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
The amendment filed on 09/18/2026 has been entered.
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], lines 1-2, the blade engagement structure including first and second flexing protrusions 86,88 as seen in Fig.7) 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. 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 2-9, 21-24 and 26-27 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.
Remarks
Applicants' arguments filed 09/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants do not concede, at page 9 of the amendment, the term “blade engagement structure” lacks sufficiently definite meaning as the mane for structure. In response, 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], lines 1-2, the blade engagement structure including first and second flexing protrusions 86,88 as seen in Fig.7) that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicants argue, at pages 9-10 of the amendment, Abidin does not describe a blade tool that flexes the blade. In response, Abidin’s blade tool (10) is configured to flex the blade (11) to enable the blade carrier (26) to connect to the blade connector (38) of the blade (11). Specifically, the blade tool (10) is configured (via the blade holder 30 thereof, see Fig.17) to flex the blade (11) when the blade carrier (26) of the blade support (26,27) is moved forwardly and upwardly (see the second step of Abidin’s Fig.9) to mount the blade (11) on the blade carrier (26). During this forward and upward movement, the blade (11) is flexed upwardly so that a blade holder opening (31, see Fig.16) of the blade (11) is disengaged from the blade holder (30, see Fig.17) of the blade tool (10).
Action Made Final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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