutting part 120b (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 18), the first bite comprising: a first plane body having at least one first bolt coupling hole (see the annotated Fig. 2B below); a first vertical body extending from one edge of the first plane body (see the annotated Fig. 2B below); a first curved surface cutting blade 210B formed in a circular shape on one side of the first vertical body (see Fig. 2B); a first curved surface cutting protrusion 215B protruding from a center 230B of the first curved surface cutting blade 210B which is adapted to be inserted into a coupling hole of the fixing plate during a cutting operation (see Figs. 2A and paragraph 24); a first oblique cutting blade formed at a portion of the first vertical body where the first curved cutting blade 210B is not formed (see the annotated Fig. 2 provided under the discussion of claim 1 above, where the indicated ‘oblique cutting blade’ on the first cutting bite 140 is the ‘first oblique cutting blade’; this ‘first oblique cutting blade’ can be an additional blade relative to the oblique cutting blade already required by claim 1 when either of the first and third options for the oblique cutting blade described in claim 1 are satisfied); and a first oblique cutting protrusion formed outside the first oblique cutting blade (see the annotated Fig. 2B below, where the protrusion is described as the ‘first V-shaped cutting protrusion’; this protrusion is ‘outside the first oblique cutting blade’ because the protrusion extends beyond the first oblique cutting blade – i.e., the blade ends where the protrusion begins; moreover, the protrusion is ‘oblique’ because a side of the protrusion opposite the first oblique cutting blade extends obliquely).
PNG
media_image3.png
488
679
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Mocanu discloses a second bite 135 detachably installed on the second cutting part 120a (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 18), the second bite 135 comprising: a second plane body having at least one second bolt coupling hole (see the annotated Fig. 2B above); a second curved surface cutting blade 205B formed on one side surface of the second plane body in a structure corresponding to the first curved surface cutting blade 210B (see Figs. 2A and 2B); a second oblique cutting blade formed at a portion of the second plane body where the second curved surface cutting blade 205B is not formed (see the annotated Fig. 2 provided under the discussion of claim 1 above, where the indicated ‘oblique cutting blade’ on the second bite 135 is the ‘second oblique cutting blade’; this ‘second oblique cutting blade’ can be an additional blade relative to the oblique cutting blade already required by claim 1 when either of the first and third options for the oblique cutting blade described in claim 1 are satisfied); and a second oblique cutting protrusion formed on a side surface of the second oblique cutting blade (see the annotated Fig. 2B above, where the protrusion is described as the ‘second V-shaped cutting protrusion’; this protrusion is ‘outside the first oblique cutting blade’ because the protrusion extends beyond the first oblique cutting blade – i.e., the blade ends where the protrusion begins; moreover, the protrusion is ‘oblique’ because a side of the protrusion opposite the second oblique cutting blade extends obliquely).
Regarding claim 4, Mocanu discloses a first cutting surface formed at an upper edge of the first curved surface cutting blade 210B (see Fig. 2B, where the ‘first cutting surface’ is a radially outward facing, arcuate surface of the blade 210B; the ‘upper edge’ of the blade 210B is an edge at the junction of the first cutting surface and the surface receiving the lead line for reference character ‘210B’ in Fig. 2B); and a second cutting surface formed at an upper edge of the first oblique cutting blade (the ‘second cutting surface’ is a surface of the first oblique cutting blade that faces the second oblique cutting blade in Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 5, Mocanu discloses that a diameter of the second curved surface cutting blade 205B is larger than a diameter of the first curved surface cutting blade 210B (since the fit shown in Fig. 2C is possible, this feature is satisfied; see also paragraphs 29 and 29, where the claimed diameters are twice the disclosed radii), and a third cutting surface formed at an edge of the second curved surface cutting blade 205B (see Fig. 2B, where the third cutting surface is the surface receiving the lead line for reference character ‘205B’, such that the third cutting surface is an arcuate surface; the ‘edge’ of the blade 205B is an edge at the junction of the third cutting surface and a surface of the bite 135 that faces downward relative to Fig. 2B, with ‘downward’ being relative to the figure oriented with the reference characters upright); and a fourth cutting surface formed at an edge of the second oblique cutting blade (the ‘fourth cutting surface’ is a surface of the second oblique cutting blade that faces the first oblique cutting blade in Fig. 2C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First regarding claim objections, the Applicant asserts that the Applicant has amended the claims in accordance with the suggestions of the prior office action. However, this is not the case for all objections. Thus, objections that are repeated above have not been overcome. The examiner provides suggestions above for overcoming these objections.
Regarding claim limitation “first and second cutting parts” as recited in claim 1, this limitation is not interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f) because claim 1 recites sufficient structure of these ‘parts’ to perform a cutting function, in particular that each of the cutting parts includes a curved surface cutting blade and an oblique cutting blade. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that ‘cutting part’ is not a generic placeholder is moot in view of the claim 1 reciting sufficient structure of the ‘cutting parts’ to avoid 112(f) interpretation.
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102, the Applicant argues at paragraph B. that Mocanu only teaches a single-pivot point. This argument is not persuasive because the argument ignores the drawings of Mocanu. The drawings of Mocanu must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). In Mocanu, the drawings illustrate multiple hinges as identified in an annotated Fig. above. Further, the teachings of Mocanu cannot be evaluated alone in a vacuum, independent of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art has awareness of a host of tools with the same handle configuration of Mocanu, where there are first, second, and third hinges in each of the handles. See, as examples, US Pat. No. 5,822,865 to Bosch et al. (see hinges at reference characters 11, 14, and 17 as shown in Fig. 2), DE 10 2023 133 228 A1 to Linke (see hinges at reference characters 12, 16, and 22 in Fig. 2), and FR 2750904 A1 to Ferrand (see hinges at reference characters W, 25, and 26 in Fig. 4). Since one of ordinary skill in the art brings awareness of well-known handle configurations as background knowledge when viewing the Mocanu reference, one of ordinary skill in the art is able to appreciate the hinges illustrated in the drawings of Mocanu. Applicant’s arguments, however, presumes that one of ordinary skill in the art has no knowledge of the art. Moreover, Applicant’s argument is further not persuasive because, if there were in fact only one hinge in the device of Mocanu as asserted by the Applicant, then the tool of Mocanu would not function because the handles would be locked together at the locations of the first and second hinges as identified in the annotated Fig. above. As such, in order for the tool of Mocanu to function as intended, it is readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the handle of Mocanu has hinges as identified in the annotated Fig. above. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant asserts at paragraph C. that Mocanu does not disclose any oblique cutting elements. This argument is not persuasive. The argument fails to address any of the three options of oblique cutting elements as set forth above. Since the argument is not even directed to the oblique cutting elements upon which the rejection relies, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejections of claims 2-3 are likewise not persuasive because the arguments fail to address the oblique cutting blades that are relied upon in the rejections above. The arguments are against other blades 205A and 210A, not the oblique cutting blades relied upon above. As such, the argument against blades that are not actually relied upon is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant argues at paragraph D. that the protrusions of the present disclosure have a different function than those of Mocanu. However, this difference is functionality is not structurally distinguished via claim language, so arguments related to the functionality of the protrusions of the present invention of Mocanu are not persuasive. The protrusion of Mocanu are adapted to be inserted into a coupled hole of the fixing plate as disclosed at paragraph 30 and do protrude from a center 235B as shown in Fig. 2A. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 3, the Applicant argues at paragraph E. that Mocanu does not disclose a ‘fixing groove for lateral plate gripping’. No such fixing groove is required by claim 3, so this argument is not persuasive as being directed to unclaimed features.
Regarding claim 5, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the arguments do not address the features of Mocanu relied upon in the actual rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (including new grounds under 35 USC 112(b)) 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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights