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 .
Detailed Action
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In paragraph [0037], lines 25-26, “the blade drawer 160 … configured to slidably engage with an opening in the blade drawer 160” does not make sense. It is suggested “an opening in the blade drawer 160” be changed to --an opening in the handle 114--.
(2) In paragraph [0037], line 29, it is not clear what “a blade handle” refers to. It is suggested the phase be changed to --the handle 114--.
(3) In paragraph [0038], lines 3 and 5, reference numeral “130” is not found in Figs.9-10.
(4) In paragraph [0038], line 4, reference numeral “131” is not found in any drawings.
(5) In paragraph [0042], line 22, “stopper member 140” should read --stopper member 143--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-9, 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 1, lines 7-8, it is understood how the movement of the clamping plate through the clamping plate receiving hole is accomplished. There is no means cited that enables such movement. It is suggested claim 1 be amended by including the limitation from claim 2.
(2) In claim 7, line 1, “the stopper portion” has no antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the stopper member--.
(3) In claim 9, it is unclear how the screw platform implement prevents the clamping plate from detaching from the first channel member. As the disclosed invention is understood, it is the screw member 140 that interacts with the screw platform implement 138 to prevent the clamping plate 133 from detaching from the first channel member 134 (see paragraph [0042], lines 17-26 of the specification). However, there is no means cited that enables the screw platform implement to prevent the clamping plate from detaching from the first channel member. It is suggested claim 9 be amended by including a screw member.
(4) In claim 13, line 2, “the stopper” lacks antecedent basis and should read --the stopper member--.
(5) In claim 17, line 7, “the screw platform” has no antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the screw platform implement--.
(6) In claim 17, lines 8-9, it is not understood how “a blade locking position” and “a blade releasing position” are defined. Does the blade cited at line 5 of the claim being locked at the blade locking position and being released at the blade releasing position? If so, there is a missing element (e.g., a clamping plate) that is movable by the screw member to enable locking/releasing of the blade. It is suggested claim 17 be amended by including a clamping plate.
(7) In claim 19, line 1, “the stopper” lacks antecedent basis and should read --the stopper member--.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
1. 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
2. Claim limitation “a screw platform implement” (cited in claim 9) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder “screw platform implement” coupled with functional language “prevents the clamping plate from detaching from the first channel member” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “screw platform implement” is a generic placeholder and is not recognized as the name of a structure but is merely substitutes for the term "means".
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 9 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see paragraph [0042], lines 17-26) that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejection – Nonstatutory Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,097,628. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same invention with claim 1 of this instant application having a broader scope.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. 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.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Tseng (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0015009).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng discloses a blade holding mechanism (see Fig.1) comprising:
a first channel member (11);
a second channel member (11) opposing the first channel member (11), wherein the first channel member (11) and the second channel member (11) align to define a blade channel (1) configured to receive a blade (7);
a clamping plate receiving hole (14) formed in the first channel member (11); and
a clamping plate (5) configured to secure the blade (7, e.g., via a positioning member 4) in the blade channel (1), wherein the clamping plate (5) is movable through the clamping plate receiving hole (14).
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Evers (U.S. Patent No. 1,496,927).
Regarding claim 10, Evers discloses a blade holding mechanism (see Fig.3 as annotated below) comprising:
a first channel member (C1),
PNG
media_image1.png
480
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second channel member (C2) opposing the first channel member (C1), wherein the first channel member (C1) and the second channel member (C2) align to define a blade channel (C1,C2) configured to receive a blade (11);
a clamping plate (20) configured to secure the blade (11) in the blade channel (C1,C2); and
a screw member (M) configured to adjust the clamping plate (20), wherein the screw member (M) comprises a knob portion (NP) at a first end of the screw member (M) and a shaft portion (18) at a second end of the screw member (M).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
2. Claims 11, 12 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
3. Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 2,295,385 shows a cutter (see Fig.1) comprising two handles (2,3) and a spring (4) for biasing the handles (2,3) to an open position.
U.S. Patent No. 3,772,783 shows a blade holding mechanism (see Fig.6) comprising a blade holder (19) having an internal side wall thereof equipped with a protruding element (35) adapted to mate with an indent (37) formed on a spine side of a blade (37).
U.S. Patent No. 6,260,279 is cited to show a cutting device (1, see Fig.7) comprising a blade (3) clamped between a blade holder (4) and a screw-on jaw (21), and further equipped with a storage chamber (11) for storing spare blade (12).
U.S. Patent No. 8,327,548 shows a cutting tool (see Fig10A) comprising a handle (39’) having a blade drawer opening adapted to receive a blade drawer (40’) for storing spare blades (45’).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0050735 is cited to show a blade clamping mechanism (see Fig.1) comprising a blade holder (22,23) comprising a blade channel (22) formed with receiving hole (see Fig.1 not labeled) and adapted to receive a blade (21); a screw member (24); and a clamping plate (23) having an opening for receiving the screw member (24) to clamp the blade (21) within the blade holder (22,23).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724