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
Per the Request for Continued Examination filed 2 September 2026, the Amendment filed 12 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 12 June 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification filed 12 August 2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii) and have not been entered. In particular, Applicant’s amendments to paragraph 55 as filed 12 August 2026 are not relative to the previous version of paragraph 55 as filed 11 May 2026, but are instead relative to the initially filed version of paragraph 55. The amendments to paragraph 55 as filed 12 August 2026 raise an issue as to whether or not the Applicant intends to undo the amendments to paragraph 55 as filed 11 May 2026. The examiner advises Applicant to re-file the amendments to the specification as filed 12 August 2026, albeit with paragraph 55 amended relative to the previous version of paragraph 55 as filed 11 May 2026.
Drawings
In view of the amendments to the specification filed 12 August 2026 not being entered for the reasons explained in the Response to Amendment section above, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) “48” and “49” not mentioned in the description. To resolve this issue, the examiner advises Applicant to re-file the amendments to the specification as filed 12 August 2026, albeit with paragraph 55 amended relative to the previous version of paragraph 55 as filed 11 May 2026.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
In view of the specification amendments filed 12 August 2026 not being entered as noted in the Response to Amendment section above, the specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification should be amended to provide an antecedent basis for a “first side” and a “second side” of the handle as recited in claim 1, including indicating these sides with reference characters in the drawings. To resolve this issue, the examiner advises Applicant to re-file the amendments to the specification as filed 12 August 2026, albeit with paragraph 55 amended relative to the previous version of paragraph 55 as filed 11 May 2026.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 at the final line recites, “the opened position”. This recitation should read – an [[the]] opened position – because no opened position of the blade assembly is previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“retaining features” as recited in claim 6 (first, “feature” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a “feature” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular structure – any structure can be considered as a “feature”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “retaining” and “to fix a blade in the blade assembly”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function –an angled surface is and of itself is insufficient structure for performing the recited function, since various structures have an angled surface without being retaining features that engage with blade recesses, and even in the present application the angled surfaces themselves do not engage with the blade recesses and do not perform the function of fixing the blade in the blade assembly); and
“a retaining feature” as recited in claim 13 (first, “feature” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a “feature” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for any particular structure – any structure can be considered as a “feature”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “retaining” and “to fix a blade in the blade assembly”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., being “biased” is in and of itself insufficient structure for performing a retaining function, and the term “retaining” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the “feature”).
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 fails to further limit claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the resilient portion includes a nose engageable with the blade assembly to hold the blade assembly in the opened position. Since the nose holds the blade assembly in the opened position, the nose engages the blade assembly in the opened position. Thus, claim 1 requires that the resilient portion (in particular the nose thereof) is engaged with the blade assembly in the opened position to hold the blade assembly in the opened position. Similarly, claim 1 also requires that the resilient portion includes a detent engageable with the blade assembly to hold the blade assembly in the closed position. Since the detent holds the blade assembly in the closed position, the detent engages the blade assembly in the closed position. Thus, claim 1 requires that the resilient portion (in particular the detent thereof) is engaged with the blade assembly in the closed position to hold the blade assembly in the closed position. As such, claim 1 requires each feature recited in claim 3, such that claim 3 does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 7,774,940 B2 to Frank in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0354144 A1 to LeBlanc et al. and US Pat. No. 7,513,044 B2 to Lake.
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses a knife 10 (see Figs. 1C and 2, among others) comprising:
a handle 30 including a first scale coupled to a second scale (see the annotated Fig. 2 below), the first scale and the second scale defining a pocket therebetween (see Fig. 1C, where the pocket is the space between the scales, and where the pocket includes cavity 52), the handle 30 having a first side and an opposite second side (see the annotated Fig. 2 below), the second side defining an opening to the pocket (see the annotated Fig. 1B below);
a blade 12 having a closed position (corresponding to the blade 12 as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B) and an opened position (corresponding to the blade 12 as shown in Fig. 1C), the blade 12 pivotably coupled to the handle 30 (at pivot 56; compare Figs. 1A and 1C) and the blade 12 having a cutting edge 14 disposed along the first side in the opened position (see Fig. 1C; the cutting edge 14 of Frank is disposed along the first side in the opened position at least to the same extent as the cutting edge as disclosed in the present application); and
a lock and release mechanism 112b at least partially disposed in the pocket (see Figs. 1C and 2), the lock and release mechanism 112b defined by a monolithic element (see Fig. 2, where the entire mechanism 112b is one monolithic part) and including a base portion and a resilient portion 114 extending from the base portion (see the annotated Fig. 2 below), the resilient portion 114 includes a nose 116 engageable with the blade 12 (at recess 118) to hold the blade 12 in the opened position (see Fig. 7 and col. 7, lines 13-29), the lock and release mechanism further including a button connected to the resilient portion (see the annotated Fig. 2 below; see also Fig. 1B, where the button is exposed via the opening), the button disposed on the second side (see the annotated Fig. 2 below) and extending through the opening (see the annotated Fig. 1B below; the button extends through the opening because the button is partially within the pocket, and the button is accessible at an end of the button beyond the opening), and the base portion coupled to the handle 30 (see Figs. 1C and 2) and the resilient portion 114 movable between a static position (see Figs. 4 and 7) and a depressed position (see Figs. 5 and 6) relative to the base portion to vary the blade 12 between the closed position and the opened position (see Figs. 3-7; the movement of the resilient portion is indicated by the double headed arrow in Figs. 5 and 7; see also col. 7, lines 12-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
995
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
827
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Frank discloses that the resilient portion 114 extends laterally relative to the base portion when the resilient portion 114 is in the static position (see Figs. 3 and 4; the resilient portion 114 extends laterally relative to the base portion in the static position in order for the resilient portion 114 to be at least partially within a rotational plane of the blade 12), and wherein the resilient portion 114 is substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion 114 is in the depressed position (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Frank discloses that the resilient portion 114 is engaged with the blade 12 in the opened position to hold the blade 12 in the opened position (see Fig. 7 and col. 7, lines 12-23), and wherein the resilient portion 114 is engageable with the blade 12 in the closed position to hold the blade 12 in the closed position (see the engagement of the resilient portion with female portion 122 of the blade assembly 12 in Fig. 4; see also col. 7, lines 29-32; moreover, see the modification of Frank in view of Lake below).
Regarding claim 7, Frank discloses that when the blade 12 is in the opened position (see Fig. 7), the resilient portion 114 is movable toward the depressed position along an angled surface of the blade 12 (see Figs. 5-7 and the annotated Fig. below; Fig. 7 shows the blade 12 engageable with the angled surface, such that rotation of the blade 12 from the opened position toward the closed position is able to produce movement of the resilient portion 112 along the angled surface).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
821
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since an ‘assembly’ is a fitting together of multiple parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine, the feature of ‘a blade assembly’ is interpreted as requiring multiple parts. However, since the blade of Frank is a single part, the blade of Frank is not considered as disclosing a “blade assembly”. Thus, Frank fails to disclose a blade assembly, where the blade assembly is configured to support a blade as required by claim 1. Moreover, Frank discloses that the blade 12 can have a ‘female detent, dimple or simple female puzzle cavity’ to retain the blade assembly in the closed position (see col. 7, lines 33-38). Thus, Frank acknowledges that various structures can be used to retain the blade in the closed position. Still, at least for purposes of this rejection, even though Frank discloses a ‘female detent’ on the blade, Frank is considered as failing to disclose a detent extending from a side of the resilient portion and engageable with the blade assembly to hold the blade assembly in the closed position also as required by claim 1, and that the detent is engageable with a depression defined in the blade assembly when the blade assembly is in the closed position as required by claim 4. Frank also fails to disclose that the blade assembly includes a front collet face coupled to a rear collet face and defining a cavity therebetween, and the blade is configured to be removably disposed in the cavity, as required by claim 5; and that the blade assembly includes a blade holder, and that the angled surface is of the blade holder as required by claim 7.
First, LeBlanc teaches a knife 100 having a blade assembly 120 pivotably coupled to a handle 160 (compare Figs. 1A and 1F; see also paragraph 64), where the blade assembly 120 is configured to support a blade 110 having a cutting edge 11 (see Fig. 1F). [Claim 1] LeBlanc further teaches: that the blade assembly 120 includes a front collet face (an outwardly visible face of first body portion 128; see Fig. 1M) coupled to a rear collet face (an outwardly visible face of second body portion 129; see Fig. 1N) and defining a cavity therebetween (see paragraph 67; the cavity including a space receiving the blade 110 within blade assembly 120 in Fig. 1L), and the blade 110 is removably disposed in the cavity (see paragraph 67) [claim 5], and that the blade assembly 120 includes a blade holder 121 (see Fig. 1F and paragraph 67), and also that the blade holder 121 engages with a lock and release mechanism 168 (see Fig. 1T) [claim 7]. LeBlanc teaches that providing a blade assembly including a blade holder and a blade is advantageous because the blade is removable from the blade holder when the blade becomes dull or damaged, which facilitates blade replacement (see paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-configure the knife of Frank by replacing the blade of Frank with a pivotable, lockable blade assembly, where the blade assembly includes a blade holder and a blade that is removable from the blader holder, in view of the teachings of LeBlanc. This modification is advantageous because the modification facilities blade replacement when the blade becomes damaged or dull, since the blade holder of LeBlanc allows for replacing the blade without disassembly of the knife. Prior to this modification, the knife of Frank must be disassembly to permit blade replacement. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, Frank acknowledges the use of different tools in place of its blade, such that Frank’s disclosure is not limited to a blade being directly pivotably attached to the handle (see Frank at col. 6, lines 58-60). Moreover, this modification includes configuring the blade holder of LeBlanc to interact with the locking and release mechanism of Frank, including providing the blade holder with the angled surface previously including on the tang of the blade of Frank, since the blade holder of LeBlanc defines a tang portion that interacts with the lock and release mechanism.
Second, Lake teaches a resilient portion 14 of a lock and release mechanism that includes a detent 32 extending from a side of the resilient portion 14 (see Figs. 4-6; the detent 32 extends from a side of the resilient portion 14 that faces the blade 12 as can be seen in Fig. 6), with the detent 32 engageable with a pivotable blade 12 to hold the blade 12 in a closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48). [Claim 1] Lake teaches that the detent 32 is engageable with a depression 22 defined in the blade 12 when the blade 12 is in a closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48). [Claim 4]. Lake teaches that providing the resilient portion with the detent and providing the blade with the depression that is engaged by the detent when the blade assembly is in the closed position is advantageous to retain the blade assembly in the closed position (see col. 4, lines 44-48). Lake also teaches that the detent and depression are advantageous because opening of the blade is simplified since there is no requirement to separately disengage the resilient portion from the blade – the blade can merely be moved toward the open position (see col. 4, lines 50-54).
Noting that Frank expressly acknowledges different structures for retaining the blade in the closed position, including ‘a female detent’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Frank, as modified, to include a detent protruding from the resilient portion of the lock and release mechanism, where the detent engages with a depression defined in the blade assembly when the blade assembly is in the closed position, in view of the teachings of Lake. This modification is in place of having the resilient portion move to the static position when the blade assembly is in the closed position in the manner disclosed by Frank at Fig. 4 in order to hold the blade assembly in the closed position. This modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. First, Frank, as modified, differs from the knife of claim 4 by the substitution of one closed-position locking mechanism (i.e., a locking mechanism having a detent protruding from the resilient portion and a depression defined in the blade assembly) for holding the blade assembly in the closed position for another (i.e., a locking mechanism where the resilient portion moves into the static position when the blade assembly is in the closed position). Lake teaches the substituted closed-position locking mechanism as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the closed-position locking structure of Lake, where a detent interacts with a depression to retain the closed position, in place of the closed-position locking mechanism of Frank (such as by not having the resilient portion move into the static position to engage the blade assembly when the blade assembly is moved into the closed position as taught by Frank) and the results of this substitution would have been predictable. The predictability is evidence by the fact that Frank expressly contemplates a variety of structures to retain the blade in the closed position, including providing the blade with a ‘female detent’. This modification is further advantageous because it simplifies operation of the knife, in particular during movement of the blade assembly from the closed position to the opened position, since the modification eliminates the need to disengage the resilient portion from the blade assembly in order to open the blade assembly – merely urging the blade assembly toward the opened position is sufficient to disengage the detent from the depression such that fewer user operations are required when opening the blade assembly.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank as modified by LeBlanc and Lake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0110028 A1 to Seber et al.
Regarding claim 6, Frank, as modified, discloses a key (corresponding to key 124 of LeBlanc) disposed in the blade assembly (see blade assembly 120 in Fig. 1M of LeBlanc) and including a biased retaining feature (see biased retaining feature 143 of LeBlanc, which is biased by spring 125; see Fig. 1M and paragraph 69 of LeBlanc) having an angled surface (see paragraph 85, where the angled surface is disclosed by the ‘tapered surface’), wherein the retaining feature 143 is engageable with one of blade recesses of the blade (corresponding to recesses 112 of LeBlanc) to fix the blade in the blade assembly (see Fig. 1M and paragraph 69 of LeBlanc).
The blade holder of LeBlanc, which is incorporated into Frank as discussed above with respect to claim 1, only discloses that the key includes a single biased retaining feature. As a result, Frank, as modified, fails to disclose that the key includes plural biased retaining features having plural angled surfaces, where the biasing retaining features are engageable with the blade recesses as required by claim 6.
Seber teaches a key (defined along spring arm 100; see Fig. 6) that includes plural biased retaining features 82 engageable with blade recesses 68 (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 52). Seber also teaches that there may be “at least one” retaining feature (see paragraph 8; the retaining feature being referred to by Seber as a ‘mounting key’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade holder of Frank, as modified, with two biased retaining features instead of merely one biased retaining feature (i.e., to provide the blade holder of Frank, as modified, with another one of its retaining features, with the another one of the retaining features includes an angled surface in the same manner as the existing retaining feature), where the biased retaining features engage the recesses in the blade, in view of the teachings of Seber. This modification is advantageous to provide a stronger connection between the blade and blade holder, since two retaining features hold the blade in place rather than merely one, thus reducing the likelihood that the blade will be inadvertently released during cutting (such as if the blade catches on an object during a cutting operation). Moreover, this modification is obvious because Seber teaches that a blade holder can be provided with at least one retaining feature, indicating that one of ordinary skill in the art can select from one or multiple of the retaining features.
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 7,774,940 B2 to Frank in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0354144 A1 to LeBlanc et al. and US Pat. No. 7,513,044 B2 to Lake.
Regarding claim 8, Frank discloses a knife 10 (see Figs. 1C and 2, among others) comprising:
a handle 30 including a first scale coupled to a second scale (see the annotated Fig. 2 above), the first scale and the second scale defining a pocket therebetween (see Fig. 1C, where the pocket is the space between the scales, and where the pocket includes cavity 52);
a bade 12 pivotably coupled to the handle 30 (at pivot 56; compare Figs. 1B and 1C); and
a lock and release mechanism 112b at least partially disposed in the pocket (see Figs. 1C and 2), the lock and release mechanism 112b being flexible (compare the positions of the resilient portion 114 of the mechanism 112b in Figs. 4 and 5) and including a base portion coupled to the handle 30 and a resilient portion 114 extending from the base portion (see the annotated Fig. 2 above), the lock and release mechanism 112b engaging with the blade 12 when the blade 12 is in a closed position (see Fig. 4), the resilient portion 114 movable between a static position (see Figs. 4 and 7) and a depressed position (see Figs. 5 and 6) relative to the base portion to vary the blade 12 between the closed position and an opened position (see Figs. 3-7), the lock and release mechanism 112b further including a button manipulatable to vary the blade 12 from the closed position to the opened position (see the annotated Fig. 1B above identifying the button; relative to Fig. 4, the button is usable to move the resilient portion 114 out of engagement with the blade 12, thus permitting pivoting of the blade 12 to the opened position; see Figs. 5 and 7 showing double-headed arrows indicating movement of the button to permit pivoting of the blade 12), the button further manipulatable to vary the blade 12 from the opened position to the closed position (see Fig. 7, where the double headed arrow indicated movement of the button to disengage the resilient portion 114 from the blade 12), and the button releasable to facilitate the resilient portion 114 holding the blade 12 in the opened position (see Figs. 1C and 7; starting at the configuration of Fig. 4, a user is able to manipulate the button to move the resilient portion 114 out of engagement with the blade 12 by moving the button to the position of Fig. 5, thus freeing the blade 12 for pivoting to the position of Fig. 7 – once the blade 12 is rotated to the position of Fig. 7, the user is able to release the button and the natural resiliency of the resilient portion 114 springs the resilient portion into the position shown in Fig. 7 from the configuration shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Frank discloses that the blade 12 has a recess 118 (see Fig. 7), and wherein the resilient portion 114 is engaged with the blade 12 within the recess 118 to hold the blade 12 in the opened position (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Frank discloses that the resilient portion 114 extends laterally relative to the base portion when the resilient portion 114 is in the static position (see Figs. 3 and 4; the resilient portion 114 extends laterally relative to the base portion in the static position in order for the resilient portion 114 to be at least partially within a rotational plane of the blade 12), and wherein the resilient portion 114 is substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion 114 is in the depressed position (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Frank discloses that the lock and release mechanism 112b includes a bridge connecting the base portion and the resilient portion 114 (see the annotated Fig. 7 below), and wherein the resilient portion 114 is flexible relative to the base portion about the bridge (compare the geometry of the bridge in Figs. 6 and 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
516
858
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Frank discloses that when the blade 12 is in the opened position (see Fig. 7), the resilient portion 114 is movable toward the depressed position along an angled surface of the blade 12 (see Figs. 5-7 and the annotated Fig. provided above with respect to claim 7; Fig. 7 shows the blade 12 engageable with the angled surface, such that rotation of the blade 12 from the opened position toward the closed position is able to produce movement of the resilient portion 112 along the angled surface).
Since an ‘assembly’ is a fitting together of multiple parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine, the feature of ‘a blade assembly’ is interpreted as requiring multiple parts. However, since the blade of Frank is a single part, the blade of Frank is not considered as disclosing a “blade assembly”. Thus, Frank fails to disclose a blade assembly as required by claim 8. Further, Frank discloses that the blade 12 can have a ‘female detent, dimple or simple female puzzle cavity’ to retain the blade assembly in the closed position (see col. 7, lines 33-38). Thus, Frank acknowledges that various structures can be used to retain the blade in the closed position. Still, at least for purposes of this rejection, Frank is considered as failing to disclose that the blade assembly has a depression and that the lock and release mechanism has a detent protruding from the resilient portion and the detent engageable with the depression when the blade assembly is in the closed position as required by claim 8. Frank also fails to disclose: that the blade assembly includes a blade holder having the depression and the recess, wherein the resilient portion is engaged with the blade holder in the opened position as required by claim 9; wherein the blade assembly includes a front collet face coupled to a rear collet face and defining a cavity therebetween, and a blade removably disposed in the cavity as required by claim 12; a key disposed in the blade assembly and including a biased retaining feature engageable with a blade recess to fix a blade in the blade assembly as required by claim 13; wherein the blade assembly includes a blade holder, and wherein the biased retaining feature includes an angled surface movable by insertion of the blade into the blade holder as required by claim 14; and that the angled surface is of the blade holder as required by claim 15.
LeBlanc teaches a knife 100 having a blade assembly 120 pivotably coupled to the handle 160 (compare Figs. 1A and 1F; see also paragraph 64). [Claim 8] LeBlanc further teaches:
that the blade assembly 120 includes a blade holder 121 having a recess (see Fig. 1T, where the recess is the cutout in the blade holder 121 engaged by the resilient portion 168), wherein a resilient portion 168 of a lock and release mechanism is engaged with the blade holder 121 within the recess to hold the blade assembly 120 in the opened position (see Fig. 1T) [claim 9];
that the blade assembly 120 includes a front collet face (an outwardly visible face of first body portion 128; see Fig. 1M) coupled to a rear collet face (an outwardly visible face of second body portion 129; see Fig. 1N) and defining a cavity therebetween (see paragraph 67; the cavity including a space receiving the blade 110 within blade assembly 120 in Fig. 1L), and the blade 110 is removably disposed in the cavity (see paragraph 67) [claim 12];
a key 124 disposed in the blade assembly 120 (see Fig. 1M) and including a biased retaining feature 143 (feature 143 is biased by spring 125; see Fig. 1M and paragraph 69) engageable with a blade recess 112 to fix a blade 110 in the blade assembly 120 (see Fig. 1M and paragraph 69) [claim 13]; and
that the blade assembly 120 includes a blade holder 121, and wherein the biased retaining feature 143 includes an angled surface movable by insertion of the blade 110 into the blade holder 121 (see Fig. 1M and paragraph 85, where the ‘angled surface’ as claimed is disclosed by the “tapered surface”) [claim 14]; and
that a resilient portion of a lock and release mechanism 168 engages the blade holder 121 (see Fig. 1T) [claim 15].
Also, LeBlanc teaches that providing a blade assembly including a blade holder and a blade is advantageous because the blade is removable from the blade holder when the blade becomes dull or damaged, which facilitates blade replacement (see paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-configure the knife of Frank by replacing the blade of Frank with a pivotable, lockable blade assembly, where the blade assembly includes a blade holder having the above-discussed features of LeBlanc and a blade that is removable from the blader holder, in view of the teachings of LeBlanc. This modification is advantageous because the modification facilities blade replacement when the blade becomes damaged or dull, since the blade holder of LeBlanc allows for replacing the blade without disassembly of the knife. Prior to this modification, the knife of Frank must be disassembly to permit blade replacement. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, Frank acknowledges the use of different tools in place of its blade, such that Frank’s disclosure is not limited to a blade being directly pivotably attached to the handle (see Frank at col. 6, lines 58-60). Moreover, this modification includes configuring the blade holder of LeBlanc to interact with the locking and release mechanism of Frank, including providing the blade holder with the angled surface previously including on the tang of the blade of Frank, since the blade holder of LeBlanc defines a tang portion that interacts with the lock and release mechanism.
Still, Frank, as modified, is considered as failing to disclose that the blade assembly defines a depression and that the lock and release mechanism has a detent protruding from the resilient portion and the detent engageable with the depression defined in the blade assembly when the blade assembly is in the closed position as required by claim 8. Frank, as modified, is similarly considered as failing to disclose that the blade holder has the depression as required by claim 9.
Lake teaches a detent 32 protruding from a resilient portion 14 of a lock and release mechanism (see Figs. 4-6), the detent 32 engageable with a depression 22 defined in a pivotable blade 12 when the blade 12 is in a closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48). [Claim 8]. Lake teaches that providing the resilient portion with the detent and providing the blade with the depression that is engaged by the detent when the blade assembly is in the closed position is advantageous to retain the blade assembly in the closed position (see col. 4, lines 44-48). Lake also teaches that the detent and depression are advantageous because opening of the blade is simplified since there is no requirement to separately disengage the resilient portion from the blade – the blade can merely be moved toward the open position (see col. 4, lines 50-54).
Noting that Frank expressly acknowledges different structures for retaining the blade in the closed position, including ‘a female detent’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Frank, as modified, to include a detent protruding from the resilient portion of the lock and release mechanism, where the detent engages with a depression defined in the blade holder when the blade assembly is in the closed position, in view of the teachings of Lake. This modification is in place of having the resilient portion move to the static position for the resilient portion to engage the blade holder when the blade assembly is in the closed position in the manner disclosed by Frank at Fig. 4 in order to hold the blade assembly in the closed position. This modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. First, Frank, as modified, differs from the knife of claim 8 by the substitution of one closed-position locking mechanism (i.e., a locking mechanism having a detent protruding from the resilient portion and a depression defined in the blade assembly) for holding the blade assembly in the closed position for another (i.e., a locking mechanism where the resilient portion moves into the static position when the blade assembly is in the closed position). Lake teaches the substituted closed-position locking mechanism as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the closed-position locking structure of Lake, where a detent interacts with a depression to retain the closed position, in place of the closed-position locking mechanism of Frank (such as by not having the resilient portion move into the static position to engage the blade assembly when the blade assembly is moved into the closed position as taught by Frank) and the results of this substitution would have been predictable. The predictability is evidence by the fact that Frank expressly contemplates a variety of structures to retain the blade in the closed position, including providing the blade with a ‘female detent’. This modification is further advantageous because it simplifies operation of the knife, in particular during movement of the blade assembly from the closed position to the opened position, since the modification eliminates the need to disengage the resilient portion from the blade assembly in order to open the blade assembly – merely urging the blade assembly toward the opened position is sufficient to disengage the detent from the depression such that fewer user operations are required when opening the blade assembly. Moreover, in carrying out this modification, it would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of the references to provide the blade holder of Frank, as modified, with the depression, since the blade holder of Frank, as modified, defines a tang of the blade assembly per the teachings of LeBlanc and since Lake teaches providing a tang with the depression. The combination thus includes providing the depression at the tang, with the tang of Frank, as modified, being formed by the blade holder.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 7,774,940 B2 to Frank in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0354144 A1 to LeBlanc et al., US Pat. No. 7,987,601 B2 to Nakamura, and US Pat. No. 7,513,044 B2 to Lake.
Regarding claim 16, Frank discloses a knife 10 (see Figs. 1C and 2, among others) comprising:
a handle 30 including a first scale coupled to a second scale (see the annotated Fig. 2 above), the first scale and the second scale defining a pocket therebetween (see Fig. 1C, where the pocket is the space between the scales, and where the pocket includes cavity 52);
a blade 12 pivotably coupled to the handle 30 (at pivot 56; compare Figs. 1B and 1C); and
a lock and release mechanism 112b at least partially disposed in the pocket (see Figs. 1C and 2), the lock and release mechanism 112b including:
a base portion coupled to the handle 30 (see the annotated Fig. 2 above), the base portion having a first flexibility (the base portion inherently has some first flexibility that is a function of the material and geometry of the base portion, even if the base portion is not expressly disclosed as flexing);
a resilient portion 114 coupled to the base portion (see the annotated Fig. 2 above), the resilient portion 114 engageable with the blade 12 when the blade 12 is in a closed position (see Fig. 4), the resilient portion 114 having a second flexibility greater than the first flexibility (see Figs. 6 and 7 showing that the resilient portion 114 flexes, such that the resilient portion 114 has some ‘second flexibility’; moreover, the fact that the resilient portion 114 flexes while the base portion remains stationary is evidence that the resilient portion has a greater flexibility than the base portion); and
a button extending along an edge of the resilient portion (see the annotated Fig. 1B above),
wherein the resilient portion 114 is bendable via the button between a static position (shown in Fig. 7) and a depressed position (shown in Fig. 6) relative to the base portion (see the bending of the resilient portion 114 indicated by the double headed arrow in Fig. 7), and
wherein the button is manipulatable to bend the resilient portion 114 to the depressed position to vary the blade 12 from the closed position to the opened position (compare Figs. 3 and 7; relative to Fig. 3, the button is accessible for manipulation by a user to bend the resilient portion to the position in Fig. 5, thus allowing for pivoting of the blade 12 to the opened position).
Regarding claim 20, Frank discloses that the resilient portion 114 extends laterally relative to the base portion when the resilient portion 114 is in the static position (see Figs. 3 and 4; the resilient portion 114 extends laterally relative to the base portion in the static position in order for the resilient portion 114 to be at least partially within a rotational plane of the blade 12), and wherein the resilient portion 114 is substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion 114 is in the depressed position (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Frank discloses that the button is monolithic with the resilient portion 114 (see Fig. 2).
Since an ‘assembly’ is a fitting together of multiple parts into a complete machine, structure, or unit of a machine, the feature of ‘a blade assembly’ is interpreted as requiring multiple parts. However, since the blade of Frank is a single part, the blade of Frank is not considered as disclosing a “blade assembly”. Thus, Frank fails to disclose a blade assembly as required by claim 16. Further, Frank discloses that the blade 12 can have a ‘female detent, dimple or simple female puzzle cavity’ to retain the blade assembly in the closed position (see col. 7, lines 33-38). Thus, Frank acknowledges that various structures can be used to retain the blade in the closed position. Still, at least for purposes of this rejection, Frank is considered as failing to disclose that the blade assembly defining a depression, that the resilient portion has a detent protruding from the resilient portion, and the detent engageable with the depression when the blade assembly is in the closed position as required by claim 16. Finally regarding claim 16, Frank fails to disclose that the button extends laterally from an edge of the resilient portion as required by claim 16. Frank also fails to disclose that when the blade assembly is in the closed position, the blade assembly is movable to the opened position without actuating the resilient portion as required by claim 17.
LeBlanc teaches a knife 100 having a blade assembly 120 pivotably coupled to the handle 160 (compare Figs. 1A and 1F; see also paragraph 64). [Claim 16] LeBlanc teaches that providing a blade assembly including a blade holder and a blade is advantageous because the blade is removable from the blade holder when the blade becomes dull or damaged, which facilitates blade replacement (see paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-configure the knife of Frank by replacing the blade of Frank with a pivotable, lockable blade assembly, where the blade assembly includes a blade holder and a blade that is removable from the blader holder, in view of the teachings of LeBlanc. This modification is advantageous because the modification facilities blade replacement when the blade becomes damaged or dull, since the blade holder of LeBlanc allows for replacing the blade without disassembly of the knife. Prior to this modification, the knife of Frank must be disassembled to permit blade replacement. As further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, Frank acknowledges the use of different tools in place of its blade, such that Frank’s disclosure is not limited to a blade being directly pivotably attached to the handle (see Frank at col. 6, lines 58-60). Moreover, this modification includes configuring the blade holder of LeBlanc to interact with the locking and release mechanism of Frank, since the blade holder of LeBlanc defines a tang portion that interacts with the lock and release mechanism.
Next, Nakamura teaches a button that extends laterally from an edge of a resilient portion 2 (see Fig. 11, where the button is the structure receiving the tip of the lead line for reference character ‘2’; an edge of the resilient portion 2 extending along side-plate 1b underlies the button as is evident from comparing Figs. 10 and 11). [Claim 16] The configuration of the button of Fig. 11 of Nakamura provides additional surface area relative to the configuration of the button of Nakamura of Fig. 1 (and also relative to the button configuration of Frank), such that a user is less likely to experience slippage when pressing the button.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the button of Frank to extend laterally from an edge the resilient portion in view of the teachings of Nakamura. This modification is advantageous to provide a button with a greater surface area, such that the user is less likely to experience slippage when actuating the button (friction being increased with surface area). Moreover, this modification is advantageous because by making the button larger, the button also becomes more noticeable to a user, such that the knife is more intuitively operated. Prior to this modification, the thin stature of the button allows the button to go unnoticed, whereas by bending the button to extend laterally the button becomes more readily seen such that ease of use is improved. Finally, this modification is merely a change in shape, and Nakamura teaches that either of a non-laterally protruding button (see Fig. 1) and a laterally bent button (see Fig. 11) provides the same result of permitting actuation of the resilient portion. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Still, Frank, as modified, is considered as failing to disclose that the blade assembly defining a depression, that the resilient portion has a detent protruding from the resilient portion, and the detent engageable with the depression when the blade assembly is in the closed position as required by claim 16. Frank, as modified, also fails to disclose that when the blade assembly is in the closed position, the blade assembly is movable to the opened position without actuating the resilient portion as required by claim 17.
Lake teaches a detent 32 protruding from a resilient portion 14 of a lock and release mechanism (see Figs. 4-6), the detent 32 engageable with a depression 22 defined in a pivotable blade 12 when the blade 12 is in a closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48). [Claim 16]. Lake also teaches that when the blade 12 is in the closed position, the blade 12 is movable to the opened position without actuating the resilient portion 14 (see col. 4, lines 50-54). [Claim 17] Lake teaches that providing the resilient portion with the detent and providing the blade with the depression that is engaged by the detent when the blade assembly is in the closed position is advantageous to retain the blade assembly in the closed position (see col. 4, lines 44-48). Lake also teaches that the detent and depression are advantageous because opening of the blade is simplified since there is no requirement to separately disengage the resilient portion from the blade – the blade can merely be moved toward the open position (see col. 4, lines 50-54).
Noting that Frank expressly acknowledges different structures for retaining the blade in the closed position, including ‘a female detent’, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Frank, as modified, to include a detent protruding from the resilient portion of the lock and release mechanism, where the detent engages with a depression defined in the blade holder when the blade assembly is in the closed position, in view of the teachings of Lake. This modification is in place of having the resilient portion move to the static position for the resilient portion to engage the blade holder when the blade assembly is in the closed position in the manner disclosed by Frank at Fig. 4 in order to hold the blade assembly in the closed position. This modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. First, Frank, as modified, differs from the knife of claim 8 by the substitution of one closed-position locking mechanism (i.e., a locking mechanism having a detent protruding from the resilient portion and a depression defined in the blade assembly) for holding the blade assembly in the closed position for another (i.e., a locking mechanism where the resilient portion moves into the static position when the blade assembly is in the closed position). Lake teaches the substituted closed-position locking mechanism as noted above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the closed-position locking structure of Lake, where a detent interacts with a depression to retain the closed position, in place of the closed-position locking mechanism of Frank (such as by not having the resilient portion move into the static position to engage the blade assembly when the blade assembly is moved into the closed position as taught by Frank) and the results of this substitution would have been predictable. The predictability is evidence by the fact that Frank expressly contemplates a variety of structures to retain the blade in the closed position, including providing the blade with a ‘female detent’. This modification is further advantageous because it simplifies operation of the knife, in particular during movement of the blade assembly from the closed position to the opened position, since the modification eliminates the need to disengage the resilient portion from the blade assembly in order to open the blade assembly – merely urging the blade assembly toward the opened position is sufficient to disengage the detent from the depression such that fewer user operations are required when opening the blade assembly. Moreover, in carrying out this modification, it would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of the references to provide the blade assembly with the depression as required by claim 16, since the blade assembly defines a tang of the blade assembly per the teachings of LeBlanc and since Lake teaches providing a tang with the depression.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank as modified by LeBlanc, Nakamura, and Lake as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0110028 A1 to Seber et al., as evidenced by US Pat. No. 5,546,662 to Seber (hereinafter referred to as the ‘662 patent to avoid confusion with respect to the ‘028 publication also being to Seber).
Regarding claim 19, Frank, as modified, discloses that in the opened position the resilient portion (portion 114 of Frank) extends laterally from the second scale into the pocket (see Frank at Fig. 7).
Frank, as modified, fails to disclose that the second scale includes a carve-out configured to receive the resilient portion such that the resilient portion is nested within the second scale as required by claim 18.
Seber teaches a second scale 18 that includes a carve out configured to receive a lock and release mechanism 54, including a resilient portion of the lock and release mechanism 54 (see Fig. 6). [Claim 18] Further, it is known in the art to be advantageous to provide a scale of a knife with a recessed portion for receiving a resilient portion of a lock and release mechanism because in this manner the lock and release mechanism becomes a structural component that strengths and adds rigidity to the knife handle (see the ‘662 patent at col. 3, lines 47-52 and col. 7, lines 20-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second scale of Frank, as modified, with a carve-out configured to receive the resilient portion (and indeed, to receive the entire lock and release mechanism) such that the resilient portion is nested within the second scale. This modification is advantageous because it allows the lock and release mechanism to add to the structural rigidity of the knife, such that the knife can be used for heavy duty cutting without undue flexing. Moreover, this modification is further advantageous to reduce the likelihood of contamination of the lock and release mechanism, since a rim wall of the second scale provides protection for the lock and release mechanism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding limitations interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the Applicant presents no new arguments against interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). As such, claim limitations identified above remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues against the Lake reference, stating that there is no motivation to modify Frank in view of Lake because Frank already addresses the ability to hold the blade in the closed position. This argument is not persuasive. First, the rejection explains as one motivation that KSR Rationale B is applicable. This motivation is especially applicable in the present instance in view of Frank explicitly acknowledging different structures being suitable for retaining the blade in the closed position. The Applicant’s argument is further not persuasive because Lake also provides a motivation for the modification. In particular, opening of the blade form the closed position is simplified as a result of this modification because a user need not manually disengage the resilient portion from the blade in a separate action from opening the blade – i.e., following this modification, merely applying a sufficiently large blade opening force (in the absence of any additional force being applied by the user directly to the button) achieves opening of the blade. Thus, the modification is advantageous to simplify operation of the knife. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, this modification in no way provides a “second, separate closed-position retention structure” since the modification removes the closed-position locking configuration of Frank.
The Applicant further argues that the detent of Lake does not extend from a side of a resilient portion. In support of this argument, the Applicant states that element 22 of Lake is a recess. This argument is not persuasive. First, the rejection does not rely on element 22 of Lake as a detent. Instead, the rejection relies on element 32 of Lake. Moreover, Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 7 of Lake illustrate the detent 32 extending from a side of a resilient portion 14. Since the Applicant argues against a recess as being a detent, when the rejection relies on a different structure than that against which the Applicant argues, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 8 and 16 under 35 USC 103 are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, since the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 16 merely duplicate the arguments already addressed with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
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