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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges claims to priority under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 121 for U.S. application 19081470 to U.S. provisional application serial No. 63567214 filed on 3/19/2024.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano (US 20170100845 A1) in view of Yagyu (US 20200130204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Albano teaches a weighted scissors for providing proprioceptive feedback to a child during physical therapy, the weighted scissors comprising:
a first blade member and a second blade member (42 and 22) configured to be rotatably coupled to one another at an axis point located proximate a first end of both the first blade member and the second blade member (see Figures 1-2), and wherein the first blade member and the second blade member both have a cutting edge along a side portion of a second end of both the first blade member and the second blade member and which are positioned in a cooperating relationship when first blade member and the second blade member are rotatably coupled to one another (see Figures 1-2);
a first handle member (50) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the first handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, the attachment structure of the first handle member being attachable to the first blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point (see Figures 1-2); and
a second handle member (30) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the second handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, the attachment structure of the second handle member being attachable to the second blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point (see Figures 1-2);
wherein the first handle member and the second handle member are coupled to the first blade member and the second blade member so that they are each able to rotate about the axis point thereby causing the cutting edge of the first blade member and the cutting edge of the second blade member to cooperate with one another and create a cutting action (see Figures 1-2).
Albano fails to teach with the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight.
Yagyu teaches a scissors having a heavier handle than the blade (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Albano to make the handle heavier, as taught by Yagyu, in order to better balance the device (paragraph 0037 of Yagyu).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific weight of the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight distribution wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 3, modified Albano further teaches a combined weight of the first handle member and the second handle member is some value (see Figure 1 of Albano).
Modified Albano fails to teach greater than 4 OZ.
With respect to the specific weight of greater than 4 OZ, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight of the device wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 4, modified Albano further teaches the first blade member and the second blade member are substantially identical to one another (see Figures 1-2 of Albano).
Regarding claim 5, modified Albano further teaches the enclosed loop of the first handle member is configured to receive at least one finger of the child during use and the enclosed loop of the second handle member is configured to receive a thumb of the child (see Figures 1-2 of Albano).
Regarding claim 6, modified Albano further teaches all element of the current invention as set forth in claim 5 above.
Modified Albano fails to teach the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member and the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member are substantially equal.
With respect to the specific weight of the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member and the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member are substantially equal, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight of the device wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 7, modified Albano further teaches all element of the current invention as set forth in claim 5 above.
Modified Albano fails to teach the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member is substantially less than the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member.
With respect to the specific weight of the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member is substantially less than the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight of the device wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 9, Albano teaches a weighted scissors for providing proprioceptive feedback to a child during physical therapy, the weighted scissors comprising:
a first blade member and a second blade member (42 and 22) configured to be rotatably coupled to one another at an axis point (60) located proximate a first end of both the first blade member and the second blade member (see Figures 1-2), and wherein the first blade member and the second blade member both have a cutting edge along a side portion of a second end of both the first blade member and the second blade member and which are positioned in a cooperating relationship when first blade member and the second blade member are rotatably coupled to one another (see Figures 1-2);
a first handle member (50) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the first handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, the attachment structure of the first handle member being attachable to the first blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point (see Figures 1-2); and
a second handle member (30) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the second handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, the attachment structure of the second handle member being attachable to the second blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point; wherein the first handle member and the second handle member are coupled to the first blade member and the second blade member so that they are each able to rotate about the axis point thereby causing the cutting edge of the first blade member and the cutting edge of the second blade member to cooperate with one another and create a cutting action (see Figures 1-2).
Albano fails to teach with the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight.
Yagyu teaches a scissors having a heavier handle than the blade (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Albano to make the handle heavier, as taught by Yagyu, in order to better balance the device (paragraph 0037 of Yagyu).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific weight of the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight distribution wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 11, modified Albano further teaches a combined weight of the first handle member and the second handle member is some value (see Figure 1 of Albano).
Modified Albano fails to teach greater than 4 OZ.
With respect to the specific weight of greater than 4 OZ, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight of the device wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 12, modified Albano further teaches the first blade member and the second blade member are substantially identical to one another (see Figures 1-2 of Albano).
Regarding claim 13, modified Albano further teaches the enclosed loop of the first handle member is configured to receive at least one finger of the child during use and the enclosed loop of the second handle member is configured to receive a thumb of the child (see Figures 1-2 of Albano).
Regarding claim 14, modified Albano further teaches all element of the current invention as set forth in claim 13 above.
