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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King (US 2012/0017442).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a A screw-less magnetic handle (300) for an outdoor cutter (knife is capable of being used outdoors—the clause “outdoor cutter” is intended use and imparts no structure to the device beyond a capability of being used outdoors), comprising handle parts (318, 316) and a steel liner (302 is a stack of liners with blades etc), wherein the handle parts are magnetically attracted handle parts (See claim 2 of King: “:wherein said first handle scale and said second handle scale are formed of a non-magnetic material, further wherein said at least one permanent magnet for providing a magnetic moment is provided by at least one magnet embedded in each of said handle scales”, and are fixedly attracted to the steel liner by magnetic force of magnets embedded in the handle parts.
Regarding claim 3-4, see the grooves/ recesses shown formed in the handles of King; see the above quotation referencing the use of “permanent” magnets.
Regarding claim 5, King discloses grooves 224 and projections 210 (See figure 4) as alignment features for the liners to the scales.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 2012/0017442).
2. wherein a resultant magnetic force of one of the handle parts on one side of the steel liner is 30 N to 150 N is not disclosed in King, because the amount of force is silent in King, because this is the type of thing a person of ordinary skill is expected to routinely determine, select or optimize for their purposes. Kind does disclose “ These magnets provide an attractive force between the handle scales (316, 318) to hold them in contact with the core assembly 302.” Paragraph [0038].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase and decrease the magnetic force exerted to be within 50 to 150 N of force, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Some amount must be selected to achieve the function of the magnets attracting and holding the ‘scales’ or handle sides together, and since the King device is the same type as the present application, it is reasonable to assume the resultant force selected would be in the same general range. It has been held that a motivation to try constitutes a motivation, unless it is shown that one of ordinary skill would have been unable to make the combination. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc. et al. US Supreme Court, No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. ___ (2007), which states “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his of her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” Slip op. at 17. Unless applicant can show that the person of ordinary skill was unable to select magnets of the stated force, or that doing so would require undue experimentation, then the selection of this range is considered to be obvious.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King as applied to claims 1, 5 inter alia above.
Regarding claim 9, the use of grooves on the liners and projections on the handles is a reversal f parts with respect to the orientation shown. The use of locating protrusions and corresponding grooves is ubiquitously known as a feature for locating an element before or during assembly—in this case it is clear that it matters not which of the liner or handle has the grooves and which the projection—the function and result is the same. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 requires a particular pivot screw to be used as a locator element in the interaction of a magnetic liner situation on a knife, which is not found to be a simple substitution, nor is there an apparent reason to make the seat grooves of King (or similar base art, of record) to be pivotable or screw based.
Similarly with respect to claim 10, the use of a pocket clip and filler tap snap fitted at either side of the handle structure of the pommel is not seen in the art known to be applicable in the case.
Conclusion
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