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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology such as “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-9, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6:
at lines 1-2, “the first opening” should be amended to read “a first opening”
at line 3, delete comma
Claim 7:
at lines 1-2, “the second opening” should be amended to read “a second opening”
at line 3, delete comma
Claim 8:
at line 1, “according to any one of the Claims 5” should be amended to read “according to Claim 5”
at the second to last line, delete the space after “protrusion”
Claim 9:
at line 1, “according to any one of the Claims 5” should be amended to read “according to Claim 5”
at lines 2-3, “the first end respectively the second end of the biasing means” should be amended to read “the first end and the second end of the biasing means, respectively”
Claim 11: at line 2, the period should be replaced with a comma
Claim 14: at line 2, “comprising of a secateurs, a shear, a pruner, and a scissor” should be amended to read “comprising a secateur, a shear, a pruner, and a scissor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 3, 4, 8, 11, and 13 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.
Regarding claim 8, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is not understood what is intended by the claim limitation “substantially identical”. Do the first and second fastening means have to be the exact same? How much deviation is acceptable before they are no longer considered to be “substantially identical”?
Regarding claims 3, 4, 8, 11, and 13, the phrases "particularly"/”in particular” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, it is presumed that limitations following the phrases “particularly”/”in particular” are exemplary and thus not required by the claim.
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 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 20220061224).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a cutting tool, comprising: a first handle (handle 10; see fig. 2); a second handle (handgrip 30; see fig. 2); a first cutting part comprising a first cutting blade (first cutting member 20 comprises knife anvil 23; see paragraph [0014] and fig. 2) and a first fastening section extending away from the first cutting blade (first cutting member 20 comprises lever 24 at an opposite end to knife anvil 23; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 2); a second cutting part comprising a second cutting blade (second cutting member 40 comprises blade 41; see paragraph [0014] and fig. 2) and a second fastening section extending away from the second cutting blade (hilt 53 extends away from blade 41; see fig. 2); and, a biasing means configured to pre-tension the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade away from each other (elastic member 36 tensions knife anvil 23 and blade 41 away from each other at rest; see fig. 5), wherein the first cutting part and the second cutting part are pivotably coupled to each other at a pivot point (first cutting member 20 and second cutting member 40 are pivotally coupled at second shaft hole 13; see paragraph [0014] and fig. 5), wherein the first fastening section is inserted into the first handle (lever 24 engages handle 10; see paragraph [0017] and fig. 5), wherein the second fastening section is inserted into the second handle (hilt 53 engages handgrip 30; see paragraph [0017] and fig. 5), characterized in that: wherein the first handle is fixedly coupled with the first fastening section by the biasing means (securing member 37 of elastic member 36 couples handle 10 to lever 24; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 5), and wherein the second handle is fixedly coupled with the second fastening section by the biasing means (securing member 37 of elastic member 36 couples handgrip 30 to hilt 53; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the biasing means comprises a first end (securing member 37 that engages pressing portion 25 forms a first end of elastic member 36; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 3) and a second end opposite the first end (securing member 37 that engages abutting portion 54 forms a second end of elastic member 36; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 3); wherein the first handle is fixedly coupled with the first fastening section by the first end of the biasing means (securing member 37 engages pressing portion 25 to couple handle 10 to lever 24; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 3); and, wherein the second handle is fixedly coupled with the second fastening section by the second end of the biasing means (securing member 37 engages abutting portion 54 to couple handgrip 30 to hilt 53; see paragraph [0015] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first end of the biasing means further extends through a first opening (securing member 37 extends at least partially through elongated hole 17; see fig. 3), particularly a through opening, in the first handle such that the first handle is fixedly coupled to the first cutting part (handle 10 is coupled to first cutting member 20; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 3), and wherein the second end of the biasing means further extends through a second opening (handgrip 30 includes a second opening that securing member 37 extends at least partially through; see fig. 3), particularly a through opening, in the second handle such that the second handle is fixedly coupled to the second cutting part (handgrip 30 is coupled to second cutting member 40; see paragraph [0019] and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first handle and the first fastening section are toollessly coupled, particularly fixedly coupled by hand and without the use of a tool (it appears lever 24 can be inserted into handle 10 without the need for an additional tool; see figs. 2 and 3), and/or wherein the second handle and the second fastening section are toollessly coupled, particularly fixedly coupled by hand and without the use of a tool (it appears hilt 53 can be inserted into handgrip 30 without the need for an additional tool; see figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first fastening section comprises a first fastening means (lever 24 includes a first securing member 37; see fig. 3), and/or wherein the second fastening section comprises a second fastening means (hilt 53 includes a second securing member 37; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first handle comprises the first opening (handle 10 includes an elongated hole 17; see fig. 3), wherein the first opening and the first fastening means overlap each other (first securing member 37 extends at least partially through elongated hole 17; see fig. 3), and are arranged opposite the second fastening section, when the first fastening section is inserted into the first handle (first securing member 37 and elongated hole are opposite hilt 53 when assembled; see figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the second handle comprises the second opening (handgrip 30 includes a second opening; see fig. 3), wherein the second opening and the second fastening means overlap each other (second securing member 37 extends at least partially through the second opening; see fig. 3), and are arranged opposite the first fastening section, when the second fastening section is inserted into the second handle (second securing member 37 and the second opening are opposite lever 24 when assembled; see figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first fastening means and the second fastening means are formed substantially identical (both of securing members 37 appear to be formed identically; see figs. 2-5), and/or wherein the first fastening means and/or the second fastening means is/are a protrusion with two adjacent recesses, and/or wherein the first fastening means and/or the second fastening means is/are configured to engage a respective end of the biasing means (securing members 37 are each configured to engage an end of elastic member 36; see paragraph [0015] and figs. 3, 5), and/or in particular wherein the two adjacent recesses are formed adjacent to the protrusion, and on opposite sides of the protrusion.
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first fastening means and/or the second fastening means is/are an elongate protrusion configured to engage the first end respectively the second end of the biasing means (securing members 37 each comprise a protrusion that engages a respective end of elastic member 36; see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first handle or the second handle comprises a slidable locking element (handle 10 comprises knob 16; see paragraph [0016] and figs. 3, 5) to selectively lock a relative rotation of the first cutting part and the second cutting part of the cutting tool (knob 16 includes hook 161 which engages cavity 43 to lock knife anvil 23 and blade 41 together; see paragraph [0016] and figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 13, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the first cutting part and the second cutting part are pivotably coupled to each other at the pivot point (first cutting member 20 and second cutting member 40 are pivotally coupled at second shaft hole 13; see paragraph [0014] and fig. 5) using a locking screw and a tightening nut (a screw, washer, and nut arrangement secures first cutting member 20 and second cutting member 40; see fig. 2), particularly a hexagonal nut, a knurled nut or a notched nut, screwed onto the locking screw.
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the cutting tool is selected from the group comprising of a secateurs, a shear, a pruner, and a scissor (the cutting tool is formed as a pair of garden shears; see paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang further discloses wherein the cutting tool is an anvil cutting tool, or a bypass cutting tool (the cutting tool is configured as an anvil cutting tool; see paragraph [0005]).
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20220061224) in view of Heck (US 20030061715).
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the biasing means is at least one of a compression spring, a coil spring, a spring blade, and a flat spring.
Heck discloses wherein the biasing means is at least one of a compression spring, a coil spring, a spring blade, and a flat spring (coil spring 56; see paragraph [0026] and figs. 10, 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang in view of Heck to make the biasing means a coil spring. The biasing means of Huang is configured as a scroll spring (see paragraph [0014]), whereas Heck discloses a biasing means configured as a coil spring (see paragraph [0026]). Through a simple substitution of spring elements, Huang can be modified to include a coil spring. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the same result would be achieved if a coil spring were used – that is, the handles would still be biased and tensioned relative to one another.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20220061224) in view of Heck (US 20030061715), as evidenced by “Injection Molding – What are the Advantages?” by Dassault Systemes (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 11, Huang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first handle and/or the second handle are formed by at least one of the following: injection molding, aluminum die-casting. zinc die-casting, molding, 3D printing technology, particularly metal or plastics, sintering and punching.
Heck discloses wherein the first handle and/or the second handle are formed by at least one of the following: injection molding, aluminum die-casting. zinc die-casting, molding, 3D printing technology, particularly metal or plastics, sintering and punching (pruner members 30, 32 and cover 62 can be made from molded plastic, specifically injection molding; see paragraphs [0025, 0028] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Huang in view of Heck to make the first and/or second handles using injection molding. As evidenced by Dassault Systemes, it is beneficial to form parts from an injection molding process to due low cost and high efficiency (see Injection Molding – What are the Advantages? NPL). In order to make production of the cutting tool more efficient while simultaneously reducing the cost of parts, such a modification would be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20110192035 to Chen, drawn to a compound-action pruning tool; US 20170332558 to Dechant, drawn to a geared hand tool; US 20190021234 to Huang, drawn to handheld gardening gear shears; US 8601698 to Huang, drawn to garden shears that avoid loosening of a shaft pin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights