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
1. Applicant’s election of Species I, subspecies A in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
2. The amendment filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered. Canceled claims do not need to show text and only need to show the status identifier. For example, Claims 5-6 (canceled)
Drawings Objection
1. The drawings filed on 05/22/2026 (cancelling original Figures 3, 4 and 8-16) are objected to because Figures 5-7 of the replacement sheets should be renumbered as Figures 3-5, respectively. Paragraphs [0017]-[0019] of the substitute specification should be amended accordingly.
2. 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 locking screw … is threadedly connected with … the locking element” (cited in claim 1) 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.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Line 1 in paragraph [0027] of the 05/22/2026 substitute specification does not agree with the 05/22/2026 replacement drawing sheets which do not contain Figs.3 and 4.
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 2-4, 7, 8 and 12 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 2, lines 5-6, “one end of the locking screw is arranged on an inner side of the second end of the rotating shaft” does not agree with Figs.1-2 and line 6 of claim 1. As shown in the figures, one end (e.g., the threaded end) of the locking screw 4 is arranged in not on an inner side of the second end 33 of the rotating shaft 3. It is suggested “on”, at line 5 of clam 2, be changed to --in--.
(2) In claim 4, line 7, “the plurality of inner threads” has no clear antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the plurality of internal threads--.
(3) In claim 7, lines 6-7, “the locking screw … first goes through the two knife handles” does not agree with Fig.7. As shown in the figure, the locking screw 4 only goes through one (the one on the left) of the handles 11. It is suggested “through the two knife handles”, at line 7 of the claim, be changed to --through one of the two knife handles--.
(4) In claim 8, line 3, “two adjacent convex teeth” is vague and indefinite. Are they in addition to “at least two convex teeth” cited at lines 1-2 of the claim? It is suggested “two adjacent convex teeth” be changed to --two adjacent convex teeth of the at least two convex teeth--.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poehlmann (U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 4,233,737) in view of Seber et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,546,662, hereinafter “Seber”).
Regarding claim 1, Poehlmann discloses an anti-loosening structure (Fig.15) comprising:
a rotating shaft (66), a locking screw (77) and a locking element (73);
wherein the rotating shaft (66) is non-circular in cross section;
wherein the locking element (73) is arranged on the rotating shaft (66, see Fig.12), which is static relative to the rotating shaft (73);
wherein the locking screw (77) is arranged in the rotating shaft (66) and is threadedly connected with the rotating shaft (66, see Fig.12 and column 4, lines 22-23) substantially as claimed. The mere difference between Poehlmann and the claimed invention resides in the shape of the rotating shaft. Poehlmann’s rotating shaft (66) has two opposing parallel flat surfaces (68,69, see Figs.12 and 15) resulting in a non-circular cross section rather than having one flat surface resulting in a non-circular “D-shaped” cross section.
Seber shows a rotating shaft (50) of an anti-loosening structure (50,68) having one flat surface (58, see Fig.1) that results in the rotating shaft (50) having a non-circular “D-shaped” cross section.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have made Poehlmann’s rotating shaft (66) of most any shape, including Seber’s D-shape, so long as the rotating shaft (66) performs the function of allowing rotating of a blade into and out of a knife’s handle. Examiner notes that such rotating shaft can come in an infinite variety of shapes and still perform the same function. There is no criticality of the exact shape of the rotating shaft, so long as it performs the requisite function. Moreover, as set forth by the court in In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 and discussed in MPEP 2144.04 IV(B), the exact shape of an object is only patentable inasmuch as it has function not shown by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Poehlmann’s rotating shaft (66) comprises a first end (E1, see Fig.15 as annotated below) and a second end (E2); a limiting part (LP) is arranged on the first end (E1) of the rotating shaft (66), and the locking element (73) is set on an outer side (71, see Fig.15) of the second end (E2) of the rotating shaft (66) and is threadedly connected with the second end (E2) of the rotating shaft (66); one end (78) of the locking screw (77) is arranged in an inner side (79, see Fig.12) of the second end (E2) of the rotating shaft (66), and the locking screw (77) is threadedly connected with the rotating shaft (66, see column 4, lines 22-23).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8 and 12 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. Claim 3 and all its dependent claims contain allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 4,233,737 to Poehlmann (note the above 103 rejection). However, Poehlmann fails to show the claimed stop member (6, see Fig.2 of this instant application) arranged on an outer side of the locking element (5), and the stop member (6) cooperating with the locking element (5) to prevent the rotating shaft (3) from driving the locking element (5) to rotate.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6,101,723 shows (see Fig.1) an anti-loosening structure for a folding knife.
U.S. Patent No. 8,561,304 shows a folding knife with an adjustable non-loosening stability-enhancing pivot (see Fig.3B).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0188543 is cited to show rotating shafts (25,35,45,55 in Figs.2A, 6A, 7A and 8A) can come in different shapes (non-circular, square, ellipsoid and hexagonal in cross-section).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0285293 shows an anti-loosening nut.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0165849 shows a folding knife (10) comprising a blade (22), a rotating shaft (134), a shim (162) on the rotating shaft (134, see Fig.4) and between blade (22) and a lining (114, see Fig.5) of the knife to reduce friction by reducing the contact area of the lateral wall of the blade (22) to make the opening and closing the blade (22) smoother.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0198449 is cited to show an anti-loosening screw.
CN 109538605 B shows a rotating shaft (see Fig.6) having internal threads (211) and external threads (121) different from the internal threads (211).
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