Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
1. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Species I. Fig. 9A;
Species II. Fig. 9B;
Species III. Fig. 10A;
Species IV. Fig. 10B; and
Species V. Fig. 10C.
The species are independent or distinct because each one of the species has at least a unique feature that is not presented in other species. Species have mutually exclusive characteristic. Each of these characteristics are mutually exclusive to the respective embodiment. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
2. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there is no generic claim.
3. Applicant is advised that a reply to this requirement must include an identification of the species that is elected consonant with this requirement, and a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
4. Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise include all the limitations of an allowed generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which are readable upon the elected species. MPEP § 809.02(a).
5. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse.
6. A telephone call was made to Jung-Chun Hung (Reg, No. 77,607) on 01/20/2026 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, but did not result in an election being made.
However, applicant must elect one species from Species I-V as set forth above by the Examiner, so that the Examiner may examine and fucus on a single species during the prosecution of the current application, given the time constraints.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “’a
sagittal plane” is an anatomical plane terminology it should be changed to –a
longitudinal plane of the knife—. In claim 24, “interlocking engagement” should be –an interlocking engagement--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a pressing unit,’ “a position-limiting unit,” “an engaging unit,” “a passage-allowing unit,” and “an elastic unit” recited in claim 1; and
“an elastic member” recited in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, “the second positing groove” and “the first positing groove” lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Freeman (8,893,389 B2) in view of Chen (2013/02391389 A1) and in further view of Pardue et al. (7,278,213 B2), hereinafter Pardue. Regarding claim 1, Freeman teaches a folding knife 10, comprising: a handle (22, 24), comprising: a first plate 22, wherein an inner side of the first plate is concavely formed with a groove 63; and a second plate 24 formed with a through hole 61 corresponding in position to the groove 63; a blade 14 configured to be located between the first plate 22 and the second plate 24 and having: a pivotal connection end 50 configured to be pivotally connected to a position of the handle that is adjacent to a first end of the handle and to be rotated out of the handle and rotated into the handle around the position where the handle and the blade are pivotally connected; a blade tip end (as shown in Fig. 11); a passage-allowing groove 55 configured to correspond in position to the groove 63 of the first plate when the blade 14 is fully stored in the handle (Fig. 12); an elastic bar 30 having a first end located at a position of the handle (22, 24) that is adjacent to a second end (Figs.12-13) of the handle, and a second end at a position (Fig. 14) adjacent to the position where the handle and the blade are pivotally connected, and configured to, when the blade is fully stored in the handle, press against (Fig. 14) the blade 14 and apply a rotating force to the blade that pushes the blade along a direction out of the handle (Figs. 14-16); and an engaging portion (40, 44; Fig. 11) comprising: an engaging post 40 comprising: a pressing unit 41 configured to be extended into the through hole 61 from an inner side of the second plate 24 and be exposed from an outer side of the second plate; an engaging unit 43 configured to be extended into the groove 63 of the first plate 22 and, when the pressing unit 41 is pressed, be disengaged from the blade and prevented from being pressed against an outer edge of the blade, so that the blade is pushed by the elastic bar 30 and rotated out of the handle till the positioning portion is extended into the second positioning groove, and a portion of the outer edge of the blade passes through an area corresponding to the groove of the first plate while the blade is being rotated outward (Figs. 12-16); and a passage-allowing unit , wherein a greatest length of the passage-allowing unit 46 in the transverse direction is less than a greatest length of the engaging unit 43 in the transverse direction; and an elastic element 44 located in the groove 63 of the first plate 22 and configured to: push the engaging unit in a direction away from the groove 63 of the first plate 22; and when the blade 14 is stored in the handle and the pressing unit is not pressed, push the engaging unit and press the engaging unit against the outer edge of the blade (Fig. 9), so that the blade is blocked by the engaging unit and prevented from being rotated outward. See Figs. 1-16 in Freeman.
However, Freeman does not explicitly teach that the first plate or the second plate is formed with a first positioning groove; a second positioning groove configured to correspond to the first positioning groove when the blade is rotated out of the handle and in an unfolded state; a positioning portion configured to be disposed in the first positioning groove and, when the second positioning groove corresponds to the first positioning groove, be extended into the second positioning groove and prevent the blade from rebounding because of a reaction force; and a position-limiting unit, wherein a greatest length of the position-limiting unit in a transverse direction is greater than a hole diameter of the through hole, so as to prevent the engaging post from separating from the through hole.
Chen teaches a folding knife 3A including a first plate or the second plate 5 which is formed with a first positioning groove 57; a second positioning groove 45 (Fig. 6) configured to correspond to the first positioning groove 57 when a blade 4 is rotated out of a handle (3, 5) and in an unfolded state; a positioning portion 55 configured to be disposed in the first positioning groove 57 (Fig. 6) and, when the second positioning groove 45 corresponds to the first positioning groove 57, be extended into the second positioning groove 45 and prevent the blade 4 from rebounding because of a reaction force. See Figs. 1-6 in Chen. It would have been obvious to a person in ordinary skill in the art to provide Freeman’s folding knife with the first positioning groove, second positioning groove and positioning portion, as taught by Chen, in order to further prevent unintended rotation of the blade from the handle.
Pardue also teaches a folding knife including an engaging portion (36, 134; Fig. 3) comprising: an engaging post 36 comprising: a pressing unit 38 configured to be extended into a through hole (Fig. 3) from an inner side of a second plate 16 and be exposed from an outer side of the second plate; a position-limiting unit 40 (Fig. 7), wherein a greatest length of the position-limiting unit in a transverse direction is greater than a hole diameter of the through hole (clearly shown in Fig. 15), so as to prevent the engaging post 36 from separating from the through hole; an engaging unit 42 configured to be extended into a groove 66 of a first plate 18 and, when the pressing unit 38 is pressed, be disengaged from a blade 14 and prevented from being pressed against an outer edge of the blade. See Figs. 1-15 in Pardue. It would have been obvious to a person in ordinary skill in the art to provide Freeman’s folding knife, as modified by Chen, with the position-limiting unit, as taught by Pardue, in order to enhance retention of the engaging post within the handle.
Regarding claim 2, Freeman teaches everything noted above including that the engaging unit 43 (Fig. 10 in Freeman) is configured to be extended into the passage-allowing groove (55; Figs. 15-16 in Freeman) and pressed against a groove wall of the passage-allowing groove when the pressing unit is not pressed and the blade is stored in the handle (Fig. 12), and be disengaged from the passage-allowing groove 55 and leave the passage-allowing unit in the passage-allowing groove when the pressing unit is pressed, and the passage-allowing unit 46 (Fig. 10 in Freeman is configured to allow passage of the blade without being touched by the blade when the blade is rotated out of the handle around the position where the handle and the blade are pivotally connected.
Regarding claim 3, Freeman, as modified Pardue, teaches everything noted above including that a portion of the engaging unit (43 in Fig. 9 of Freeman and 42 in Fig. 15 of Pardue) that is adjacent to the passage-allowing unit (46 in Fig. 9 of Freeman and 42 in Fig. 15 of Pardue) has a trapezoidal longitudinal cross section, and a greatest width of the engaging unit (43 in Fig. 9 of Freeman and 42 in Fig. 15 of Pardue) is greater than a distance between any two opposite sidewall portions of the passage-allowing groove (46 in Figs. 9-10 in Freeman and 50 in Fig. 15 of Pardue).
Regarding claim 4, Freeman teaches everything noted above including an engaging groove 58 is concavely formed at a lateral edge of the blade 14, and the elastic element 30 is configured to, when the blade is rotated fully out of the handle and the pressing unit 41 is not pressed, push the engaging unit and press the engaging unit against a groove wall of the engaging groove, so that the blade is blocked by the engaging unit from inward rotation (Fig. 16 in Freeman).
Regarding claim 5, Freeman teaches everything noted above except
an inner side of the first plate is protrudingly provided with a stop post, the blade is concavely formed with a stop groove at a position adjacent to the engaging groove, and the stop post is in the stop groove and abuts a groove wall of the stop groove when the blade is rotated fully out of the handle. However, Pardue teaches an inner side of a first plate 18 is protrudingly provided with a stop post 60, the blade 14 is concavely formed with a stop groove 62 (Fig. 5 in Pardue) at a position adjacent to an engaging groove (for the pressing post 36; Fig. 5 in Pardue), and the stop post 60 is in the stop groove and abuts a groove wall of the stop groove 62 when the blade is rotated fully out of the handle (Fig. 5 in Pardue). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Freeman’s folding knife, as modified above, with the stop post and stop groove, as taught by Pardue, in order to prevent further rotation of the blade when the after the blade is deployed from the handle in an extended position.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Freeman, as modified by Chen, teaches everything noted above including that the positioning portion 55 (Fig. 6 in Chen) comprises: an elastic member 551 configured to be disposed in the first positioning groove 57 and having an elastic restoring force; and a positioning block 553 configured to be pushed and displaced by the elastic member, be driven by the elastic member to be extended into the second positioning groove 45 when the second positioning groove corresponds to the first positioning groove, and be pressed by the blade and moved inward of the first positioning groove when the second positing groove does not correspond to the first positing groove. See Fig. 6 in Chen.
Regarding claim 7, Freeman, as modified by Chen, teaches everything noted above including that the elastic member 551 is a spring, and the positioning block 533 is a ball. See Fig. 6 in Chen.
Regarding claim 8, Freeman, as modified by Chen, teaches everything noted except that in an alternative embodiment in which the elastic member and the positioning block are integrally formed, and the elastic member is formed by bending or curving a plate at a specific angle and has the elastic restoring force. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a positioning portion having an integrated elastic member and positioning block, wherein he the elastic member is formed by bending or curving a plate to provide restoring force is old and well known in the art.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Lau (2021/0154868 A1), Bruhns (10,035,272), Ping (7,480,997 B2), Ralph (2007/0169,354 A1), Lake (7,302,760 B2), Lerch (7,243,430 B1), Cheng (7,275,321 B2), Steigerwalt et al. (2006/0230620A1), Pardue (5,822,866), Collins (6,397,477 B1), and Frazer (6,941,661 B2) teach a folding knife.
Shuen (6,256,888 B14) teach a folding knife having an integrated elastic member and positioning block.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 January 20, 2026