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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the pending 112(b) rejections which are rendered moot / withdrawn.
Applicant’s incorporation of claim 13 (now cancelled) into claim 1 does not demonstrate the patentability of any claims—but does necessitate the reframing of the applied art as set forth below.
Applicant traverses the official notice of the fact that changing lever length adjusts the force required for a set distance (Rem. Of 9/1/26, P. 8). This is simply a restatement of the law of the lever—long accepted. See for example: https://math.nyu.edu/Archimedes/Lever/LeverLaw.html which cites to the Mechanica, circa 300BC.
Applicant’s argument here boils down to there is no reason to modify the lever length of Huang, since Huang does not discuss it as a specific variable. This is not persuasive. Huang uses a linkage to motivate the motion of the blade—the selection of how much force to require a user to impart is a question of mechanical advantage. Clearly the designer must make some choice. The choice could be smaller ratio, larger ratio, or 1:1. All three are available—the only difference to the prior art is that applicant is alleging an invention in the selection of one of the known and simply implemented possible ratios. The rejection is therefore proper under controlling precedent, in light of the cited art, and the implicit desire to have the force applied by a user be consistent with comfort.
Applicant alleges that Mravik cannot supply the limitations missing from Huang, since it is unclear how the mechanism of Huang would be operated by such a cap. This is not persuasive. The cap of Mravik shown actuates movement, and as such is a replacement for the trigger mechanism of Huang. No further explanation is needed to demonstrate prima facie that the art shows that which applicant has claimed. Replacing one actuator for another is routine, simple, and implemented without undue experimentation. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Applicant alleges that the claim amendment to claim 19 overcomes the art of record, (rem. P. 9-10) since Huang is a clamshell which could be disassembled to show the interior components. The claim scope actually encompasses this—Claim 19 as written requires “an end portion of the handle … is removable from the knife….” This does not distinguish the claimed subject matter from an entire handle clamshell, which applicant admits is shown in the art. If the whole handle is clamshell and disassemble-able, then the claim is clearly met by Huang, or Huang as modified by Mravik to include a ‘cap.’
Applicant alleges that claim 20 is patentable because Rebold’s rotatable blade cannot be implemented in a retractable configuration (Rem. P. 10-11). This is not persuasive. The incorporation of the Rebold pivot / blade style into the Huang retraction type would provide both features. The fixedness of Rebold is not relevant to whether the rotation relative to its mounting can be added to Huang.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 21 requires “an eccentric cam…such that movement of the cap …rotates the cam.” This type of limitation or direction to this technical aspect was not previously presented. It is clearly distinct from the claims originally presented, which includes subject matter such as “ a cartridge” (claim 4) or “cap is bulbous” (claim 14). Because whether the cap is bulbous has nothing to do with the cam configuration—these are two distinct inventions, each potentially patentable over the other. A device could have a non-bulbous cap and still have eccentric cam details, or NON-eccentric cam details and a bulbous cap. They are directed to different inventions. Because the search of the original invention is complete, and did not need to investigate cam details that were not presented originally as inventive, their inclusion now is a shift in prosecution to a different invention. Additional divergent and burdensome searching into cam style (including “eccentric” language) is now requested after an action on the merits.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 5,924,203) and further in view of Mravik (US 2,512,237).
As set forth previously in the action dated 6/1/26 and incorporated here by reference, Huang (US 5,924,203) discloses all the features of claims 1-12, 14-17, and 19 as now presented, except for the use of a Cap actuator.
As set forth previously in the action dated 6/1/26 and incorporated here by reference, Mravik discloses the claimed cap actuation, and the combination treating claim 13 previously addresses claim 1 presently.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 5,924,203) and further in view of Mravik (US 2,512,237) as set forth above, further in light of official notice as set forth in the non-final action of 6/1/26 and incorporated here by reference.
As noted above, applicant traversed the official notice that changing the length of a lever arm is known to increase or decrease force requirements for use—which is a restatement of the lever law (of Archimedes). A foundational principle of mechanics. Now evidenced by https://math.nyu.edu/Archimedes/Lever/LeverLaw.html (copy attached) which cites to the Mechanica, circa 300BC.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 5,924,203) and further in view of Mravik (US 2,512,237) as set forth above as applied to claims 1, 3, 19 (inter alia) above, and further in view of Rebold (US 3,977,077) as set forth in the non-final action of 6/1/26 and incorporated here by reference.
Conclusion
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 SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights