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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12-24-24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Applicant does not need to do anything as the references that have been lined-through have been considered and cited on the PTO-892.
The information disclosure statement filed 12-24-24 fails to list the International Search Report.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 12-15-25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “23” has been used to designate both a drive member in Figures 1-18 and an accommodating cavity in Figures 19-36. Also, Reference character “30” has been used to designate both a blade holder in Figures 1-18 and a drive member in Figures 19-36. Figures 1-18 and Figures 19-36 represent different knives; however, Figures 19-36 are replete with re-using the reference numbers already used in Figures 1-18 but in different ways. The Examiner has only listed 2 examples above as there are many more occurences. Each number in Figures 19-36 needs to be different from any of the numbers previously used in Figures 1-18. For example, both of the knives have a drive member but both drive members are different and need to have their own label.
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. 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.
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 parallel and perpendicular relationships, of claim 14
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification has the same issues with “front”, “rear”, “upper”, and “lower” as the claims (see below). Also, the specification needs to better define the claim 14 “parallel” and “perpendicular” relationship limitations with help from these axes being shown in the Figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 11 and 13-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 11 lines 9 and 13, the phrases “front side of the blade holder” and “rear side of the blade holder” are unclear. On lines 4-5 of claim 11, the end opening is disclosed as being at a “front” end of the inner housing. If 24 is the front end of the inner housing, 14 would be at the rear end of the inner housing. This disclosure makes the front-to-rear direction as the up/down direction in Figure 25. The front side of the blade holder is connected to the drive member and the rear side of the blade holder is connected to the second guide rail but this disclosure does not correspond with the up/down direction in Figure 25. The front and rear sides of the blade holder appear to be the left-to-right direction in Figure 25. The sides of the blade holder need to be renamed in light of the front-to-rear direction being defined as the up/down direction in Figure 25. It is noted “left” and “right” are not proper names as the knife will not always have the orientation as shown in Figure 25. It is recommended that the “front side” be disclosed as a “first side” and the “rear side” be disclosed as a “second side opposite to the first side”. Claim 11 has the same issues on lines 20-24. Claim 11 has the same issue with “a front end of the driving surface” on line 22. Claims 14 and 15 have the same issues. Claim 15 has the same issue with “upper housing” and “lower housing”.
With regards to claim 11 line 13, the phrase “a second guide rail provided on the fixed surface” is unclear. The second guide rail does not appear to be “on” the fixed surface. Using Figure 26, guide rail 221 appears to extend through the fixed surface 222. Rail 221 can be on the inner housing 22 but not on 222.
With regards to claim 11 line 15, the phrase “drive member…rotates relative to the fixed surface” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for this rotation to take place and what structure allows for the rotating to take place along with the translating. It is clear how the drive member slides/translates but the member does not appear to rotate.
With regards to claim 11 line 22, it is unclear what structure defines the driving surface. Lines 10-11 discloses the drive member having a “driver surface”. Was “a driver surface” on line 11 supposed to be “a driving surface”?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the driving surface" on 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 11 lines 22-23 and line 25, the phrase “blade holder to translate and/or rotate” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for this translating function to take place and what structure allows for the translating to take place along with the rotating. It is clear how the holder rotates but the holder does not appear to translate. Claim 15 has the same issue.
With regards to claim 11 lines 22-23 and line 25, the phrase “rotate” is unclear. It is unclear if this rotation is the same or a different movement than the “selectively rotated” limitation on line 16. The later “rotate” limitations do not reference back to the original rotating disclosure. As written, holder has three separate rotating functions which does not appear to be supported.
With regards to claim 11 line 27, the phrase “turn” is unclear. It is unclear if the “turn” function is the same or a different movement than the “selectively rotated” limitation on line 16. As written, the holder rotates and separately turns which does not appear to be supported.
With regards to claim 11 line 26, the phrase “slide assembly” is unclear. What structure represents the slide assembly? What structure incorporates the slide assembly? Inner housing?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the sliding assembly" on 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 13 lines 5-6, it is unclear what structure allows for the blade holder to be connected to the fixed surface. Claim 11 makes no mention of these structures being connected. Claim 11 discloses that the holder is connected to the second guide rail via second guide member. Using Figure 26, the fixed surface 222 appears to be an outer surface away from the holder. Further explanation is needed.
Claim 14 is very confusing. First the blade is not positively claimed and, is therefore, an indefinite intended use. All limitations dependent upon the blade are indefinite. Since the blade is being used to further define the parallel relationship, the limitation is indefinite. It is unclear how members 411 and 421 are on a line that is parallel to the blade edge. Using the Figures, the line the members are on appears to be perpendicular to the blade edge. The parallel and perpendicular relationships are not understood. Further definition is needed so the limitations are clear.
With regards to claim 14, claim 14 discloses the starting end of the guide rails are on an identical straight line and the terminal ends of the guide rails are located on an identical straight line both perpendicular to the axis. If this is the case, how do the guide rails have different trajectories as claimed in claim 13? Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 14 lines 14-15, the “turning angle” is unclear. Is the turning angle related to the same or a different function as the rotating to a plurality of positioning angles as disclosed in claim 11. Use of the terms “rotate” and “turn” makes the claims confusing.
With regards to claim 15, the terms “upper” and “lower” are unclear. The knife is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where the housings would not be considered upper or lower. Terms need to be utilized that are true regards less of orientation. Claim 16 has the same issues.
With regards to claim 19, it is unclear what structures define the unfolded state and the folded state. Claim 22 has the same issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art incorporates a folding knife with an outer housing and an inner housing with a first guide assembly and a second guide assembly, the first guide assembly having a first guide rail and a drive member, the second guide assembly having a fixed surface and a second guide rail, a blade holder with staggered first and second guide members, the first guide member pivotally connected to the driving surface and the first guide rail, and the second guide member is pivotally connected to the second guide rail in combination with the remaining limitations. None of the prior art including the prior art cited on the International Search Report incorporates structures to represent these limitations. There appears to be no justification to modify or the cited references including the prior art cited on the International Search Report incorporates, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
12 January 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724