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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14 and 21-26 readable) in the reply filed on 05/06/2026) is acknowledged.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In paragraph [0033], line 26, “web 48” is not found in any drawings and should be changed to --web 58--. Note paragraph [0035], line 4 and Fig.8.
(2) In paragraph [0037], lines 9-10, “The second flexing protrusion 86 is arranged to engage or press the proximal end portion 28B of the blade 18 at a location distally from the tab 42, and more desirably distally from the keyhole 32” is confusing. First, of all, reference numeral “86” has been given two designations as “first flexing protrusion” and “second flexing protrusion”. Secondly, as shown in Fig.10, the proximal end portion 28B of the blade 18 that is being pressed by the flexing protrusion 86 is NOT at a location distally from the tab 42 of the blade 18 of Fig.1 but rather the proximal end portion 28B of the blade 18 and the tab 42 of the blade 18 are both at the same end of the blade 18 and both located distally from a distal tip of the blade 18.
(3) In paragraph [0037], lines 11-12, “the second flexing protrusion 88 is located distally along the longitudinal axis of the housing 56 of the first flexing protrusion 86” does not make. As shown in Figs.7-8, the housing 56 is NOT of the first flexing protrusion 86 rather that the first flexing protrusion 86 protrudes from the partition wall or web 58 of the housing 56.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
Claims 5, 7, 25 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claim 5, line 3, “blade” should read --the blade-- since it refers to the one previously cited.
(2) In claim 7, line 2, “positon” should read --position--.
(3) In claim 25, line 6, “distal end portion” should read --the distal end portion--since it refers to the one previously cited.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “blade engagement structure” (cited in claim 24) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder “blade engagement structure” coupled with functional language “configured to flex the blade” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “blade engagement structure” is a generic placeholder and is not recognized as the name of a structure but is merely a substitute for the term "means".
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 24 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see paragraph [0037]) 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 - 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. Claims 1, 10-13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abidin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,036,660, hereinafter “Abidin”).
Regarding claim 1, Abidin discloses a knife system comprising:
a blade (11, see Fig. 16) including a cutting edge (33), a blade connector (38), and a blade holder opening (31);
a blade support (26,27, see Fig.7A) including a handle (27) and a blade carrier (26), the blade carrier (26) configured to releasably connect to the blade connector (38) of the blade (11, see column 5, lines 48-51) to mount the blade (11) to the blade support (26,27);
a blade tool (10, see Fig.8A) including a blade tool compartment (not labeled) configured to receive the blade (11), the blade tool (10) configured to flex the blade (11) to enable the blade carrier (26) to connect to the blade connector (38) of the blade (11, see column 5, lines 48-51) to mount the blade (11) to the blade support (26,27) and to enable the blade carrier (26) to disconnect from the blade connector (38) of the blade (11) to separate the blade (11) and the blade support (26,27), the blade tool (10) including a blade holder (30) sized and shaped to be received in the blade holder opening (31, see column 5, lines 27-31) of the blade (11) to prevent the blade (11) from moving with the blade support (26,27) when the blade carrier (26) is connected to the blade (11) and when the blade carrier (26) is disconnected from the blade (11).
Regarding claim 10, Abidin’s blade connector (38) of the blade (11) comprises a keyhole (38, see Fig.16).
Regarding claim 11, Abidin’s blade carrier (26) comprises a key (26, see Fig.8A) sized and shaped to be received in the keyhole (38) of the blade (11, see column 5, lines 48-51 and Fig.23).
Regarding claim 12, Abidin’s key (26) and keyhole (38) have matching keying profiles for close conforming fitment between the key (26) and the keyhole (38, see Fig.23).
Regarding claim 13, Abidin’s blade tool compartment has an open end (17, see FIg.1) sized and shaped to permit the blade carrier (26) to be inserted into the blade tool compartment (see Fig.8B) for connecting the blade carrier (26) to the blade connector (38) of the blade (10) and to permit the blade carrier (26) to be removed from the blade tool compartment for disconnecting the blade carrier (26) from the blade connector (38) of the blade (10).
Regarding claim 25, Abidin’s blade (11, see Fig.16) has a blade body (11) having a proximal end portion (opposite a distal end portion 32) and a distal end portion (32), the blade body (11) being resiliently flexible, the cutting edge (33) of the blade (11) extending from the distal end portion (32) toward the proximal end portion (opposite the distal end portion 32), the blade connector (38) being a keyhole (38) defined by the blade body (11) in the proximal end portion (opposite the distal end portion 32), the blade holder opening (31) being defined by the blade body (11), the blade holder opening (31) being disposed along a length of the blade body (11) between the keyhole (38) and distal end portion (32) of the blade body (11).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magney (U.S. Patent No. 4,180,162) in view of Abidin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,036,660, hereinafter “Abidin”).
Regarding claim 1, Magney discloses a knife system comprising:
a blade (21, see Fig. 16) including a cutting edge (see Fig.10A, not labeled) and a blade connector (34);
a blade support (31,33, see Fig.10A) including a handle (31) and a blade carrier (33), the blade carrier (33) configured to releasably connect to the blade connector (34, see column 4, lines 7-9) of the blade (21) to mount the blade (21) to the blade support (31,33);
a blade tool (10) including a blade tool compartment (not labeled) configured to receive the blade (21), the blade tool (10) configured to flex the blade (21) to enable the blade carrier (33) to connect to the blade connector (34) of the blade (21, see FIg.10A) to mount the blade (21) to the blade support (31,33) and to enable the blade carrier (33) to disconnect from the blade connector (34) of the blade (21) to separate the blade (21) and the blade support (31,33) substantially as claimed except Magney’s blade tool (10) lacks a blade holder sized and shaped to be received in a blade holder opening formed in the blade (21) to prevent the blade (21) from moving with the blade support (31,33).
Abidin shows a blade (11, see Fig.16) having a blade holder opening (31), and a blade tool (10) including a blade holder (30, see Fig.17) sized and shaped to be received in the blade holder opening (31).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Magney by providing Magney’s blade (21) with a blade holder opening for receiving a blade holder of the blade tool (10) to prevent the blade (21) from moving with the blade support (31,33) when the blade carrier (33) is connected to the blade (21) and when the blade carrier (33) is disconnected from the blade (21) as taught by Abidin.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Magney’s blade (21) has opposite first and second faces (see Fig.3), and the blade tool (10) has a first flexing protrusion (17, see Fig.3) configured to engage the first/upper face of the blade (21) and a second flexing protrusion (26) configured to engage the second/lower face of the blade (21).
Regarding claim 4, Magney as modified has the blade holder arranged relative to the first and second flexing protrusions (17,26) such that the blade (21) is positioned to be engaged by the first and second flexing protrusions (17,26) when the blade holder is received in the blade holder opening of the blade.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magney (U.S. Patent No. 4,180,162) in view of Abidin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,036,660) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brimmer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,106,620, hereinafter “Brimmer”).
Regarding claim 9, Magney’s knife system as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except it lacks a blade storage compartment.
Brimmer teaches it is desirable to provide a knife system with a blade storage compartment (14) to allow for storing blades as needed.
In view of Brimmer’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Magney by providing the knife system with a blade storage compartment for the advantage set.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abidin et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,036,660, hereinafter Abidin”).
Regarding claim 14, Abidin’s knife system as set forth shows all the claimed limitations except Abidin shows one blade holder opening (31, see Fig.16) and one blade holder protrusion (30, see Fig.17) sized, shaped and arranged to be received in the blade holder opening (31). However, to modify Abidin by providing the knife system with two rather than one blade holder opening (31) and two rather than one blade holder protrusion (30) would have been obvious to one skilled in the art because the number of the blade holding opening and its corresponding blade holder protrusion depends more upon an obvious matter of design choice than on any inventive concept. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 21-24 and 26 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.
Prior Art Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 5,729,879 shows a blade removal and disposal device.
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 7:00 AM to 3:00 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
Prosecution Insights