DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,2,5,6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the rear end portion of the blade in which the space is provided itself forms the handle” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-Examiner notes that while a reference character is noted for the rear end portion of the blade (3)(as seen in Figure 1), it is unclear from the claims what portion of the rear end portion is to be the handle, as currently claimed. The drawings and specification do not appear to show the bounds of what can and cannot be considered the rear end portion of the blade, and what is to be the handle, when no standard handle element (See handle H) is present.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the rear end portion of the blade in which the space is provided itself forms the handle” lacks written description. Examiner notes that while the specification appears to provide support for the language (Paragraph 0057) the specification does not appear to provide the bounds of what can and cannot be considered the handle element. Is the handle the exterior component of the rear end portion, is a user intended to “grip” and utilize the interior spacing as the handle, or are other portions of the rear end portion of the blade intended to be characterized as the handle? For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as any end portion or tang of a blade may be gripped and held “as a handle”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (U.S. Patent No. 10,350,770).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an edged tool (10, 20)(Figure 1) comprising:
a blade (11), at a rear end portion thereof, divided in a thickness direction and provided with a space (14) open at a rear end side (Figure 2); and
a handle (12) gripped by a user (Figures 1-2; Examiner notes the rear end of the blade is capable of being held by a user and is considered a “handle”);
wherein the rear end portion of the blade, in which the space (14) is provided itself forms the handle 12 (Figures 1-2; Examiner notes the handle portion to be part of the blade and a user may grip the rear end of the blade as a handle element as currently claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the edged tool according to claim 1, wherein the space is formed by bonding a blade side end portion (121) and a back side end portion (122) at the rear end portion of the blade divided in the thickness direction (Figure 2 and Col. 4, Lines 2-13).
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (U.S. Patent No. 10,350,770) as evidenced by Schmerler (US 2020/0189129) in view of DeAsis (US 2003/0221323).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches an edged tool (10, 20)(Figure 1) comprising:
a blade (11), at a rear end portion thereof, divided in a thickness direction and provided with a space (14) open at the rear end side (Figure 2) and a handle (30) gripped by a user (Figures 1-2);
a connecting member (12) bonded to the rear end portion (Col. 3, Lines 49-64 and Col. 4, Lines 1-13) and having a connecting mechanism (22) on a rear end surface thereof, wherein the handle is connected to the blade via the connecting member (Figures 2-4; Col. 3, Lines 49-64).
Chen does not provide the connecting member having a female screw portion functioning as a connecting mechanism on the rear end surface thereof.
Schmerler provides evidence it is known to have a bolster (315) that appears to be a single component including female screw threads (Figure 3) adapted to receive a threaded handle component (Figures 9A and 9B; Paragraph 0034).
DeAsis teaches it is known in the art of securing blades and handles to provide a knife (5) with a handle (20) ,with a blade (10) having a space (17) in a rear end of the blade (Figure 4 and 6A; Paragraph 0026) and a connecting member with a connecting mechanism (40,44), the connecting member having a female screw portion (30) functioning as a connecting mechanism on the rear end surface thereof (Figures 4 and 6A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Chen to incorporate the teachings of DeAsis to provide the connecting member with a female screw portion. In doing so, it allows for the blade and handle portions to be easily separated and replaced as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Chen teaches the edged tool according to claim 1, wherein a side surface of the blade is a continuous surface from a cutting edge (Bottom edge of the blade as shown in Chen Figure 1) to the rear end portion, and the rear end portion is spread in the thickness direction (Chen Figures 2-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art of Chen does not provide the limitation of the handle. Examiner disagrees and notes that the claim only requires a blade with a rear end portion that is capable of being held by the user. As currently claimed, the device of Chen provides a blade, with a rear end component (12) that is capable of being used as a handle by the user, thus meeting the limitation.
-Applicant further argues, with respect to claim 5 “However, as shown in Figures 4 and 6B below, insert 30 is inserted into an aperture 17 of tang 14, and by itself insert 30 does not connect or engage with handle 20, nor is it a coupling mechanism between handle 20 and blade 10. DeAsis, [0026]. Instead, it is coupler 40 that, when threaded into insert 30, engages a butt end 26 of handle 20 at head 44 to couple the handle 20 to the tang 14. DeAsis, [0032]. As such, DeAsis does not disclose that handle 20 is connected to blade 10 via insert 30”. Examiner notes the prior art of Chen provides a majority of the required claim language, and is merely modified in light of DeAsis to note a removable connection utilizing a separate connecting member with a female screw portion bonded to the tang of the blade is known within the art. As such, the female threaded portions in combination with the remaining elements to provide a handle connected via the female threaded portion.
-Applicant’s arguments concerning the combination and obvious rationale are noted but unclear. Applicant provides “Further, the Office has not sufficiently established why it would have been obvious to modify Chen in view of DeAsis. As discussed above, Chen discloses a connecting sleeve 12 with a sheathing hole 13 for coupling with a handle 30. Chen, 3:49-54. Since Chen already has a mechanism that allows a handle "to be easily separated and replaced" (Office Action, 4), a person of skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Chen with DeAsis's insert 30 and coupler 40 that provide the same coupling function”. Examiner notes the rationale is to provide an easily separated and replaceable handle element as evidenced by Schmerler and taught by DeAsis, as the prior art of Chen appears to provide a fixed attachment. Thus, the prior art provides the rationale for modification via removable handles from the female threaded ends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 09/11/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights