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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Species I. Figs. 1-29;
Species II. Figs. 30-58; and
Species III. Figs. 59-83.
The species are independent or distinct because each one of the species has at least a unique feature that is not presented in other species. Species have mutually exclusive characteristic. Each of these characteristics are mutually exclusive to the respective embodiment. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
2. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there is no generic claim.
3. Applicant is advised that a reply to this requirement must include an identification of the species that is elected consonant with this requirement, and a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
4. Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise include all the limitations of an allowed generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which are readable upon the elected species. MPEP § 809.02(a).
5. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse.
6. A telephone call was made to Klaus P. Stoffel (Reg. No. 31,668) on 11/330/2025 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made.
However, applicant must elect one species from Species I-III as set forth above by the Examiner, so that the Examiner may examine and fucus on a single species during the prosecution of the current application, given the time constraints.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: “’a
sagittal plane” is an anatomical plane terminology it should be changed to –a
longitudinal plane of the knife—. In claim 24, “interlocking engagement” should be –an interlocking engagement--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a blade device,” “an actuating device,” “adjustment device,” “a control element,” set forth in claim 16;
“a restoring element” set forth in claim 25; and
“two locking devices” set forth in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claims 16-30 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.
Regarding claim 16, “an actuating device, which forms a joint together with the first actuating part and is pivotable in a first direction out of an unactuated position about a part pivot axis relative to the first actuating part in order to move the blade device from a rest position into a cutting position and is pivotable in a second direction in order to move the second actuating part into a blade-change position” is confusing. First, it is not clear which actuating part is pivotable in a first direction. Second, it is not clear which actuating part is pivotable in a second direction in order to move the second actuating part into a blade-change position. It should be noted that the actuating device is formed by the first actuating part and the second actuating part; therefore, it cannot form a join with the first actuating part and cannot move the second actuating part into a blade-changed position. Third, the term “a part pivot axis” is confusing. It is not clear what axis “a part pivot axis” represents. It is suggested to be changed it to “a pivot axis” or ”a first pivot axis.”
Regarding claim 16, “an adjustment device having a control element by which different degrees of freedom are settable with regard to the movement of the second actuating part relative to the first actuating part” is unclear. It is not clear what “different degrees of freedom” encompasses. Does the moving of the second actuating part into a position in which the blade device is in cutting position, and moving the second actuating part into a blade-change position, constitute “different degrees of freedom” for the second actuating part”?
Regarding claim 16, “a first or a second of the pivot directions is blocked or both pivot directions are blocked when the secured position is set” is confusing. First, it is not clear whether “a first or second of the pivot direction” refers to the first direction and the second direction already recited in the claim. Second, it is also not clear whether “both pivot directions” refers to the first direction and the second direction. Third, “the secured position” lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear what is considered to be “a secured position.”
Regarding claim 17, “wherein the adjustment device is configured so that, in relation to a control order of the control element, the secured position setting is arranged between the blade-change position setting and the operating position setting” confusing. First, “a control order of the control element” is unclear. It is not clear what is considered to be a “control order” of the control element. In addition, “the secured position setting,” “the blade-change setting,” and “the operating position setting” lack antecedent basis. It is also not clear what is considered to be “a secured position setting,” or what components form the secured position setting.
Regarding claim 20, “a securing surface of the adjusting device and a counter surface of the control element extend in directions which are parallel to a pivot axis of the control element” is confusing. It is not clear how many directions the securing surface of the adjusting device and a counter surface of the control element extend. It appears both surfaces extend in a direction that is parallel to the pivot axis of the control element.
Regarding claim 21, “partially circular cylindrical” is confusing. This terminology is ambiguous and lacks sufficient structural definition. It is not clear what fraction or portion of a cylinder is encompassed by “partially circular cylindrical.”
Regarding claim 23, “wherein the securing surface and/or the counter surface are formed on a projection of the relevant actuating part” is confusing. First, the relevant actuating part” lacks antecedent basis. In addition, it is not clear what components are considered to be “relevant actuating part.”
