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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373364 to Li.
In re claim 8, Li teaches a utility knife comprising:
a handle (16) comprising a first longitudinal side (30), a second longitudinal side opposite the first longitudinal side (32), a top side (38A), a bottom side (38B), and a slot (39) that extends through the bottom side, the slot between the first and second longitudinal sides, and a first internal surface (the first internal surface is adjacent to/disposed within the slot 39) defined by one of the first longitudinal said and the second longitudinal side;
a blade (12);
a first blade holder (18), the blade removably coupled to the first blade holder, the first blade holder pivotable (via 52) with respect to the handle between an extended position where the blade is exposed and configured to cut a work-piece and a folded position where the blade is within the slot of the handle (Para 0026); and
a spare blade holder (20) comprising a recess that receives a plurality of spare blades (Para 0023), the spare blade holder pivotable with respect to the handle about a second axis between an open position where one of the spare blades can be removed from the spare blade holder and a closed position where the recess is within the slot of the handle to inhibit removal of the first spare blade of one of the spare blades from the spare blade holder (Para 0023), the spare blade holder further comprising a second surface (see Annotated Figure 1, below), wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position to inhibit the spare blade holder form interfering with movement of the first blade holder (see Annotated Figure 1), and wherein the first axis and the second axis are positioned on opposing ends of the slot.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 9, wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position to limit movement of the spare blade holder towards the blade holder (as shown in at least Figure 6).
In re claim 10, as best understood, wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder (is capable of) engages the first internal surface of the handle to bias the spare blade holder from interfering with movement of the first blade holder.
Note, it has been interpreted, the surface of the spare blade holder engages the surface of the internal handle to “bias” the spare blade holder.
In re claim 11, wherein engagement of the second surface and the first internal surface (is capable of forcing) forces the spare blade holder against the handle (as shown in at least Figure 6).
In re claim 14, comprising a magnet configured to retain the spare blade in the spare blade holder (Para 0023).
In re claim 15, Li teaches a utility knife comprising:
a handle (16) comprising a first longitudinal side (30), a second longitudinal side opposite the first longitudinal side (32), a top side (38A), a bottom side (38B), and a slot (39) that extends through the bottom side, the slot between the first and second longitudinal sides, wherein the handle comprises a first internal surface (the first internal surface is adjacent to/disposed within the slot 39) defined by one of the first longitudinal said and the second longitudinal side;
a blade (12);
a first blade holder (18), the blade removably coupled to the first blade holder, the first blade holder pivotal (via 52) with respect to the handle between an extended position where the blade is exposed and configured to cut a work-piece and a folded position where the blade is within the slot of the handle (Para 0026); and
a spare blade holder (20) comprising a recess that receives a plurality of spare blades (Para 0023), the spare blade holder pivotal with respect to the handle between an open position where a first spare blade of the plurality of space blade can be removed from the spare blade holder and a closed position where the recess is within the slot of the handle to inhibit removal of the first spare blade of plurality of spare blades from the spare blade holder (Para 0023), wherein the spare blade holder comprises an end portion, and wherein the end portion of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle (as shown in at least Figure 6) when the spare blade holder is in the closed position to inhibit the spare blade holder from interfering with movement of the first blade holder (see Annotated Figure 1).
In re claim 16, wherein the spare blade holder (20) comprises a spring (112) extending from the spare blade holder, the spring biasing the spare blade holder in the closed position (Para 0024).
In re claim 17, comprising a magnet configured to retain the plurality of spare blades in the spare blade holder (Para 0023).
In re claim 19, wherein the handle (16) further comprises a front end portion and a back end portion opposite the front end portion, and wherein the first blade holder (18) is pivotally coupled to the handle adjacent the front end portion (via 52) and the spare blade holder (20) is pivotally coupled (via 92) to the handle adjacent the back end portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373364 to Li in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20050223562 to Pardue et al.
In re claim 1, Li teaches a utility knife comprising:
a handle (16) comprising a first longitudinal side (30), a second longitudinal side opposite the first longitudinal side (32), a top side (38A), a bottom side (38B), and a slot (39) that extends through the bottom side, the slot between the first and second longitudinal sides, wherein the handle (16) comprises a first internal surface (the first internal surface is adjacent to/disposed within the slot 39) defined by one of the first longitudinal said and the second longitudinal side;
a blade (12);
a first blade holder (18), the blade removably coupled to the first blade holder, the first blade holder pivotable (via 52) with respect to the handle between an extended position where the blade is exposed and configured to cut a work-piece and a folded position where the blade is within the slot of the handle (Para 0026), the first blade holder comprises a first notch (64) and a second notch (66); and
a spare blade holder (20) comprising a recess that receives a spare blade (Para 0023), the spare blade holder pivotable with respect to the handle between an open position where a first spare blade of the plurality of spare blades can be removed from the spare blade holder and a closed position where the recess is within the slot of the handle to inhibit removal of the first spare blade of the plurality of spare blades from the spare blade holder (Para 0023), wherein the spare blade holder comprise a second surface (see Annotated Figure 1, below), and wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position to inhibit the spare blade holder form interfering with movement of the first blade holder (see Annotated Figure 1);
a locking mechanism comprising:
a push button (82) movable between a locked position and an unlocked position (Para 0026), the first blade holder (18) pivotable with respect to the handle between the extended and folded positions when the push button is in the unlocked position (Para 0026) and the first blade holder is held from pivotal movement relative to the handle when the push button is in the locked position (Par 26), the push button comprising a first portion (76) of a first diameter and a second portion (80) that is larger than the first diameter, the push button is received in the first notch (66) of the blade holder to hold the first blade holder in the extended position and the push button is received in the second notch (64) of the first blade holder to hold the blade holder in the folded position (Para 0026), and
a biasing element (75) that biases the push button toward the locked position (Para 0022).
In re claim 5, wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position (as shown in at least Figure 6) to limit movement of the spare blade holder towards the blade holder.
In re claim 6, wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position (as shown in Figure 6) to prevent movement of the spare blade holder towards the blade holder.
In re claim 7, wherein the recess of the spare blade holder receives a plurality of spare blades (Para 0023), the spare blade holder pivotal with respect to the handle between an open position where a first spare blade of the plurality of spare blades can be removed from the spare blade holder and a closed position where the recess is within the slot of the handle to inhibit removal of the first spare blade of the plurality of spare blades from the spare blade holder.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches the push button having a first portion with a first diameter and a second portion which is frusto-conical having a larger diameter, but does not teach the frusto-conical portion is between the first and second portions.
Pardue teaches a locking button (38) having a first portion (50) with a first diameter, a second portion (44) with a larger diameter than the first portion, and a frusto-conical portion (46) between the first and second portions. The frusto-conical portion has a large diameter portion properly engaging the corresponding notch (46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the push button of Lin with a first portion having a first diameter, a second portion having a second diameter, and a frusto-conincal portion between the first and second portion as taught by Pardue to maintain to maintain proper locking of the blade in an open position (Paras 0028-29, Pardue), which reduces the risk of user injury.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373364 to Li in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20050223562 to Pardue et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20060026844 to Ping, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20040154170 to Kain.
In re claim 2, modified Li teaches a spring, but does not teach a coil spring, and wherein the handle comprises a post that extends within an internal space defined within the coil spring, and wherein the post (is capable of stabilizing) the coil spring.
Ping teaches wherein the push button (18, Ping) comprises a recess (Figs. 5,10, Ping) and the handle comprises a recess (17, Ping), wherein an end of the spring is received within the recess of the handle and an opposite end of the spring is received within the recess of the push button (Fig. 10, Ping).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Li with a coiled spring, push button, and handle arrangement as taught by Ping which is an obvious design variant for maintaining the push button in a locked and/or unlocked position in order to prevent unintentional closing or opening of the blade which reduces user injury. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize there are various spring and push button arrangements which can be used in order to provide the same function.
Kain teaches knife having an actuator device (201) biased by a coil spring (222). A post (220) extends within an internal space defined within the coil spring and is capable of stabilizing the spring (Fig. 11). The structure of Kain is very similar to Ping, in there is a spring biasing and an actuator. Kain uses a spring and post arrangement, which is obvious variant for biasing another structure. The structures of Kain corresponds to the structures of Ping, in other words, Kain teaches a base structure (structure of slot 198) which receives a post (220) and a spring (222) for abutting and biasing the actuator. Kain clearly teaches and suggest an actuating biasing structure.
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Li with a post and coil spring arrangement as taught by Kain to center the spring and provide unwanted lateral movement. Unwanted lateral movement would prevent the actuator from properly pushing to move the knife blade into a cutting position or from a cutting position.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373364 to Li in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20050223562 to Pardue et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20060026844 to Ping.
In re claim 3, modified Li teaches a biasing element, but does not teach the biasing element is a coil spring, and wherein the push button comprises a recess, wherein an end of the coil spring is received within the recess of the handle and an opposite end of the coil spring is received within the recess of the push button.
Ping teaches wherein the push button (18, Ping) comprises a recess (Figs. 5,10, Ping) and the handle comprises a recess (17, Ping), wherein an end of the spring is received within the recess of the handle and an opposite end of the spring is received within the recess of the push button (Fig. 10, Ping).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Li with a coiled spring, push button, and handle arrangement as taught by Ping which is an obvious design variant for maintaining the push button in a locked and/or unlocked position in order to prevent unintentional closing or opening of the blade which reduces user injury. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize there are various spring and push button arrangements which can be used in order to provide the same function.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373364 to Li in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20050223562 to Pardue et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20130042485 to Wen.
In re claim 4, Li teaches a utility knife having a first and second notch, but does not teach wherein the push button is received in a third notch of the blade holder to hold the blade holder in an intermediate position between folded and extended positions.
Wen teaches a knife having a surface with a plurality of notches for positioning and locking the blade at various angles (Para 0038).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the blade holder of modified Li with a plurality of notches as taught by Wen to lock at multiple folding positions to prevent injuries caused by unintentional unfolding (Para 0018, Wen).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373364 to Li in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20050223562 to Pardue et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20100281696 to Hao et al.
In re claim 18, Li teaches wherein the spare blade holder (is capable of receiving) receives at least four spare blades; however, in the event one may argue that the ability of Lin to receive more than one blade is not four blades, Hao teaches a utility knife having a spare blade holder which receives at least four blades (as shown in at least Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the spare blade holder of Li to receive at least four blades as taught by Hao to maintain quick convenient blade changes to maintain clean cuts (by the elimination of using a dull blade).
Claims 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20140373364 to Li in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20130097786 to Hardinge et al.
In re claim 13, Li teaches comprising a magnet configured to retain the spare blade in the spare blade holder (Para 0023).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Li teaches the first blade holder (18), but does not teach the first blade holder comprises an enlarged portion that inhibits the spare blade holder from moving to the open position when the first blade holder is in the folded position.
Hardinge teaches in the art of multi-purpose tools a pivoting knife (62) integral with a locking plate and stop tab arrangement. When the knife (62) engages the stop tab (127) the knife stops rotating.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the blade holder of Li with a stop tab arrangement as taught by Handinge to prevent the spare blade holder from inadvertently opening leading to user injury.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to all hand tools with rotating blades. Handinge provides a teaching in the art of multi-purpose tools that a stop tab can be provided to limit rotational movement. One having ordinary skill in the art would have possessed the knowledge that the concept of a stop tab could be implemented in the rotating knife of Li to prevent rotation or limit rotation of the spare blade holder.
Response to Arguments
The 112, second paragraph rejection in the Office Action mailed April 20, 2026 has been overcome by the amendments filed July 20, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art to Li does not disclose the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position to inhibit the spare blade from interfering with movement of the first blade holder. Applicant argues the engagement set forth by the Examiner would exhibit a force on spare blade holder (20) that pushes spare blade holder towards the first blade, rather than away.
Applicant’s position that the position of the office action would push the spare blade holder towards the first blade holder, rather than away is speculative. Li does not provide any details to the spare blade holder being biased in any direction nor does the claim set forth any requirement of the spare blade holder to be pushed away from the blade holder. The claim recites: “wherein the spare blade holder comprises a second surface, and wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position to inhibit the spare blade holder form interfering with movement of the first blade holder.” The claim has been interpreted as set forth below:
the phrase “wherein the spare blade holder (20) comprises a second surface” is a positive recitation.
As shown in at least Figure 6, spare blade holder (20) has a plurality of surfaces. The second surface as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1, below is adjacent and in abutment with the first internal surface of the handle.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “and wherein the second surface of the spare blade holder engages the first internal surface of the handle when the spare blade holder is in the closed position when the spare blade holder is in the closed position” sets forth that the second surface of the spare blade holder has to be capable of engaging the first internal surface of the handle, when the spare blade holder is in the closed position” which is shown in at least Figure 6 and annotated Figure 1 above. Li teaches the surfaces in adjacent and in an abutted arrangement.
The phrase “to inhibit the spare blade holder from interfering with movement of the first blade holder” is an intended use recitation. The knife of Li merely has to be capable of performing this function, in which it is.
Specifically, Li teaches in Para [0026] “The user presses the button 82 in the direction of arrow 120 to move the large diameter portion 80 of the shaft 76 out from within the first locking aperture 64, which allows the user to pivot the first blade holder 18 about the axis 52 from the folded position (FIG. 7), through the slot 39, and to the extended position (FIG. 1).” Para [0028] recites “With the blade holder 20 in the open position, the user can remove a spare blade 14 from the blade holder 20 and insert the blade 14 into the first blade holder 18. Then, the user can move the spare blade holder back to the closed position by pivoting the blade holder 20 about the axis 92 in a direction opposite the arrow 126 and resume using the knife 10 to cut a work piece.” This provides support that spare blade holder of Li does not interfere with movement of the first blade holder, as the first blade holder rotates through the locked and unlocked positions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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 Ashley can be reached at 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 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights