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
Claims 10 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7-14-26.
Claim 19 discloses a disc shape not incorporated by the elected embodiment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figure 14, item “434”
In Figure 15, item “417”
In Figure 16, items “422” and “442”
In Figure 18, item “446”
In Figure 21, items “434”, “442”, and “446”
In Figure 22, item “442”
Just because a reference number is similar to another reference number from another embodiment does not mean that number does not need to be listed. It is noted that all reference numbers from all Figures need to be in the Detailed Description. All Figures should be reviewed and any issues corrected.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs [0082], [0084], and [0086], the reference numbers “164”, “324”, “135”, “162”, “748”, and “270” are not in the Figures of the elected embodiment. The elected embodiment utilizes numbers that start with a “4”. All of these numbers need to be amended to match the elected embodiment Figures.
In paragraph [0082], it is believed that the number “426” should be replaced with “436”.
The portion of the Detailed Description needs to include a disclosure acknowledging the power source. The elected embodiment Figures do not need to show this power source but the elected embodiment paragraphs need to explain that there is a power source like 58 included in the housing to power the cutter.
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 1-9 and 11-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “housing extending along a longitudinal axis” is unclear. What structure defines the longitudinal axis? The phrase should be replaced with “housing defining a longitudinal axis”.
With regards to claim 1, the “power source” disclosure is unclear. As written, the power source is unrelated to the housing as it is not disclosed as being in the housing which is not supported. All of the limitations that are in the housing, extend from the housing, or are connected to the housing need to be disclosed as such because the housing is claimed and this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 1, the drive shaft and the drive magnet disclosure is unclear. As written, the positioning of the drive shaft with the drive magnet is unrelated sides walls and magnets of the bracket which is not supported. As supported by the specification, the drive shaft with the drive magnet is within the first and second magnets of the first and second side walls of the bracket. It is this relationship that allows for the driving force to be generated and ultimately the movement is created. If the drive magnet is not within the walls of the bracket, how is the driving force generated? Claims 11 and 16 have the same issues.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “drive magnet generates a driving force” is unclear. What structure allows for the magnet alone to perform the “generating a driving force” function? Also, what does the magnet have to do to generate this force? It is believed that it is the magnet’s rotation with the drive shaft that generates the force.
With regards to claim 1, the terms “lower” and “upper” are indefinite in that these terms depend from an unclaimed indefinite orientation. The cutter is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations some of which do not correspond with the terms. Terms that are true regardless of the orientation need to be utilized (i.e. outer and inner).
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “blade supported relative to the stationary lower blade” is unclear. What structure defines the “support”? Are the blades connected?
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “the upper blade coupled to the drive assembly” is unclear. As written, the blade is coupled to a portion of the drive assembly that is not the bracket which is not supported. The blade needs to have a structural relationship with the bracket because this is the only way there is support in the elected embodiment.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “such that the upper blade moves over the stationary blade lower blade” is unclear. What structure allows for the blade to move? As written, the bracket has not been disclosed as being able to move. If the bracket does not move, how does the blade move? As written, the blade is not coupled to the bracket which is the structural relationship that allows for the blade to move.
With regards to claim 3, it is unclear how the first pole is always on one side and the second pole is always on the other side of the longitudinal axis. Using Figure 21 with the first pole 444 and assuming that 446 is the second pole, the second pole 446 appears to be on both sides of where the longitudinal axis would be. It seems like whenever the cutter is turned off, the magnet comes to rest at any position including the one shown in Figure 21. There does not appear to be a structure that moves the drive magnet to a position to meet the requirements of claim 3 when the drive magnet is stationary. Further explanation is needed.
With regards to claim 4, it is unclear what the intentions are for the claim as the word “adjacent” is interpreted to mean “near”. The first and second poles can be considered near to all of the remaining structures of the cutter. Also, the drive magnet rotates and there will be times when the first pole would be closer to the second magnet than the second pole. Further definition is needed. Claims 6 and 14 have the same issue with adjacent.
With regards to claim 5, it is unclear what structures allow these forces to play a role in the moving of the blade when the blade is not disclosed as being coupled to the bracket which is required. Claim 1 needs to disclose the bracket is coupled to the movable blade.
With regards to claim 5, it is unclear what structure allows for the “blade assembly” to move as whole. One of the blades is a stationary blade which would not move.
With regards to claim 6, it is unclear what structure allows for the first pole to be adjacent the second magnet and the second pole to be adjacent the first magnet. There will be times when the first pole would be closer to the first magnet than the second pole due to the rotation. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 7, it is unclear how a force can have two more forces? Also, the attractive force and the repulsive force would still exist if the drive magnet does not generate the drive force. Claims 13 and 14 have the same issue.
With regards to claim 8, it is unclear why the “retainer” is not a part of the drive assembly. Why is the bracket part of the assembly but the retainer is not? Claim 15 discloses the retainer as part of the drive assembly.
With regards to claims 8 and 9, the retainer disclosure is unclear. As written, the bracket positioning and the drive magnet on the drive shaft positioning are unrelated to the retainer which is not supported. In claim 8, these structures need to at least broadly be disclosed as being within the retainer and then in claim 9 these structures need to be disclosed as within the surfaces and end magnets because this is the only way there is support. The functions disclosed require these structural relationships and cannot take place if not claimed. Claims 15 and 16 have the same issues.
With regards to claims 11 and 15, the phrase “drive shaft positioned along an axis of rotation” is unclear. What structure defines the axis of rotation? The phrase should be replaced with “drive shaft defining an axis of rotation”.
With regards to claims 12-14, the first and second positions are unclear. If the drive magnet is rotating, it is unclear how the poles ever are in a single position as they are always moving. Even if the cutter is off, what structure allows for the first and second positions to be defined? Figure 21 shows the poles in a position where 446 is on both sides of the longitudinal axis so it is assumed that there is a position where both poles are equally near to both magnets. Further definition is needed.
With regards to claim 15, the phrase “a retainer positioned behind the bracket” is unclear. While a majority of the retainer does appear to be behind the bracket, there are portions of the retainer that are not behind the bracket. Further definition is needed so it is clear that this limitation does not require the entire retainer to be behind the bracket.
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 1, 2, and 11 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107813347.
Included with the 2-25-25 I.D.S., Applicant submitted an International Search Report and Written Opinion which includes a detailed rejection utilizing CN 107813347 for claims 1, 2, and 11. This rejection has been adopted by the Examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 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 incorporates the drive assembly with a drive shaft having a drive magnet, a bracket with magnets, a retainer, and their required structural relationships allowing for the force generation and created movement in combination with the remaining limitations.
Claims
It is to be noted that claims 3-7 and 12-14 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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.
01 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights