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. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10), subgroup ID (claim 9), Species A (Figs. 5-6) in the reply filed on 04/25/2026 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 4-5 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subgroup, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/25/2026.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 6, “the acoustic resonator: should be –the at least one acoustic resonator--. In claim 10, “comprising construction materials of metal, ceramic” should be –comprising materials selected from metal, ceramic--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 9 is 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 9, “comprises an acoustic resonator slot” is unclear because it is not evident whether the acoustic resonator slot is part of the “at least one acoustic resonator” recited in claim 1 or constitute a separate element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lake et al. (6,490,797 B1), hereinafter Lake, in view of Sjoberg (SE 462148 B). Regarding claim 1, Lake discloses a folding knife (10), comprising: a frame (14, 94, 96, 98) having a first side (94), a second side (96), an open top leading to a pocket (206), a bottom (defined by spacer 98), a first end, a second end, and a center section therebetween; a stop pin (192) disposed proximate said second end of said frame; the stop pin being inherently in vibrational contact (as being in contact with the first and second sides of the frame) with said first side and said second side of said frame; a blade (12) having a pointed end (20) and a base end (30), said base end pivotally (by pivot 16) secured to said second end of the frame such that said blade is capable of pivoting between a closed position wherein said blade is received within said pocket (206) and an open position wherein said blade pivots out of said pocket through said open top and extends outwardly from said second end of the frame; and a frame lock (106, 114, 121) having a first end (defined by the fixed portion of the spring 106), a second end (114), and a center section therebetween; said frame lock second end protruding towards said open top of said frame; said frame lock pivotably (via pivot 16) integrated with said frame at a pivot notch (shown in Figs. 2-3) proximate said center section of said frame. See Figs. 1-14 in Lake.
Lake does not explicitly teach that at least one acoustic resonator is disposed within said frame and positioned adjacent a stop pin disposed proximate said second end of said frame; and that the at least one acoustic resonator is configured to vibrate and produce an audible “shwing” sound effect in response to impact of said blade with said stop pin.
Sjoberg teaches a folding tool including a blade (2) pivotally mounted about a pivot pin (3) within a handle (1) and a locking device including latch (4) and spring (6), wherein an acoustic sound is produced upon engagement of the locking mechanism, explicitly disclosing that engagement between the blade and locking structure generates a distinct audible indication of locking. This inherently involves mechanical vibration resulting from impact/contact between structural elements of the knife. Sjoberg therefore teaches: use of impact-generated vibration between a moving blade and structural stop/lock components; conversion of that impact into an audible sound signal; and the functional benefit of user feedback (audible confirmation of engagement).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lake’s folding knife by incorporating an acoustic resonator adjacent stop pin (192), as taught by Sjoberg, such that the impact between blade (12) and stop pin (192) produces a vibrational response transmitted through the frame (94, 96) to generate an audible sound, because doing so would provide audible feedback confirming blade deployment and lock engagement, thereby improving user awareness and safety. Further, positioning such a resonator adjacent the stop pin represents a predictable placement, as this is the primary impact location in Lake. Additionally, configuring the stop pin (192) in vibrational communication with the frame sides (94, 96) would have been an obvious design choice to enhance sound transmission, consistent with Sjoberg’s teaching that sound is generated via structural interaction and transmitted through the handle.
Regarding claim 2, Lake, as modified by Sjoberg, does not explicitly teach that the audible “shwing” sound effect is generated when the blade strikes the stop pin and the vibration from the impact travels to the at least one acoustic resonator and through the frame. Sjoberg teaches that when the blade (2) engages the locking mechanism (4), an acoustic sound is produced, inherently resulting from mechanical impact and vibration transmission through the handle (1). It would have been obvious to modify Lake such that the impact between blade (12) and stop pin (192) produces vibration that propagates through the frame and into an acoustic resonator, as taught by Sjoberg, in order to provide audible confirmation of blade deployment, improving usability and safety.
Regarding claim 3, Lake, as modified by Sjoberg, does not explicitly teach that the at least one acoustic resonator is tuned to a natural frequency and harmonics of the frame. Lake does not disclose any resonator, tuning structure, or frequency-based vibration design. Sjoberg teaches that engagement of blade (2) with locking structure (4) produces an audible sound, which inherently depends on the vibrational characteristics of the structure. It would have been obvious to tune a resonator within Lake’s frame to the natural frequency of the handle (94, 96) to enhance and control the sound output, as optimizing vibration and resonance for clearer audible feedback is a well-known design consideration in mechanical systems.
Regarding claim 6, Lake, as modified by Sjoberg, does not explicitly teach that the acoustic resonator comprises at least one geometric shape selected from the group consisting of a tuning bar, tuning fork, triangle, and combinations thereof. Lake does not disclose any acoustic resonator or shaped vibration element. Sjoberg teaches sound generation via mechanical interaction, implying vibrational structures within the knife. It would have been obvious to implement the resonator in known mechanically efficient shapes (e.g., tuning fork, bar, triangle) to enhance resonance and sound clarity, as such geometries are well known for producing controlled acoustic vibration, thereby improving the audible feedback taught by Sjoberg when applied to Lake.
Regarding claim 8, Lake, as modified by Sjoberg, does not explicitly teach that the audible “shwing” sound effect comprises a frequency between 1570 and 2350 Hz. Lake does not disclose any sound, frequency, or acoustic parameter. Sjoberg teaches that blade engagement produces an audible sound, implying a measurable frequency. It would have been obvious to select a specific frequency range (1570-2350 Hz) as a matter of routine optimization to achieve a desired audible characteristic, since selecting frequency ranges for sound-producing mechanical systems is a predictable design choice.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Lake, as modified by Sjoberg, does not explicitly teach that each handle scale comprises an acoustic resonator slot. Lake does not disclose slots or cavities configured specifically for acoustic resonance. Sjoberg teaches sound generation within the handle structure due to blade engagement. It would have been obvious to provide slots within handle scales (94, 96) to accommodate or enhance acoustic resonators, as modifying structural elements to improve sound propagation and amplification is a known technique, thereby improving the audible feedback function.
Regarding claim 10, Lake teaches everything noted above including that construction materials of metal, ceramic, plastic (claim 15 in Lake), fiberglass, and combinations thereof.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Sullivan (2008/0086894 A1) and Zirk et al. (2004/01487313 A10 teach a folding knife.
9. 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
April 7, 2026