Modified Albano fails to teach the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member and the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member are substantially equal.
With respect to the specific weight of the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member and the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member are substantially equal, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight of the device wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 15, modified Albano further teaches all element of the current invention as set forth in claim 13 above.
Modified Albano fails to teach the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member is substantially less than the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member.
With respect to the specific weight of the predetermined overall weight of the first handle member is substantially less than the predetermined overall weight of the second handle member, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight of the device wanted by the end user.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano (US 20170100845 A1) in view of Yagyu (US 20200130204 A1) and in further view of Neal (US 20070019309 A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 10, modified Albano further teaches the first handle member and the second handle member have a length which is at some ratio with a length of the first blade member and the second blade member (see Figure 1 of Albano).
Modified Albano fails to teach longer.
Neal teaches the first handle member and the second handle member have a length which is longer than a length of the first blade member and the second blade member (see Figure 1 of Neal).
With respect to the specific length ratio of teaches the first handle member and the second handle member have a length which is longer than a length of the first blade member and the second blade member, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Albano’s device to have the specific length ratio set forth in the claim in order to get desired length of the device wanted by the end user.
Claims 1, 8-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US 20060123634 A1) in view of Yagyu (US 20200130204 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson teaches a weighted scissors for providing proprioceptive feedback to a child during physical therapy, the weighted scissors comprising:
a first blade member and a second blade member (24 and 20) configured to be rotatably coupled to one another at an axis point located proximate a first end of both the first blade member and the second blade member (see Figures 1-2), and wherein the first blade member and the second blade member both have a cutting edge along a side portion of a second end of both the first blade member and the second blade member and which are positioned in a cooperating relationship when first blade member and the second blade member are rotatably coupled to one another (see Figures 1-2);
a first handle member (40) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the first handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, the attachment structure of the first handle member being attachable to the first blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point (see Figures 1-2); and
a second handle member (46) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the second handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, the attachment structure of the second handle member being attachable to the second blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point (see Figures 1-2);
wherein the first handle member and the second handle member are coupled to the first blade member and the second blade member so that they are each able to rotate about the axis point thereby causing the cutting edge of the first blade member and the cutting edge of the second blade member to cooperate with one another and create a cutting action (see Figures 1-2).
Peterson fails to teach with the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight.
Yagyu teaches a scissors having a heavier handle than the blade (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Peterson to make the handle heavier, as taught by Yagyu, in order to better balance the device (paragraph 0037 of Yagyu).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific weight of the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Peterson’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight distribution wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 8, modified Peterson further teaches the first handle member and the second handle member each comprise an inner structure and a plastic outer covering (paragraph 0022, see Figures 5-7 of Peterson).
Regarding claim 9, Peterson teaches a weighted scissors for providing proprioceptive feedback to a child during physical therapy, the weighted scissors comprising:
a first blade member and a second blade member (24 and 20) configured to be rotatably coupled to one another at an axis point (18) located proximate a first end of both the first blade member and the second blade member (see Figures 1-2), and wherein the first blade member and the second blade member both have a cutting edge along a side portion of a second end of both the first blade member and the second blade member and which are positioned in a cooperating relationship when first blade member and the second blade member are rotatably coupled to one another (see Figures 1-2);
a first handle member (40) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the first handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, with the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight, the attachment structure of the first handle member being attachable to the first blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point (see Figures 1-2); and
a second handle member (46) having an enclosed loop at a first end and an attachment structure at a second end, the second handle being formed to have a predetermined overall weight, the attachment structure of the second handle member being attachable to the second blade member so that a hole in the attachment structure is aligned with the axis point; wherein the first handle member and the second handle member are coupled to the first blade member and the second blade member so that they are each able to rotate about the axis point thereby causing the cutting edge of the first blade member and the cutting edge of the second blade member to cooperate with one another and create a cutting action (see Figures 1-2).
Peterson fails to teach with the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight.
Yagyu teaches a scissors having a heavier handle than the blade (paragraph 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Peterson to make the handle heavier, as taught by Yagyu, in order to better balance the device (paragraph 0037 of Yagyu).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific weight of the enclosed loop configured to contain a majority of the weight, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Peterson’s device to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to get desired weight distribution wanted by the end user.
Regarding claim 16, modified Peterson further teaches the first handle member and the second handle member each comprise an inner structure and a plastic outer covering (paragraph 0022, see Figures 5-7 of Peterson).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights