DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5-26-26.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract uses the legal phraseology “comprising” and “comprise”.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Scissors Tool.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The structures that define the “drive connection” of claim 1 needs to be defined so it is clear which structures correspond with the claimed limitation.
On page 16 line 6, the phrase “The first scissors part 2 comprises a lever-like base body 16” appears to be incorrect. Using Figure 1, first part 2 is the housing portion and second part 3 is the lever part. The phrase should be replaced with “The second scissors part 3 comprises a lever-like base body 16”.
On page 16 line 17, the phrase “the leg 13a…of the separating cutting blade 10” appears to be incorrect. Using Figure 6, 13a is part of blade 9 and 13b is part of blade 10. The phrase should be replaced with “the leg 13b…of the separating cutting blade 10”.
On page 17 lines 12-13, the phrase “blade 10 is accommodated with a positive form fit in the accommodation 21” appears to be incorrect. Using Figure 6, blade 9 is accommodated in 21 and blade 10 is accommodated in 20.
On page 18 line 12, the phrase “The ribs 39 are orientated parallel to the actuating axis 40” appears to be incorrect. Using Figure 2, one rib 39 makes up the perimeter of 12 while other ribs 39 make up the bore 53 all of which are not remotely parallel with axis 40. This phrase needs to be amended to disclose that portions of the ribs 39 that engage 27 are parallel to axis 40.
On page 19 line 1, the phrase “incision blade 41” should be replaced “incision blade 11”.
On page 19 line 15, the phrase “incision blade holder 19” should be replaced “incision blade holder 29”.
On page 20 line 15, the phrase “bit of separating cutting blades 57” is unclear. It is unclear what is meant by “bit”. Using Figures 2 and 4, bit 57 is present in an open position of blades 9 and 10 (Fig. 2) and a closed position of blades 9 and 10 (Fig. 4). Either the term “bit” must be defined so it is clear or be replaced with a more descriptive term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 uses labels a), b), and c) but the “a stripping incision blade” limitation does not have a label. It is unclear if it was the intent to have the b) label in front of the incision blade and then use c) and d).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1 line 3, the phrase “they can pivot” is unclear. It is unclear what structures represent the “they”. The structure names should replace the “they”.
With regards to claim 1 line 4, the phrase “scissors pivot axis” is unclear in that it is not defined using existing structure. The axis could be any line. The scissors joint needs to define a scissors pivot axis.
With regards to claim 1 lines 5-6, the phrase “by means of which it is possible to induce a pivoting movement” is unclear. The phrase is confusing and needs to be amended so that it is clear that the finger accommodations do not have the ability on their own to inducing a pivoting movement and that a user must be involved via the fingers being received in the accommodations and applying a force. Also, it is unclear if the “a pivoting movement” disclosure represents the same or a different function as the “can pivot” function on line 3. As written, there is a pivot function and a separate pivoting movement which is not supported.
With regards to claim 1 line 6, the phrase “a closing direction” is unclear. There has not been a “closed” condition defined so it is unclear what way is the direction and what structures define this direction as being “closed”. It is recommended that the blades be used to define open and closed positions.
With regards to claim 1 lines 7-8, the phrase “blades being moved towards each other with a pivoting movement” is unclear. It is unclear if the “a pivoting movement” disclosure represents the same or a different function as the “can pivot” function on line 3 and/or the “a pivoting movement on line 6. As written, there is a pivot function and two separate pivoting movements which is not supported. Claim 14 a) has the same issue in that it introduces another “pivoting” function.
With regards to claim 1 line 12-15, the phrases “insertion position” and “incision position” are unclear. What structure allows for a position to be considered an “insertion” position versus a position that cannot be an “insertion” position? What structure allows for a position to be considered an “incision” position versus a position that cannot be an “incision” position? It is recommended that a function be disclosed so the positions are clear (i.e. workpiece can be inserted into one of the parts and workpiece is incised by the blade). As written, the incision blade is in these positions but the actuating element and the drive connection are unrelated to these positions which is not supported. The user interacting with the actuating element via the drive connection is how the incision blade is able to move between the positions and the claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 1 line 15, it is unclear what structures define the “drive connection” as the specification fails to provide any structural insight on which parts of item 6 represent the drive connection. Amending the Detailed Description to define the term would overcome the issue.
With regards to claim 2, it is unclear what structures define the drive connection and what is meant by a rigid connection. All connections are rigid to some extent. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 3, the “spring device” is unclear. As written, the spring device is not part of the “drive connection” which does not appear to be supported. The spring device is not a separate structure as supported by the specification.
With regards to claim 3, claim 1 discloses the actuating element and discloses a movably guided function and the positions but there is no disclosure that the actuating element plays a role in achieving the positions. Items cannot be first disclosed as unrelated and then related later on. Claim 1 needs to acknowledge the actuating element plays a role in the positions because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “pretensioned in the incision position”. The claim has only disclosed that the blade is in these positions and it is unclear what structure allows for the spring device to now be in the position as well.
With regards to claim 5, claim 1 appears to already disclose the actuating element is in the finger accommodation of the first part. The claim 1 disclosure would inherently cover the element projecting into the accommodation as all things project or extend in all directions.
With regards to claim 6, the “maximum displacements” disclosure is unclear. As written, there is a maximum displacement and an insertion position which is not clear. It appears the insertion position would be the maximum displacement. Further definition of the term is needed.
With regards to claim 6, claim 1 discloses the actuating element and discloses a movably guided function and the positions but there is no disclosure that the actuating element plays a role in achieving the positions or that the element moves. Items cannot be first disclosed as unrelated and then related later on. Claim 1 needs to acknowledge the actuating element moves and plays a role in the positions because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 7, it is unclear if the single piece element, holder, and spring device represent the same or a different structure as the drive connection. As written, the element is a single piece with the holder and device and the element is separately connected to the drive connection which is not supported. Claim 7 needs to acknowledge the drive connection limitation.
With regards to claim 9, it is unclear what structure represents the “at least one component of the scissors tool. The first part has an inner chamber but, as written, the second scissors part, the scissors joint, incision blade, the actuating element, and the drive connection (claim 1) are all part of the tool in a way that does not involve being in the chamber which is not supported. The housing is also unrelated to the finger accommodation which is not supported. The specification discloses all of these structures are in the chamber and the claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 10, claim 9 discloses the inner chamber and it is unclear which of the housing parts defines the inner chamber. The housing parts also need to each define a hole that together define the finger accommodation as supported by the specification.
With regards to claim 11, claim 10 discloses the housing has two housing parts. Claim 11 introduces the cover and housing body in the same manner as the housing parts. As written, the housing has two parts and separately has the cover and base body. Claim 11 needs to further define the part with the inner chamber as the base body and the other part as the cover.
With regards to claim 12, claim 9 discloses the inner chamber in a way where the second part is unrelated to the inner chamber. Two items cannot be first unrelated and then related later on. Claim 9 needs to acknowledge the second part is in the inner chamber and then claim 12 can further define the relationship.
With regards to claim 12, claim 1 discloses the separating blades are for cutting a cable. As written, the blades are unrelated to the cutting blade opening of the housing. Claim 12 needs to acknowledge the blades cooperate with the opening to perform the claim 1 function.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the associated separating cutting blade" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase “the associated separating cutting blade” should be replaced with “an associated one of the separating cutting blades”.
With regards to claim 14, it is unclear where the screw is provided. As written, the screw does not engage any structures and is not able to define a), b), or c). The specification defines structural relationships of the screw and claim 14 needs to acknowledge all of the relationship with regards to the structures claimed in claim 1. With regards to a), it is unclear what is meant by “a friction which counteracts a pivoting”. Claim 1 discloses multiple pivoting functions and it is unclear how the device pivots if the screw counteracts the pivoting. With regards to b), what structure defines a cutting clearance? With regards to c), it is unclear if the scissors pivot axis represents the same or a different structure than the scissors joint of claim 1? Further definition is needed.
With regards to claims 15 and 17, it is unclear what is meant by “components” of the scissors tool”. These components are in addition to the structures disclosed in claim 1. The structures of claim 1 need to be listed instead of disclosing the components.
With regards to claim 15, the tools of claims 1 and 15 is already assembled. The tool cannot comprise assembly directions. It is unclear what structure further defining claim 1 is being disclosed.
With regards to claim 16, what structure incorporates the cable contact surface and the side facing away from the blade? Also, the contact surface plays a role in the definition of the positions of the incision blade and claim 16 needs to acknowledge the blade is closer to the contact surface in one position than in the other position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art incorporates a scissors tool with first and second scissors parts each having finger accommodations for pivoting the parts and a movably guided incision blade connected to an actuating element via a drive connection where the actuating element is integrated into the finger accommodation of the first part in combination with the remaining limitations. Hung (6,427,275) is considered close prior art as it incorporates the first pivoting (12) and a second pivoting part (16) with a finger accommodation (44) and a movably guided incision blade (32) with an actuating element (38). However, the first part fails to incorporate a finger accommodation that the actuating element is integrated in. There appears to be no justification to modify the above-mentioned reference, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
30 June 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights