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
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) because the drawings, with the exception of Fig. 2, are grayscale renderings rather than black and white line drawings. Replacement black and white line drawings should be provided.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. It is unclear whether any “slot” is illustrated as being defined between the first and second scales, where the “slot” is required to be in addition to a pocket that is also defined between the first and second scales. The drawings do not include any reference character indicating a “slot” that is distinct from the illustrated pocket ‘50’. Since no “slot” is identified with a reference character, it cannot be determined whether or not the “slot” is shown in the drawings. Therefore, the “slot” that is defined between the first and second scales as recited in claims 1, 8, and 13 should be indicated with a reference character (if the slot is in fact illustrated in the present drawings), or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “95” as indicating a ramp or angled portion.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “73” has been used to designate both a plane in Fig. 2 and a hole in various figures including (non-exhaustively) Figs. 3A and 3B. Note that the specification likewise describes both the plane and hole with the same reference character “73”, such that the specification will require amendment as well.
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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at lines 2-3 recites, “the first scale and the second scale defining a pocket and a slot therebetween”. Since “therebetween” refers to the first and second scales, but follows the recitations of “a pocket” and “a slot”, this recitation should be amended to replace “therebetween” with – between the first scale and the second scale –.
Claim 7 recites, “a blade holder”. Consistent with the present specification, the blade holder of claim 7 is a subset of the “blade assembly” already introduced in claim 1. That is, the blade holder of claim 7 is not a wholly new feature. Claim 7 should be amended to make this relationship clear. The examiner suggests amending claim 7 to either: explicitly introduce a blade holder of the blade assembly, such as by reciting, “wherein the blade assembly includes a blade holder”; or expressly state that the blade holder is of the blade assembly, such as by reciting “an angled surface of a blade holder of the blade assembly”.
Claim 8 at lines 2-3 recites, “the first scale and the second scale defining a pocket and a slot therebetween”. Since “therebetween” refers to the first and second scales, but follows the recitations of “a pocket” and “a slot”, this recitation should be amended to replace “therebetween” with – between the first scale and the second scale –.
Claim 8 at lines 5-9 should be amended to reduce the run-on nature of the recitation to enhance clarity. The recitation should read – the lock and release mechanism at least partially defined by a flexible element and including a base portion coupled to the handle and a resilient portion extending from the base portion, [[and]] the lock and release mechanism having a detent protruding from the resilient portion and the detent engageable with the depression when the blade assembly is in a closed position –.
Claim 8 introduces both “a flexible element” and “a resilient portion”. The recitation of “a flexible element” is describing a characteristic of the lock and release mechanism, rather than describing some particular structural sub-component of the lock and release mechanism. That is, the lock and release mechanism as disclosed includes the resilient portion, where the resilient portion is flexible. The recitation of “a flexible element” should be re-phrase to more clearly describe the lock and release mechanism being flexible. The examiner suggests amending lines 5-6 as follows: – the lock and release mechanism being flexible
Claim 9 at lines 1-2 recites, “wherein the blade assembly includes a blade holder having the depression and a recess”. This recitation should read – wherein the blade assembly includes a blade holder, the blade holder having the depression and a recess – to more clearly recite that the blade holder, rather than the blade assembly, is the structure that includes the recess.
Claim 20 at the first line recites, “The knife of claim 16, ,”. One of the two commas in this recitation should be deleted.
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 – 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 “features”); 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 § 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, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2018/0354144 A1 to LeBlanc et al.
Regarding claim 1, LeBlanc discloses a knife 100 comprising:
a handle 160 including a first scale 171 coupled to a second scale 172 (see Figs. 1A and 1O and paragraph 72), the first scale 171 and the second scale 172 defining a pocket and a slot 181 therebetween (see Fig. 1E showing the pocket as receiving the body 121 of the blade holder 120; see also paragraph 72 describing the pocket as the receptable between the scales 171 and 172; the slot 181 is shown in Fig. 1K, among others);
a blade assembly 120 pivotably coupled to the handle 160 (compare Figs. 1A and 1F; see also paragraph 64); and
a lock and release mechanism 168 at least partially disposed in the pocket (see Figs. 1J and 1O), the lock and release mechanism 168 defined by a monolithic element (i.e., the mechanism 168 forms a single monolithic body per Fig. 1O and paragraph 77) and including a base portion 197 and a resilient portion 198 extending from the base portion 197 (see Fig. 1O and paragraph 77), the base portion 197 coupled to the handle 160 (see Fig. 1O and paragraph 77) and the resilient portion 198 movable between a static position (shown in Figs. 1J and 1T where the resilient portion 198 engages the blade holder 120; see also paragraph 77 describing the static position as an ‘extended position’) and a depressed position (the ‘retracted’ position as described at paragraph 77) relative to the base portion 197 (i.e., the resilient portion 198 moves between the static and depressed positions relative to the base portion 197) to vary the blade assembly 120 between a closed position (shown in Fig. 1A; see also paragraph 77) and an opened position (shown in Fig. 1J; see also paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 5, LeBlanc discloses 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 blade 110 within blade assembly 120 in Fig. 1L), and a blade 110 removably disposed in the cavity (see paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 7, LeBlanc discloses that when the blade assembly 120 is in the opened position (see Figs. 1J and 1T), the resilient portion 198 is movable toward the depressed position along an angled surface of a blade holder 121 (see annotated Fig. 1T below showing the angled surface, which surface has some direction of extent in a direction into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1T in order for the resilient portion 198 to engage the blade holder 121 to lock the blade holder 121 in the opened position consistent with paragraph 77; per paragraph 77, the resilient portion 198 is pressable by the user to the depressed position, which moves the resilient portion 198 along the angled surface in the direction into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1T).
PNG
media_image1.png
491
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc in view of US Pat. No. 7,513,044 B2 to Lake.
Regarding claim 2, LeBlanc discloses that the resilient portion 198 extends laterally relative to the base portion 197 when the resilient portion 198 is in the static position (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77), and wherein the resilient portion 198 is closer to co-planar with the base portion 197 when the resilient portion 198 is in the depressed position (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77; with ‘closer to’ being relative to when the resilient portion 198 is in the static position).
Regarding claim 3, LeBlanc discloses that the resilient portion 198 is engaged with the blade assembly in the opened position to hold the blade assembly in the opened position (see Figs. 1J and 1T and paragraph 77).
However, LeBlanc fails to explicitly disclose the alignment of the resilient portion and the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position, and thus LeBlanc fails to disclose that the resilient portion is substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position as required by claim 2. LeBlanc also fails to disclose the resilient portion is engageable with the blade assembly in the closed position to hold the blade assembly in the closed position as required by claim 3; and that the lock and release mechanism further comprises a detent protruding from the resilient portion, the detent engageable with a depression defined in the blade assembly when the blade assembly is in the closed position as required by claim 4.
Lake, though, teaches a resilient portion 14 that is substantially co-planar with a base portion 13 when the resilient portion 14 is in a depressed position (see Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 14-17). [Claim 2] Lake further teaches that the resilient portion 14 is engageable with a blade assembly 12 in a closed position of the blade assembly 12 to hold the blade assembly 12 in the closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48) [claim 3], and a detent 32 protrudes from the resilient portion 14 (see Figs. 4 and 6), the detent 32 engageable with a depression 22 defined in the blade assembly 12 when the blade assembly 12 is in the closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48) [claim 4]. First, Lake teaches that configuring the resilient portion to be substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position allows a tang portion of a blade assembly to rotate past the detent on the resilient portion into the closed position (see col. 4, lines 14-17). Second, Lake teaches that providing the resilient portion with the detent and providing the blade assembly 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify LeBlanc by configuring the resilient portion of LeBlanc to be substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position in view of the teachings of Lake in order to allow a tang of the blade assembly to rotate past the resilient portion (even when the resilient portion includes a detent) into the closed position. That is, by having the resilient portion be urged to be substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position, the resilient portion (even if provided with a detent) is prevented from obstructing rotation of the blade assembly into the closed position. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify LeBlanc by providing the resilient portion with a detent and by providing the blade assembly with a recess in the tang of the blade assembly in view of the teachings of Lake in order to aid in retaining the blade assembly in the closed position. That is, the detent on the resilient portion engages the recess in the tang of the blade assembly to provide a retention force aiding in the blade assembly staying in the closed position.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0110028 A1 to Seber et al.
Regarding claim 6, LeBlanc discloses 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 one of blade recesses 112 to fix a blade 110 in the blade assembly 120 (see Fig. 1M and paragraph 69).
LeBlanc, however, only discloses that the key includes a single biased retaining feature, and thus fails to disclose that the key includes plural biased retaining features 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 LeBlanc with two biased retaining features instead of merely one biased retaining feature (i.e., to provide LeBlanc with another one of its retaining features), 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 the number of retaining features provided.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0354144 A1 to LeBlanc et al. in view of US Pat. No. 7,513,044 B2 to Lake.
Regarding claim 8, LeBlanc discloses a knife 100 comprising:
a handle 160 including a first scale 171 coupled to a second scale 172 (see Figs. 1A and 1O and paragraph 72), the first scale 171 and the second scale 172 defining a pocket and a slot 181 therebetween (see Fig. 1E showing the pocket as receiving the body 121 of the blade holder 120; see also paragraph 72 describing the pocket as the receptable between the scales 171 and 172; the slot 181 is shown in Fig. 1K, among others);
a blade assembly 120 pivotably coupled to the handle 160 (compare Figs. 1A and 1F; see also paragraph 64); and
a lock and release mechanism 168 at least partially disposed in the pocket (see Figs. 1J and 1O), the lock and release mechanism 168 defined at least partially defined by a flexible element 198 (see Fig. 1O and paragraph 77) and including a base portion 197 coupled to the handle 160 (see Fig. 1O and paragraph 77) and a resilient portion 198 extending from the base portion 197 (see Fig. 1O and paragraph 77), the resilient portion 198 movable between a static position (shown in Figs. 1J and 1T where the resilient portion 198 engages the blade holder 120; see also paragraph 77 describing the static position as an ‘extended position’) and a depressed position (the ‘retracted’ position as described at paragraph 77) relative to the base portion 197 (i.e., the resilient portion 198 moves between the static and depressed positions relative to the base portion 197) to vary the blade assembly 120 between a closed position (shown in Fig. 1A; see also paragraph 77) and an opened position (shown in Fig. 1J; see also paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 9, LeBlanc discloses that the blade assembly 120 includes a blade holder 121 having a recess (see the annotated Fig. 1T below), and wherein the resilient portion 198 is engaged with the blade assembly 120 within the recess to hold the blade assembly 120 in the opened position (see the annotated Fig. 1T below and paragraph 77).
PNG
media_image2.png
474
954
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, LeBlanc discloses that the resilient portion 198 extends laterally relative to the base portion 197 when the resilient portion 198 is in the static position (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77), and wherein the resilient portion 198 is closer to co-planar with the base portion 197 when the resilient portion 198 is in the depressed position (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77; with ‘closer to’ being relative to when the resilient portion 198 is in the static position).
Regarding claim 11, LeBlanc discloses that the lock and release mechanism 168 includes a bridge connecting the base portion 197 and the resilient portion 198 (see the annotated Fig. 1J below and paragraph 77; the bridge being the portion that allows the resilient portion 198 to move from the configuration in Fig. 1J to the configuration in which the resilient portion 198 is positioned “closer to the second housing portion 172” as described in paragraph 77), and wherein the resilient portion 198 is flexible relative to the base portion 197 about the bridge (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77).