Regarding claim 25, “a restoring element formed as a spring” is confusing, as it is not clear whether the restoring element is a spring or whether it is converted to a spring.
Regarding claim 27, “the adjustment device includes two locking devices that are synchronized with one another” is confusing. It is not clear in what way the two locking devices are “synchronized.” Do they operate synchronously, or move in a synchronized motion (as disclosed in paragraph [0020] of the specification)?
Regarding claim 28, “wherein parts of a first of the locking devices and parts of a second of the locking devices are assigned to the control element” is confusing. It is not clear how many parts are assigned to the control element, or whether they are attached to, integrated with, or mechanically linked to the control element. It is also not clear what remaining parts are and how they differ from the parts that are assigned to the control element.
Regarding claim 29, “the part pivot axis is arranged approximately at right angles to a sagittal plane” is confusing. It is not clear at how many right angles the part pivot axis is arranged relative to the sagittal plane. In addition, “sagittal plane” is an anatomical term, which is not typically applicable to mechanical components and therefore introduces ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. Claims 16-18, 24, 26 and 26, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (WO 2013/110264 A1). Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Martin discloses a knife 10, comprising: a blade device 13; a first actuating part 11; a second actuating part 12 of an actuating device (12-13), which forms a joint together with the first actuating part 11 and is pivotable (about the pivot point G1; Fig. 1) in a first direction (u1) out of an unactuated position about a part pivot axis (G1) relative to the first actuating part 11 in order to move the blade device 13 from a rest position into a cutting position and is pivotable in a second direction (u2) in order to move the second actuating part 12 into a blade-change position (Fig. 17); and an adjustment device (S) having a control element 15 by which different degrees of freedom are settable with regard to the movement of the second actuating part 12 relative to the first actuating part 11 so that, depending on the setting of the control element 15 in the operating position or the blade-change position, a first or a second of the pivot directions is blocked (in a locking position of the control element; Fig. 8) or both pivot directions (u1, u2) are blocked when the secured position is set. It should be noted that the control element 12 moves along the direction (y1, y2; Fig. 10) to control the pivoting movement of the first and second actuating parts 11-12. The control element 15 locks the pivoting movement of the first and second actuating parts in direction u1, u2 and also enable the second actuating part to move in direction u1 into a blade-change position (Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Martin teaches everything noted above including that the adjustment device (S) is configured so that, in relation to a control order of the control element 15, the secured position setting is arranged between the blade-change position setting (Fig. 17) and the operating position setting (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Martin teaches everything noted above including that the control element 15 is translationally (as it moves along linear direction y1, y2) or rotationally movable between the operating position, the secured position and the blade- change position.
Regarding claim 24, Martin teaches everything noted above including that the control element 15 includes a latch 22 that is movable into interlocking engagement with a counter latch (25, 26, 27) in at least one of the secured position, the operating position and the blade-change position.
Regarding claim 26, Martin teaches everything noted above including a securing structure having at least one securing surface (defined by surface of extension 22) and a counter structure 25-27 having at least one counter surface (defined by surfaces of seats 25-27), wherein the securing structure and the counter structure have oblique surfaces (Fig. 13) so as to move the control element out of the blade-change position into the unactuated position when the second actuating part moves so that the securing surface and the counter surface are movable past one another.
Regarding claim 29, as best understood, Martin teaches everything noted above including that the part pivot axis (G1) is arranged approximately at right angles to a sagittal plane (or a vertical place passing at the center of the knife to divide the knife into left and right portion).
