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 Group III (claims 1-9, 14 and 15 readable) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In paragraph [0001], line 2, after “2021,”, --now U.S. Patent No. 12,157,241,-- should be added.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claim 7, line 2, “fixe” should read --fix--.
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. Claim 4 is 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 4, line 2, “the second link is pivotally coupled to the second link” is incorrect. The phrase should read --the second link is pivotally coupled to the second blade--.
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 1-4, 6, 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,090,822. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same invention with the claims of this instant application having a broader scope.
Instant Application Corresponding to ‘822 Patent
claim 1 claim 1
claims 2-4 claim 9
claims 6 and 7 claims 2 and 4-7
claim 1 claims 10, 12 and 13
claim 7 claim 14
3. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,090,822 in view of Panosian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/03404473, hereinafter “Panosian”).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, claims 1 and 9 of the ‘822 shows the claimed bolt cutter except it is unclear if the first pivot axis being different than the second pivot axis, and the bolt cutter lacks plates for supporting the first blade and second blade.
Panosian shows a bolt cutter comprising a compound hinge having a first link (37, the lower one as seen in Fig.2) pivotally coupled to a first blade (28) of the cutter about a first pivot axis (24), a second link (37, the upper one as seen in Fig.2) pivotally coupled to a second blade (26) of the cutter, the first link (37) pivotally coupled to the second link (37) about a second pivot axis (22), and wherein the first pivot axis (24) is different than the second pivot axis (22). Panosian’s bolt cutter further comprises a first plate (30, see Fig.1) and a second plate (30) positioned on opposing sides of the first blade (28) and the second blade (26), the first plate (30) and the second plate (30) coupled to the first blade (28) and the second blade (26) by a first fastener (32) and a second fastener (34).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have the first pivot axis of the ‘822 patent different than the second pivot axis to allow the compound hinge to function as expected, and to further include plates attached to the blades to stabilize the blades during cutting as taught by Panosian.
4. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,157,241 in view of Panosian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/03404473, hereinafter “Panosian”).
Regarding claim 9, claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 of the ‘241 patent shows the claimed bolt cutter except for a first bore in the compound hinge and a second bore in the handle, wherein an axis is defined by the firs bore and the second bore, and the handle is pivotable about the axis with respect to the cutting head. It is noted the terminology “rotatable collar” in claim 9 of this instant application is equivalent to “movable lock rotatable” cited in claim 3 of the ‘241 patent.
Panosian shows a bolt cutter comprising a compound hinge (37, e.g., a hinge made of two or more pivoting links connected together, see Fig.3) having a first bore (e.g., for receiving a fastener 20, see Fig.3), and a handle (12) having a second bore (e.g., for receiving a fastener 20, see Fig.3), wherein an axis is defined by the first bore and the second bore, and the handle (12) is pivotable about the axis with respect to a cutting head (26,28) of the bolt cutter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a first bore in the compound hinge of the ‘241 patent and a second bore in the handle of the ‘241 patent to allow for pivotally connecting of the handle to the cutting head through the compound hinge as taught by Panosian.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter (U.S. Patent No. 4,505,038) in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0205601) and Cole (U.S. Patent No. 7,682,099).
Regarding claim 1, Porter discloses a bolt cutter (10, see column 1, lines 54-55) comprising:
a head (12,14) comprising:
a first blade (18,22);
a second blade (20,24); and
a compound hinge (26,28) comprising:
a first link (26) pivotally coupled to the first blade (18,22); and
a handle (36) coupled to the head (12,14) substantially as claimed except Porter’s handle (36) is not angularly adjustable with respect to the head (12,14).
Wu teaches it is desirable to provide a cutter with at least one handle (30) that is angularly adjustable (see Fig.6) relative to a cutter head (10) of the cutter, and Cole shows an angle adjustment assembly including a plunger (103) received within a first bore (B1, see Fig.3 as annotated below) of a first element (102) and within a second bore (B2) of a second element (101) for locking the two elements (102,101) to prevent angular adjustment and for unlocking the two elements (102,101) to allow angular adjustment.
PNG
media_image1.png
754
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Porter by making handle (36) angularly adjustable with respect to the head (12,14) to allow a user to adjust the handle as needed/desired as taught by Wu, and to further modify Porter by using a well-known angle adjustment assembly such as that of Cole’s for the advantage of quick adjustment (e.g., by pressing a button 104 to move the plunger 103) as taught by Cole.
Regarding claim 2, Porter’s bolt cutter further comprises a second link (28) pivotally coupled to the second blade (20) and the first link (26).
Regarding claim 3, Porter’s first link (26) is pivotally coupled to the first blade (18,22) about a first pivot axis (32), and wherein the first link (26) is pivotally coupled to the second link (28) about a second pivot axis (30).
Regarding claim 4, Porter’s second link (28) is pivotally coupled to the second blade (20,24) about a third pivot axis (34).
Regarding claim 5, Porter’s first pivot axis (32) is different than the second pivot axis (30).
Regarding claim 6, Cole shows the first element (102) comprises a first flange (F1, see the above annotated Fig.3) and a second flange (F2), and wherein the first bore (B1) is defined in the first flange (F1) and the second flange (F2). Porter thus modified also possesses such characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, Cole’s plunger (103) comprises a toothed section (T, see the above annotated Fig.3), and wherein the plunger (103) is configured to engage the first bore (B1) and the second bore (B2) to fix the first member (102) with respect to the second element (101). Porter thus modified also possesses such characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, Porter’s bolt cutter (10) further comprises a first plate (16, see Figs.1 and 1a as annotated below) and a second plate (16) positioned on opposing sides of the first blade (18,22) and the second blade (20,24), the first plate (16) and the second plate (16) coupled to the first blade (18,22) and the second blade (20,24) by a first fastener (F1, see the annotated Fig.1) and a second fastener (F2).
PNG
media_image2.png
658
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3. Claims 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter (U.S. Patent No. 4,505,038) in view of Huang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0073557), Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0155785), Wu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0205601) and Cole (U.S. Patent No. 7,682,099).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Porter discloses a bolt cutter (10, see column 1, lines 54-55) comprising;
a cutting head (12,14) comprising:
a first blade (18,22);
a second blade (20,24);
a compound hinge (26,28); and
a handle (36) coupled to the compound hinge (26,228) substantially as claimed
except Porter’s handle (362) is not length-adjustable, and handle (36) is not angularly adjustable with respect to the head (12,14).
Huang shows a cutter (Fig.1) comprising at least one handle (10,11) which is length adjustable, and Chen shows a handle (22,30, see Fig.2) comprising a channel (222) extending longitudinally along a first handle member (22) of the handle (22,30), and a rotatable collar (C, see Fig.3 as annotated below) comprising a projection (34) positioned within the channel (222) such that the handle member (22) is unlocked and slidable with respect to a second handle member (30) of the handle (22,30) for length adjustment.
PNG
media_image3.png
510
563
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Panosian by making Panosian’s fixed-length handle (12) adjustable for the advantage of handle length adjustability as needed/desired as taught by Huang.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Panosian by using a well-known and commercially available length adjustment assembly such as that of Chen’s to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the length of the adjustable handle.
Wu teaches it is desirable to provide a cutter with at least one handle (30) that is angularly adjustable (see Fig.6) relative to a cutter head (10) of the cutter, and Cole shows an angle adjustment assembly including a plunger (103) received within a first bore (B1, see the above annotated Fig.3) of a first element (102) and within a second bore (B2) of a second element (101) for locking the two elements (102,101) to prevent angular adjustment and for unlocking the two elements (102,101) to allow angular adjustment.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Porter by making handle (36) angularly adjustable with respect to the head (12,14) to allow a user to adjust the handle as needed/desired as taught by Wu, and to further modify Porter by using a well-known angle adjustment assembly such as that of Cole’s for the advantage of quick adjustment (e.g., by pressing a button 104 to move the plunger 103) as taught by Cole.
Regarding claim 15, Cole’s plunger (103) comprises a toothed section (T, see the above annotated Fig.3), and the first bore (B1) and the second bore (B2) each comprise a plurality of teeth that engage with the toothed section (T).
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panosian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0304473, hereinafter “Panosian”) in view of Huang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0073557) and Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0155785).
Regarding claim 9, Panosian discloses a bolt cutter (see Fig.) comprising;
a cutting head (26,28) comprising:
a first blade (26b);
a second blade (28b); and
a compound hinge (37,37) comprising a first bore (e.g., for receiving a fastener 20);
a handle (12) coupled to the compound hinge (37,37) and comprising a second bore (e.g., for receiving the fastener 20); and
an axis defined by the first bore and the second bore, and the handle (12, see Figs.2-3) pivotable about the axis with respect to the cutting head (26,28) substantially as claimed except Panosian’s handle (12) is not length-adjustable.
Huang shows a cutter (Fig.1) comprising at least one handle (10,11) which is length adjustable, and Chen shows a handle (22,30, see Fig.2) comprising a channel (222) extending longitudinally along a first handle member (22) of the handle (22,30), and a rotatable collar (C, see the above annotated Fig.3 as annotated below) comprising a projection (34) positioned within the channel (222) such that the handle member (22) is unlocked and slidable with respect to a second handle member (30) of the handle (22,30) for length adjustment.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Panosian by making Panosian’s fixed-length handle (12) adjustable for the advantage of handle length adjustability as needed/desired as taught by Huang.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Panosian by using a well-known and commercially available length adjustment assembly such as that of Chen’s to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the length of the adjustable handle.
Prior Art Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 12,115,687 shows a bolt cutter comprising one or more adjustable handles pivotally coupled to a hinge and angularly adjustable relative to a cutting head of the bolt cutter.
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