PNG
media_image3.png
472
1131
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, LeBlanc discloses 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 blade 110 within blade assembly 120 in Fig. 1L), and a blade 110 removably disposed in the cavity (see paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 13, LeBlanc discloses 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).
Regarding claim 14, LeBlanc discloses 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”).
Regarding claim 15, LeBlanc discloses that when the blade assembly 120 is in the opened position (see Figs. 1J and 1T), the resilient portion 198 is movable toward the depressed position along an angled surface of the blade holder 121 (see annotated Fig. 1T provided above with respect to the rejection of claim 7 showing the angled surface, which surface has some direction of extent in a direction into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1T in order for the resilient portion 198 to engage the blade holder 121 to lock the blade holder 121 in the opened position consistent with paragraph 77; per paragraph 77, the resilient portion 198 is pressable by the user to the depressed position, which moves the resilient portion 198 along the angled surface in the direction into and out of the page relative to Fig. 1T).
Regarding claim 16, LeBlanc discloses a knife 100 comprising:
a handle 160 including a first scale 171 coupled to a second scale 172 (see Figs. 1A and 1O and paragraph 72), the first scale 171 and the second scale 172 defining a pocket and a slot 181 therebetween (see Fig. 1E showing the pocket as receiving the body 121 of the blade holder 120; see also paragraph 72 describing the pocket as the receptable between the scales 171 and 172; the slot 181 is shown in Fig. 1K, among others);
a blade assembly 120 pivotably coupled to the handle 160 (compare Figs. 1A and 1F; see also paragraph 64); and
a lock and release mechanism 168 at least partially disposed in the pocket (see Figs. 1J and 1O), the lock and release mechanism 168 including:
a base portion 197 coupled to the handle 160 (see Fig. 1O and paragraph 77), the base portion 197 having a first flexibility (see paragraph 77; the base portion 197 has a flexibility that is limited by attachment of the base portion to the handle 160 via “a number of fasteners”), and
a resilient portion 198 coupled to the base portion 197 (see Fig. 1O and paragraph 77), the resilient portion 198 having a second flexibility greater than the first flexibility (first, the resilient portion 198 has a second flexibility per paragraph 77, which states, “the arm 198 may be free to deflect relative to the base portion 197”; second, the resilient portion 198 has a flexibility greater than that of the base portion 197 because the resilient portion 198 deflects relative to the base portion 197 per paragraph 77, and also because the resilient portion 198 is not restrained by a number of fasteners as is the base portion 197; the fact that LeBlanc only discloses the resilient portion 198 is deflecting indicates that the resilient portion has a greater flexibility than the base portion 197), and wherein the resilient portion 198 is bendable (see paragraph 77) between a static position (shown in Figs. 1J and 1T where the resilient portion 198 engages the blade holder 120; see also paragraph 77 describing the static position as an ‘extended position’) and a depressed position (the ‘retracted’ position as described at paragraph 77) relative to the base portion 197 (i.e., the resilient portion 198 moves between the static and depressed positions relative to the base portion 197) to vary the blade assembly 120 between a closed position (shown in Fig. 1A; see also paragraph 77) and an opened position (shown in Fig. 1J; see also paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 17, LeBlanc discloses that when the blade assembly 120 is in the closed position, the blade assembly 120 is movable to the opened position without actuating the resilient portion 198 (see paragraph 77; the resilient portion 198 only engages the blade holder 120 to lock the blade holder 120 when the blade holder 120 is in the opened position – when the blade holder 120 is in the closed position, the resilient portion 198 is at a side of the blade holder 120 and does not restrict rotation of the blade holder 120, such that the resilient portion 198 need not be actuated to move the blade assembly 120 to the opened position).
Regarding claim 18, LeBlanc discloses that the second scale 172 includes a carve-out (see the annotated Fig. 1O below) configured to receive the resilient portion 198 such that the resilient portion 198 is nested within the second scale 172 (see the annotated Fig. 1O below; the resilient portion 198 is ‘nested within the second scale’ because the resilient portion 198, at its top side relative to Fig. 1O, is covered by the protruding part above the carve-out and at its outer side relative to Fig. 1O is covered by a sidewall of the second scale 172).
PNG
media_image4.png
612
890
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, LeBlanc discloses that in the opened position [of the blade assembly 120] the resilient portion 198 extends laterally from the second scale 172 into the pocket (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 20, LeBlanc discloses that the resilient portion 198 extends laterally relative to the base portion 197 when the resilient portion 198 is in the static position (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77), and wherein the resilient portion 198 is closer to co-planar with the base portion 197 when the resilient portion 198 is in the depressed position (see Fig. 1J and paragraph 77; with ‘closer to’ being relative to when the resilient portion 198 is in the static position).
LeBlanc fails to disclose the blade assembly defining a depression, and the lock and release mechanism having a detent protruding from the resilient portion and engageable with the depression when the blade assembly is in the closed position as required by claim 8. LeBlanc also fails to disclose that the blade holder has the depression as required by claim 9 and that the resilient portion is substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position as required by claim 10. LeBlanc also fails to disclose the blade assembly defining a depression, and the resilient portion having a detent protruding from the resilient portion and engageable with the depression when the blade assembly is in a closed position, as required by claim 16. LeBlanc also fails to disclose that the resilient portion is substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position as required by claim 20.
Lake teaches a blade assembly 12 defining a depression 22 (see Figs. 3 and 4), and a detent 32 protruding from a resilient portion 14 and engageable with the depression 22 when the blade assembly 12 is in a closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48). [Claim 8] Lake teaches that a tang portion 17 of the blade assembly 12 has the depression 22 (see Figs. 3 and 4 and col. 5, lines 1-3). [Claim 9] Lake also teaches that the resilient portion 14 is substantially co-planar with a base portion 13 when the resilient portion 14 is in a depressed position (see Fig. 4 and col. 4, lines 14-17). [Claims 10 and 20] Finally, Lake teaches that the blade assembly 12 defines the depression 22 (see Figs. 3 and 4), and the resilient portion 14 having the detent 32 protruding from the resilient portion 14 (see Figs. 2 and 4) and engageable with the depression 22 when the blade assembly 12 is in a closed position (see Fig. 6 and col. 4, lines 44-48). [Claim 16] First, Lake teaches that configuring the resilient portion to be substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position allows a tang portion of a blade assembly to rotate past the detent on the resilient portion into the closed position (see col. 4, lines 14-17). Second, Lake teaches that providing the resilient portion with the detent and providing the tang portion of the blade assembly 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify LeBlanc by configuring the resilient portion of LeBlanc to be substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position in view of the teachings of Lake in order to allow a tang of the blade assembly to rotate past the resilient portion (even when the resilient portion includes a detent) into the closed position. That is, by having the resilient portion be urged to be substantially co-planar with the base portion when the resilient portion is in the depressed position, the resilient portion (even if provided with a detent) is prevented from obstructing rotation of the blade assembly into the closed position. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify LeBlanc by providing the resilient portion with a detent and by providing the blade assembly with a depression in the tang of the blade assembly in view of the teachings of Lake in order to aid in retaining the blade assembly in the closed position. That is, the detent on the resilient portion engages the depression in the tang of the blade assembly to provide a retention force aiding in the blade assembly staying in the closed position. Finally, since LeBlanc teaches that the blade holder defines the tang of the blade assembly, it would have been obvious in view of the combined teaches of LeBlanc and Lake to provide the depression in the blade holder since: (1) LeBlanc teaches that the blade holder defines the tang of the blade assembly and (2) Lake teaches providing the depression in the tang of the blade assembly.
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