13. Claims 16-30, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rohrbach et al. (DE 10209001283 A1), hereinafter Rohrbach. Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Rohrbach discloses a knife 10, comprising: a blade device 18; a first actuating part 11; a second actuating part 12 of an actuating device (12-13), which forms a joint together with the first actuating part 11 and is pivotable (about the pivot point a1; Fig. 1) in a first direction (u1) out of an unactuated position about a part pivot axis 24 relative to the first actuating part 11 in order to move the blade device 13 from a rest position into a cutting position and is pivotable in a second direction (u2) in order to move the second actuating part 12 into a blade-change position (Fig. 4); and an adjustment device 30 having a control element 33 by which different degrees of freedom are settable with regard to the movement of the second actuating part 12 relative to the first actuating part 11 so that, depending on the setting of the control element 33 in the operating position (wherein the locking element 33 is moved in a direction w2) or the blade-change position; Fig. 4), a first or a second of the pivot directions is blocked (in a locking position where the control element 33 pivots in a direction w1 wherein its axle element 37 engages an area 49 of feather 34; Fig. 7) or both pivot directions (u1, u2) are blocked when the secured position is set. See Figs. 1-16 in Rohrbach.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that the adjustment device 30 is configured so that, in relation to a control order of the control element 33, the secured position setting is arranged between the blade-change position setting (Fig. 4) and the operating position setting (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that the control element 33 is translationally or rotationally (by pivoting in directions w1, w2), movable between the operating position, the secured position (or locking position), and the blade- change position.
Regarding claim 19, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including
counter surfaces (defined by surfaces of appendages 42a, 42b, and surface of held carrier 51; Fig. 9) of the control element 33 are arranged coaxially with a pivot axis (a9; Fig. 5) of the control element 33 in the unactuated position.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including a securing surface (defined by the lateral surface of the area 49 of feature 34, which engages the axel element 37 of the control element 33; Fig. 7) of the adjusting device 30 and a counter surface (defined by the surface of the axle element 37) of the control element 33 extend in directions which are parallel to a pivot axis (a9; Fig. 5) of the control element 33.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that the securing surface and/or the counter surface are partially circular cylindrical. It should be noted that at least the counter surface of the axel 37 is partially cylindrical.
Regarding claim 22, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that
the securing surface and the counter surface are formed on a rear end region of the knife 10 (which is opposite the region wherein the blade extends in an operating position). See Fig. 1 in Rohrbach.
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that the securing surface and/or the counter surface are formed on a projection of the relevant actuating part. It should be noted that the both surfaces are projected from the actuating parts 11 and 12, as they extend from the interior surfaces of each actuating parts.
Regarding claim 24, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that the control element 33 includes a latch 37 that is movable into interlocking engagement with a counter latch 34 in at least one of the secured position, the operating position and the blade-change position.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that control element 33 includes a restoring element 34 formed as a spring that loads the control element into the secured position. See translated claims 7-8 in Rohrbach.
Regarding claim 26, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including a securing structure 32 having at least one securing surface 27 (defined by the actuating surface which engages the surface of the axillary element 25; Fig. 9) and a counter structure 47 having at least one counter surface (defined by the surface of the seat 27 of the support 31, which is positioned opposite the securing surface; Fig. 9), wherein the securing structure and the counter structure have oblique surfaces (each having a slopped or inclined surface; Fig. 9) so as to move the control element 33 out of the blade-change position into the unactuated position when the second actuating part moves so that the securing surface and the counter surface are movable past one another. It should be noted that at least the securing structure 32 moves relative to the counter structure 47 via the held carrier 51 of the control element.
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that the adjustment device 30 includes two locking devices (32, 51; or 42a, 42b; Fig. 9) that are synchronized with one another.
Regarding claim 28, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including parts of a first of the locking devices (32 or 41a) and parts of a second of the locking devices (51 or 42b) are assigned to the control element 33.
Regarding claim 29, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including that the part pivot axis (a1) is arranged approximately at right angles to a sagittal plane.
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, Rohrbach teaches everything noted above including a pivot axis (a9; Fig. 5) of the control element 33 is arranged approximately in parallel with the part pivot axis (a1). See Figs. 1 and 5 in Rohrbach.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Davis et al. (2007/0209209 A1), Rohrback et al. (11,759,962 B2), Huang (2024/0042631 A1), Huang (11,084,178 B2), and Hernandez et al. (2004/0237312 A1) teach a knife.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
December 1, 2025