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 .
Detailed Action
This final Office action replaces the one mailed on 08/31/2026. The content of this Office action is the same as that of 08/31/2026 except for the underlined sentences added under the title “Remarks” shown below.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an over-center cam (cited in claims 1, 13 and 36), and a portion of the housing extending over a portion of the lever portion when in a closed portion and the portion of the housing does not extend over the portion of the lever portion when in the open position (cited in claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 7, 11, 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 7, line 3, “the housing” has no antecedent basis.
(2) In claim 11, lines 3-5, it is not understood how the lever portion is configured to be held in the second closed position by a portion of a housing extending over at least a portion of the lever portion (referring to paragraph [0015] of the original specification). There is no showing in the drawings that a portion of a housing of the knife “extends over” at least a portion of the lever portion to hold the lever portion in a closed position and only movable into an open position when the portion of the housing “does not extend over” at least the portion of the lever portion as now claimed.
(3) In claim 11, line 4, “a housing” is vague and indefinite. A housing of what?
(4) In claim 11, line 8, “a portion” is vague. It appears “a portion” should read --the portion--. See line 4 of the claim.
(5) In claim 41, line 2, “an oscillating multitool adapter that receives a utility blade” does not agree with Fig.9. As shown in the figure, a blade holder (not numbered) is coupled to an oscillating multitool adapter 880, and it is the blade holder not the adapter 880 that receives the utility blade 810. Moreover, is “utility blade” cited at line 2 of claim 41 in addition to a blade cited at line 3 of claim 36? Exactly how many blades are in the claimed blade retention system?
(6) The scope of clam 43 is confusing. Is the claim a sub-combination claim (e.g., a blade retention system) or a combination claim (e.g., a utility knife)? It is suggested the preamble be changed to --A utility knife comprising a housing and a blade retention system according to claim 36--.
(7) In claim 43, line 6, a portion” is vague. It appears “a portion” should read --the portion--. See line 3 of the claim.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950).
Regarding claim 1, Collins discloses a blade retention mechanism (19,22) for retaining a blade (12) in a blade holder (11), the blade retention mechanism (19,22) comprising:
a blade clamp (19,22) including a lever portion (19) and a protrusion portion (22) coupled to a first end (20) of the lever portion (19), wherein the lever portion (19) is rotatable about the first end (20) of the lever portion (19) between a first open position (Fig.3) and a second closed position (Fig.2), and
wherein the protrusion portion (22) of the blade clamp (19,22) defines an over-center cam (22) configured to press the blade (12) into the blade holder (11) when the lever portion (19) is rotated into the second closed position (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 7, Collins’ blade clamp (19,22) is configured to flush with a housing (14,15) of the blade holder (11) when the lever portion (19) is in the second closed position (see Figs.1-2 and column 2, lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 9, Collins’ blade clamp (19,22) shows all the claimed structure as set forth. It is held that Collins’ blade clamp (19,22) is fully capable of pressing a utility blade into an oscillating multitool adapter coupled to the blade holder as claimed if such utility blade and oscillating multitool adapter are provided. Note the claim is directed to a blade retention mechanism (a sub-combination claim), and the utility blade and the oscillating multitool adapter add no structure to and are of no patentable import on the claimed retention mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, Collins’ lever portion (19) is configured to be held in the second closed position (Fig.2) by a portion (32) of a housing (11) of a knife (10) extending over at least a portion (24) of the lever portion (19), and wherein the lever portion (19) is only movable into the first open position (Fig.3) when the housing (11) and the blade clamp (19,22) are positioned relative to each other such that the portion (32) of the housing (11) does not extend over at least the portion (24) of the lever portion (19).
Regarding claim 13, Collins discloses a utility knife (10) comprising:
a removeable blade (12);
a blade holder (11) that receives the removeable blade (12); and
a blade clamp (19,22) including a lever portion (19) and a protrusion portion (22) coupled to a first end (20) of the lever portion (19), wherein the lever portion (19) rotates at the first end (20) of the lever portion (19) between a first open position (Fig.3) and a second closed position (Fig.2); and
wherein the protrusion portion (22) of the blade clamp (19,22) defines an over-center cam (22) that presses the removeable blade (12) into the blade holder (11) of the utility knife (10) when the lever portion (19) is rotated into the second closed position (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 16, Collins’ removeable blade (12) comprises notches/apertures (41,42) that further secure the removeable blade (12) to the blade holder (11) of the utility knife (10).
Regarding claim 20, Collins’ utility knife (10) further comprises a housing (14,15), and wherein the blade clamp (19,22) is flush with the housing (14,15) of the utility knife (10) in which the removeable blade (12) is provided when the lever portion (19) is in the second closed position (see Figs.1-2 and column 2, lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 36, Collins discloses a blade retention system comprising:
a blade holder (11);
a blade (12) received in the blade holder (11); and
a blade clamp (19,22) including a lever portion (19) and a protrusion portion (22) coupled to a first end (20) of the lever portion (19),
wherein the lever portion (19) is rotatable about the first end (20) of the lever portion (19) between a first open position (Fig.3) and a second closed position (Fig.2), and
wherein the protrusion portion (22) of the blade clamp (19,22) defines an over-center cam (22) configured to press
3. Claims 1, 2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Linskey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,975,505, hereafter “Linskey”).
Regarding claim 1, Linskey discloses a retention mechanism (19), capable of retaining a blade if such a blade is provided, comprising:
a clamp (12) including a lever portion (30) and a protrusion portion (31) coupled to a first end of the lever portion (30),
wherein the lever portion (30) is rotatable (at pin 21) about the first end of the lever portion (30) between a first open position (Fig.2) and a second closed position (Fig.3), and
wherein the protrusion portion (31) defines an over-center cam (31) configured to press a blade (if so desired) into a holder (10) when the lever portion (30) is rotated into the second closed position (Fig.3). Note the claim is directed to a retention mechanism (a sub-combination claim), and the blade adds no structure to and is of no patentable import on the claimed retention mechanism.
Regarding clam 2, Linskey’s retention system further comprises a spring member (24, e.g., a resilient cushioning pad) between a working head (F, can be a blade if so desired) and a blade holder (10), wherein the protrusion portion (31) in the second closed position (Fig.3) applies pressure to the spring member (24) causing the spring member (24) to compress and apply additional force to the working head (F, can be a blade if so desired). Note the blade and the blade holder are not parts of the claimed retention mechanism.
Regarding claim 7, Linskey’s clamp (12) is configured to flush with (at least a portion thereof) a housing (13,14) of the blade holder (11) when the lever portion (12) is in the second closed position (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, Linskey’s clamp (12) shows all the claimed structure as set forth. It is held that Linskey’s clamp (12) is fully capable of pressing a utility blade into an oscillating multitool adapter coupled to the blade holder as claimed if such utility blade and oscillating multitool adapter are provided. Note the claim is directed to a retention mechanism (a sub-combination claim), the utility blade and the oscillating multitool adapter add no structure to and are of no patentable import on the claimed retention mechanism.
Claim Rejection- 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950).
Regarding claim 6, Collins’ blade retention mechanism (19,22) as set forth shows all the claimed limitations except it is silent about the clamping load provided by the blade clamp (19,22) on the blade (12). However, to modify Collins by having the blade clamp (19,22) provides a desirable clamping load, such as the claimed from 8.2 kg to 16.4 kg, on the blade sufficient to clamp the blade would have been obvious to one skilled in the art as the clamping load selected depends more upon a corresponding blade to be clamped than on any inventive concept.
3. Claims 13, 14, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linskey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2,975,505).
Regarding claim 13, Linskey discloses a hand-held device (see Fig.1) comprising:
a removable working head (F, in the form of a file);
a holder (10) that receives the removable working head (F); and
a clamp (12) including a lever portion (30) and a protrusion portion (31) coupled to a first end of the lever portion (30), wherein the lever portion (30) rotates at a first end of the lever portion (30) between a first open position (Fig.2) and a second closed position (Fig.3), and wherein the protrusion portion (31) defines an over-center cam (31) that presses the removable working head (F) into the holder (10) when the lever portion (30) is rotated into the second closed position (Fig.3) substantially as claimed except Linskey’s working element (F) is in the form of a file rather than a blade. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art who wishes to use Linskey’s hand-held device for cutting by replacing the file (F) with another working head such as a blade for the intended use.
Regarding claim 36, Linskey discloses a working head retention system (see Fig.1) comprising:
a holder (10);
a working head (F, in the form of a file) received in the blade holder (10); and
a blade clamp (12) including a lever portion (30) and a protrusion portion (31) coupled to a first end of the lever portion (30),
wherein the lever portion (30) is rotatable about the first end of the lever portion (30) between a first open position (Fig.2) and a second closed position (Fig.3), and
wherein the protrusion portion (31) of the blade clamp (12) defines an over-center cam (31) configured to press a planar face (T) of the working head (F) into the holder (10) when the lever potion (30) is rotated into the second closed position (see Fig.3) substantially as claimed except Linskey’s working head (F) is in the form of a file rather than a blade. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art who wishes to use Linskey’s system for cutting by replacing the file (F) with another working head such as a blade for the intended use.
Regarding claims 14 and 37, Linskey further shows a spring member (24, e.g., a resilient cushioning pad) between the working head (F, now a blade as modified above) and the blade holder (10), wherein the protrusion portion (31) in the second closed position (Fig.3) applies pressure to the spring member (24) causing the spring member (24) to compress and apply additional force to the working head/blade (F, see column 3, lines 6-15).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 3-5, 10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 38-40 and 42 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.
2. Claims 41 and 43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 995,837 shows a retention mechanism comprising a lever portion (g) and a protrusion portion (f).
Remarks
Applicants' arguments filed on 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, Applicants argue Collins does not appear to disclose the clamed protrusion portion defining an “over-center cam” expressly or inherently. Examiner disagrees. To the contrary, Collins explicitly states “cam lock protrusion 22 wedges into the cam lock recess 41 of the tang 36” (see column 3, lines 35-36). It is evidenced that Collins’ cam lock protrusion 22 defines an “over-center cam” as claimed that wedges into the cam lock recess 41 of the blade tang 36. Note the phrase “wedges into” means “fits tightly into”, helping to keep it locked.
Applicants fail to argue dependent clams individually. Accordingly, they stand or fall with their independent claims. Newly added claims 36, 37, 41 and 43 stand rejected as set forth.
According to 37 CFR 1.97 (Time of Filing of Information Disclosure Statement - IDS), the IDS dated 08/11/2026 was filed after the first action on the merits, thus, the filing is governed by 37 CRF 1.97 (c). Since a fee is used, the Examiner in using the submitted information in a new ground of rejection can make the action FINAL.
Action Made Final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights