Final Rejection
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4,7,9 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Walter (US 2014/0034665 A1).
Referring to claims 1, 20 and 21. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
a body portion (120; Figure 3); and
a lid portion (110) slidable along and laterally away (see movement of 100; Figure 4) from the body portion (120) to allow the blade dispenser (100) to be moved between a closed configuration (Figure 1) and an open configuration (as shown in Figure 4);
wherein the lid portion (110) comprises a blade chamber (interior of 110);
wherein in the open configuration (Figure 1) blades (115) may be removed from or inserted into the blade chamber (interior of 110).
Referring to claim 4. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
wherein the blade chamber (interior of 110) comprises a separator wall (113) separating a first blade chamber (top interior of 110) and a second blade chamber (bottom interior of 110; Figure 3).
Referring to claim 7 and 9. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
wherein in the closed configuration the body portion (120; Figure 3) and the lid portion (110) generally form a parallelogram (see Figure 2 closed, will form a four-sided quadrilateral with two pairs of parallel and equal length sides).
Referring to claim 16. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
wherein the lid portion (110) comprises a first lid portion (bottom portion of 110) and a second lid portion (top portion of 110), wherein the body portion (120; Figure 3) comprises a retaining feature (132; Figure 1) configured to engage with an engagement feature (130) formed on the first lid portion (bottom portion of 110) to selectively hold the blade dispenser (100) in the closed configuration (as shown in Figure 1).
Referring to claim 17. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
wherein the lid portion (110) comprises a first lid portion (bottom portion of 110) and a second lid portion (top portion of 110), wherein the first lid portion, the second lid portion, and the separator wall (113) are integrally formed together (see Figure 1).
Referring to claim 18. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
wherein the body portion (120; Figure 3) comprises a slide track (track of 132) and the lid portion (110) comprises a slide stop (141) configured to slide along the slide track (track of 132) to limit movement of the lid portion (110) relative to the body portion (120).
Referring to claim 19. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
wherein the slide stop (141) and slide track (track of 132) are positioned such that when sliding the lid portion (110) along and laterally away from the body portion (see Figure 2), a hinge portion formed in the lid portion between a first lid portion and a second lid portion aligns with an upper surface of the body portion, such that the hinge portion may fold over the upper surface of the body portion.
Referring to claim 22. Walter discloses a blade dispenser (100; Figure 1) comprising:
wherein the lid portion (110) is moveable laterally away from the body portion (120) in a second direction non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body portion (when members 110 and 120 are disconnected).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5,6,7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter (US 2014/0034665 A1)(alone).
Referring to claims 5 and 6. Walter discloses a separator wall and the first blade chamber define an isosceles trapezoid shape (see shape of top interior of 110).
Walter does not disclose wherein the separator wall and either of the first blade chamber and the second blade chamber define an isosceles trapezoid shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have comprised the combination of the separator wall and either of the first blade chamber and the second blade chamber to define an isosceles trapezoid shape because shape is only ornamental in function and furthermore, since such a modification in shape would account for no change in the device. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Daley, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCCPA 1966.
Referring to claims 7 and 9. Walter does not disclose wherein in the closed configuration the body portion and the lid portion generally form a parallelogram.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have comprised the closed configuration the body portion and the lid portion generally form a parallelogram because shape is only ornamental in function and furthermore, since such a modification in shape would account for no change in the device. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Daley, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 CCCPA 1966.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter (US 2014/0034665 A1) in view of Lin (US 2007/0114150 A1).
Referring to claims 8 and 10. Walter does not disclose a loop protruding from the blade dispenser.
Lin discloses a blade dispenser (Figure 2) comprising:
a loop (clip; rounded portion of member 13) protruding from the blade dispenser (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Walter to include a loop protruding from the blade dispenser because a loop protruding from the blade dispenser would allow the dispenser to be mounted to a surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See new rejections including all amended limitations in view of Walter (US 2014/0034665 A1) cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAKESH KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8314. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-6:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAKESH KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights