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 with traverse of Group A (claims 2–19) and Species V (Figs. 20–24), filed on January 19, 2026, is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction requirement on the basis that the restriction does not identify mutually exclusive claim limitations defining distinct species. This argument is not persuasive.
The species are mutually exclusive because each species includes unique features not present in the other species. For example, claims 5–10 are directed to Species I (Figs. 2–7) and elected Species V (Figs. 20–24), which include a right guide arm and a left guide arm projecting forwardly from a hollow main body. Claims 14–18 are directed to Species II (Figs. 8–13), which include a right arm and a left arm projecting rearwardly from a blade slot. Claim 12 is directed to Species I (Figs. 2–7) and Species II (Figs. 8–13), both of which include a strike plate (15, 38). Claim 13 is directed to elected Species V (Figs. 20–24) and Species VI (Figs. 25–26), which include a scalloped region (78, 88). Claim 11 is directed to Species I (Figs. 2–7) and elected Species V (Figs. 20–24), which include left and right arms each having a curved tip (20, 21). Claims 20–35 are directed to Species III (Fig. 15), which includes a hollow main body comprising a housing of a utility knife at a cutting end. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion that elected Species V (Figs. 20–24) reads on claims 2–19, elected Species V reads only on claims 1–11 and claim 13. As stated above, claim 12 reads on non-elected Species I and II, and claims 14–19 read on non-elected Species II (Figs. 8–13). Accordingly, claims 12 and 14–19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected species.
Applicant’s argument that U.S. Patent No. 4,619,569 contains no disclosure relating to knife guides is misplaced. The Examiner did not rely on this reference on page 7 of the restriction requirement. Instead, the Examiner cited KR 19-990035418, U.S. Patent No. 8,819,945 B2, KR 20-200007340, and U.S. Patent No. 5,806,189 as teaching the subject matter of claim 1 (see page 3 of the restriction requirement).
Applicant’s argument that the claims share the same technical features is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not include technical features that contribute to the invention or render it unique. See the rejection of claim 1 below. Additionally, claims 20–35 are clearly directed to a different species and technical features than claims 2–19. As discussed above, each set of claims is directed to a separate species, and each species includes at least one technical feature not present in the others.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
2. Claims 12 and 14-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, “claim 1 further wherein” should be –claim 1 wherein--. In claim 2, “90 degree angle” should be –90-degree angle--. 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. Claims 2-11 and 13 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it introduces limitations that render the scope of the claimed invention unclear. Specifically, claim 2 recites that “the hollow main body is configured to fit over a housing of a utility knife.” However, independent claim 1 is directed only to a knife blade guide and does not recite, require, or otherwise positively include a utility knife or a housing of a utility knife. Because claim 1 does not define the claimed invention as a combination including a utility knife, it is unclear whether claim 2 is directed to:
A knife blade guide alone, or
A combination of a knife blade guide and a utility knife.
Accordingly, the scope of claim 2 is indefinite, as it is unclear how the recited utility knife housing relates to the knife blade guide of claim 1, and whether the utility knife is part of the claimed invention.
Claims 4–9 are also indefinite because they recite a container having corners and sides, yet independent claim 1 does not recite or require a container.
Since claim 1 is directed solely to a knife blade guide and does not define a system or combination including a container, it is unclear whether the limitations recited in claims 4–9 are intended to further limit:
The knife blade guide alone, or
A broader system including a knife blade guide and a container.
Because the container is not positively recited in claim 1, the scope of claims 4–9 is unclear, rendering them indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Semo (KR 19,990,035,418 U), provided with the IDS filled on 08/04/2024. Regarding claim 1, Semo teaches a knife blade guide (6’; Fig. 3) comprising: a hollow main body (32; Fig. 3); a corner guide (6; Fig. 2) positioned on a front end (2, 3) of the hollow main body comprising: a right guide arm (defined by the upper arm 5; Fig. 2) projecting from the front end; a left guide arm (defined by the lower arm 5, Fig. 2) projecting from the front end; a blade slot (4; Fig. 1) positioned between the right guide arm and the left guide arm; and wherein the right guide arm and the left guide arm are positioned at a predetermined angle (defined by the angle between the guide arms) apart from each other. See Figs, 1-3 in Semo.
Regard claim 2, Semo teaches everything noted above including that
the hollow main body is configured to fit over a housing 30’ (Fig. 3) of a utility knife at a cutting end of the utility knife.
Regard claim 3, Semo teaches everything noted above including that
the blade slot is configured to accommodate a cutting blade 3 (Fig. 1) of the utility knife 30.
Regard claim 4, Semo teaches everything noted above including that the blade slot is configured to be positioned proximate a corner 41 of a container 40 (Fig. 4) and the right guide arm and the left guide arm are configured to be positioned against a respective side of the container. Additionally, the limitation set forth above merely describes an intended use of the knife blade guide and does not further structurally limit the knife blade guide itself. In other words, the blade slot and the left and right guide arms may be positioned anywhere with respect to a container, as desired by the user.
Regard claim 5, Semo teaches everything noted above including that the corner guide is an outside corner guide (6, Fig. 2) comprising: the right guide arm and the left guide arm project in a forwardly direction (Fig. 2-3) from the hollow main body; and the blade slot 4 is any of a rectangular slot and an ovoid slot (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Semo teaches everything noted above including that the outside corner guide is configured to be placed on an outside portion 41 of the corner of the container (Fig. 4) and the right guide arm and the left guide arm are configured to be positioned against an outside surface of the respective side of the container (Fig. 4). Additionally, the limitation set forth above merely describes an intended use of the knife blade guide and does not further structurally limit the knife blade guide itself. In other words, the left and right guide arms may be positioned anywhere with respect to a container, as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 7, Semo teaches everything noted above including that the blade slot is configured to be positioned proximate an outside surface (Fig. 4) of the corner of the container 41. Additionally, the limitation set forth above is an intended use of the knife blade guide and does not further structurally limit the knife blade guide itself. In other words, the blade slot can be positioned anywhere with respect to a container, as desired by the user.
Regarding claim 8, Semo teaches everything noted above including that the outside corner guide is configured to guide the utility knife along the outside surface of the corner of the container and the cutting blade is configured to cut the corner of the container.
Regarding claim 9, Semo teaches everything noted above including that the
the predetermined angle is an outside guide angle and is chosen to match an outside angle of the corner of the container (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Semo teaches everything noted above including that the
the outside guide angle comprises an approximate 90-degree angle between the right guide arm and the left guide arm (Fig. 2).
8. Claims 1-4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Reibold (8,819,945 B2), provided with the IDS filed on 08/04/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Reibold teaches a knife blade guide (113; Fig. 11) comprising:
a hollow main body (114, Fig. 11); a corner guide (Fig. 11) positioned on a front end of the hollow main body comprising: a right guide arm 118 projecting from the front end; a left guide arm 118 projecting from the front end; a blade slot (defined by the slot that accommodates the tip of the folding knife 116; Fig. 13) positioned between the right guide arm 118 and the left guide arm 118; and wherein the right guide arm and the left guide arm are positioned at a predetermined angle (which could be zero degree or more) apart from each other. See Figs, 11-13 in Reibold.
Regarding claim 2, Reibold teaches everything noted above including that the hollow main body is configured to fit over a housing of a utility knife 116 at a cutting end of the utility knife.
Regarding claim 3, Reibold teaches everything noted above including that the blade slot is configured to accommodate a cutting blade 120 of the utility knife.
Regarding claim 4, Reibold teaches everything noted above including that
the blade slot is configured to be (or capable of being) positioned proximate a corner of a container and the right guide arm 118 and the left guide arm 118 are configured to be positioned against a respective side of the container. It should be noted that the arms can be positioned proximate a conner of any container that can be fit within the space defined between the arms. The container itself is not part of the knife blade guide apparatus. Accordingly, the knife blade guide may be positioned against a corner of any container that can be fit within the space between the guide arms.
Regarding claim 11, Reibold teaches everything noted above including that the right guide arm 118 comprises a planar portion (defined by the straight portion of the arm extending towards the curved end; Fig. 12) and a curved tip (defined by the curved end) positioned on a bottom portion (defined by the end that is attached to eth curved tip; Fig. 2) of the planar portion and the left guide arm 118 comprises a planar portion and a curved tip (similar to the right arm) positioned on a bottom portion of the planar portion.
Regarding claim 13, Reibold teaches everything noted above including a scalloped region (defined by the U-shape region of knife blade guide 118; Figs. 11-13) positioned between the right guide arm 118 and the left guide arm 118 wherein the blade slot is positioned within the scalloped region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semo in view of Kang (KR 20200007340 A), provided with the IDS filled on 08/04/2024, or
Davis (GB 2,214,122 A). Regarding claim 11, Semo teaches the that the right guide arm and left guide arms each comprises a planar portion, but fails to teach that each of the right guide arm and left guide arm comprises a curved tip positioned on a bottom portion of each of the respective planar portions. However, Kang teaches a knife blade guide (Fig. 1) having a right guide arm (right-most guide arm, Fig. 1) comprising a planar portion (see planar face of right-most guide arm in Fig. 1) and a curved tip positioned on a bottom portion of the planar portion (see curved tip of right-most guide arm in both Fig. 1 and 4) and a left guide arm (left-most guide arm, Fig. 1) comprising a planar portion (see planar face of left-most guide arm in Fig. 1) and a curved tip positioned on a bottom portion of the planar portion (see curved tip of left-most guide arm in both fig. 1 and 4). Davis also teaches a knife blade guide (12, 14) having a right guide arm (12) comprising a planar portion and a curved tip (12E) positioned on a bottom portion of the planar portion and a left guide arm 14 comprising a planar portion and a curved tip (14E) positioned on a bottom portion of the planar portion. See Figs. 1-4 in Davis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Semo’s knife blade guide with the curved tip portions, as taught by Kang or Davis, in order to provide improved user control during cutting.
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semo in view Reibold. Regarding claim 13, Semo teaches the knife blade guide of claim 4, but fails to teach further comprising a scalloped region positioned between the right guide arm and the left guide arm wherein the blade slot is positioned within the scalloped region. However, Reibold teaches a knife blade guide (118, Fig. 11-13) comprising a scalloped region (defined by the U-shape region of knife blade guide 118; Figs. 11-13) positioned between a right guide arm (right-most arm of Fig. 12) and a left guide arm (left-most arm of Fig. 12) wherein a blade slot (accommodates cutting blade 120, Figs. 12-13) is positioned within the scalloped region. Therefore, it would haves been obvious to a person of ordinary skill ion the art to provide Semo’s knife blade guide with the scalloped region, as taught by Reibold, in order to enable the knife blade guide of Semo to maintain alignment with workpieces which have rounded corners.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Wass (6,321,454 B1), Lurie (2,978,807), Arthur (2,120,960), Platte (DE 3707045 A1), Peyrot (FR 2596682 A1), Wolson, SR (Reg. No. 2,329,805), Babb (2,095,164), Davis (4,503,612), Abbott (6,035,534), and Selfridge (4,043,038) teach a knife blade guide.
13. 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 February 3, 2026