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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 3, there are two occurrences of item 60. The lower left occurrence is correctly pointing at the surface. The upper right occurrence of item 60 should be replaced with “50” as it is pointing at dowel aperture.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-20 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 “closed position and open position” is unclear. It is unclear what structures define the positions. The phrases do not inherently disclose structure. A supported by the specification, the blade holder is in the frame in the closed position and the blade holder/blade is in a fully pivoted position when in the open position. Figure 8 may be an intermediate position but it is still an open position. Without definition, any position of the holder outside of the frame can be an open position.
With regards to claims 1, it is unclear if the intent was to positively claim the blade or not. As written, the blade is not positively claimed. If this was the intent, no changes are needed for claim 1. It is then unclear why claims 2, 3, and 4 use the phrase “a blade” while claims 9, 10, 12, and 19 use the phrase “the blade”.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “ejector…operable to detach the blade” is unclear. This is not always true. If the blade holder is in the open or closed position, what structure allows for the ejector to detach the blade?
With regards to claim 2, what structure allows for the ejector in the intermediate position to be operable to detach the blade. The frame must cooperate with the ejector to allow for the ejector to be able to perform the detach function as supported by the specification and claim 11. The frame is configured to cooperate with the ejector so that when the blade holder is in an intermediate position, the ejector is operable to detach a blade.
With regards to claim 3 and 4, what structure allows for the ejector to be constrained to render it inoperable? As written, the ejector is constrained on its own which is not supported. The frame and the blade holder constrain the ejector and need to be included in this disclosure because that is the only way there is support.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second end" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 should depend from claim 6.
With regards to claim 12, the phrase “is 90° from the closed position” is unclear in light of claim 11 introducing an intermediate position. As written, “90° from the closed position” is another position with regards to the intermediate position which is not supported.
With regards to claim 13, the phrase “force on the ejector” is unclear. Claim 13 introduces the ejector has a “portion” that protrudes from the frame and it is this portion that receives the force. The phrase should be replaced with “force on the portion of the ejector”.
With regards to claim 14, the term “blade defines a major plane” is indefinite as the blade is not positively claimed. Since the blade is not positively claimed, it is not on the blade holder and is not limited to any particular blade disclosed in the specification. The blade is indefinite intended use and any knife structure dependent upon the indefinite blade is also indefinite. Even if the blade was positively claimed, the plane is indefinite as the blade structure defines an infinite number of planes. The blade should be positively claimed with two opposed side surfaces connected by cutting edge and one of the side surfaces defines a plane. Finally, the word “major” should be deleted as it is unclear what allows for one plane to be major versus another plane that cannot. All the planes defined by the blade can extend on forever and could all be considered major.
With regards to claim 14 and 15, it is unclear what structure allows for the tilted position to be achieved if the knife is in the open or closed position?
With regards to claim 16, it is unclear what positions define “a limited range of positions”. As written, there is not a limitation preventing the open and/or closed position from being part of the limited range which is not supported. The limited range of positions needs to be further defined to exclude the open and closed positions.
With regards to claim 17, what structure incorporates the selected frame portion? The frame portion needs to be disclosed as being “on the elongated frame because both are claimed and there is never a time where the portion is not on the frame as supported by the specification.
With regards to claim 17, claim 17 depends from claim 1 and 14 that disclose the open, closed, and a limited range of positions. As written, the selected frame portion does not have a relationship with the blade holder which is not supported. The selected frame portion appears to engage the blade holder at all times and engages the blade holder to define each of these positions. Since both are claimed, the claim needs to disclose a physical relationship between both and a relationship defining the positions since this is the only way there is support.
Claim 18 is unclear. Renaming the portion as a lock element and not disclosing what functions the lock element performs does not further limit claim 17.
With regards to claim 19, what structure allows for the “motivate ejection of the blade” function to take place if the blade holder is in the open or closed position?
With regards to claim 20, claim 1 discloses the blade holder has a blade mount facility to receive the blade. Claim 20 introduces a pedestal configured to receive a scalpel on the blade holder which, as written, is in addition to the blade mount facility which is not supported. The blade mount facility is the pedestal. It is also unclear if the knife can receive blades and scalpel blades at the same time. It is noted that the scalpel blades are not positively claimed. There term “scalpel” does not inherently bring in structure to the claim as any cutting blade is capable of acting as a scalpel blade and, therefore, can be considered a scalpel blade.
With regards to claim 20, all occurrences of the term “standard” should be deleted. The blade is not positively claimed and is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mon (11,707,858).
With regards to claim 1, Mon discloses the same invention including a folding knife (abstract lines 12-14) having an elongated frame (5), a blade holder (10) pivotally connected to the elongated frame to move between a closed position and an open position (101, 95, 104, Figs. 24 and 30), the blade holder (10) having a blade mount facility (35) configured to removably receive a blade (Figs. 4, 6, and 7), an ejector (110) movably connected to the blade holder (111) and operable to detach the blade when the blade is received on the blade mount facility (Column 10 lines 53-67).
With regards to claim 4-6, 8, 10, 19, and 20, Mon discloses the ejector is constrained to render the ejector inoperable to detach a blade in the closed position (Fig. 24), the ejector is an elongated bar (110), the ejector has a first end extending toward the blade mount facility and configured to contact and motive a blade and an opposed second end (110, Column 10 lines 53-67), the blade holder defines an elongate channel receiving the ejector (111), the frame has an ejector limit surface preventing operation of the ejector to detach the blade (inside of 5, Fig. 24), the ejector is a unitary element having a first surface configured for direct force by a finger and a second surface directly contacting the blade to motivate ejection (110, Column 10 lines 53-67), and the blade holder has a standard elongated grooved pedestal (38) configured to receive standard scalpel blades (the term scalpel does not bring in specific structure as a scalpel blade is just a knife blade with an intended use attached therefore blade 11 is capable of being used in a surgical manner and being considered a scalpel) having elongated apertures receiving the pedestal (14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, and 11-18 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.
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 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 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.
10 September 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights