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
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group I (claims 1-22 readable) in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the International Searching Authority treated claims 1-27 together as the blade-retention invention, and claims 1-27 were searched and considered together. This is not found persuasive. First of all, the Examiner has no authority over the examination of the corresponding PCT application. Secondly, as set forth in the 04/20/2026 Restriction Requirement, invention Group I (claims 1-22) and invention Group II (claims 23-27) do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. Specifically, invention Group I has the special technical feature of a lever portion and a protrusion portion cooperating with each other for retaining a blade in a blade holder while invention Group II has the special technical feature of an actuator and a roller cooperating with each other for securing a blade in a blade retention mechanism and for releasing the blade from the blade retention mechanism. These two Groups have different special technical features, and, therefore, the Restriction Requirement is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Preliminary Amendment - Enter in Part
The preliminary amendment filed on 07/17/2025 has been entered in part. The paragraph to be added in the specification should be a replacement paragraph for paragraph [0001] and should not be a separate new paragraph to be added at the top of page 1 after the title of the specification.
Drawings Objection
1. The drawings are objected to because:
(1) In FIG.3A, the leadline for reference numeral “135” should be extended to point to the protrusion portion similar to the protrusion portion 145 shown in Fig.7A.
(2) In FIG.3B, reference numeral “151” is not found in any drawings.
(3) In FIG.5, the leadline for reference numeral “135” should be extended to point to the protrusion portion similar to the protrusion portion 145 shown in Fig.7A such that a gap is created between the protrusion portion 135 and the blade 100 for releasing/removing/replacing the blade 100. See paragraph [0050] of the specification.
(4) In FIG.6, the leadline of “146” should designate a peg for engaging a blade notch 150. See FIG.7B.
(5) In FIG.11E, reference numeral “1134” should read --1136--. See FIG.11A and paragraph [0059] of the specification.
2. 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, the blade holder (cited in claims 1-4, 7-11, 13-17 and 21), the housing (cited in claims 3 and 7) of the blade holder, the notch/detent (cited in claim 3) of the housing of the blade holder, the slot/notch (cited in claims 4 and 17) of the blade holder, the slot/notch (cited in claim 17) in the housing of the knife must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) Paragraph [0001] should be amended to include its National Stage information.
(2) A brief description of Fig.6 is missing.
(3) In paragraphs [0031]-[0032], FIG. 6A and FIG. 6B are not found in any drawings.
(4) In paragraph [0061], line 10, “roller 1289” should read --roller 1290--.
(5) In paragraph [0057], line 3, after “clamps”, --900- - should be added. See FIG.9.
(6) In paragraph [0065], line 9, “adapter (14A)” should read --adapter 880 (FIG. 14A)--.
(7) In paragraph [0065], line 10, “(14B)” should read --(FIG.14B)--.
(8) In paragraph [0065], line 12, “1498” is not found in FIG. 14C.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-12 and 19 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) The scope of claims 1-4, 7 and 10-12 is confusing. While the preamble of each claim calls for “blade retention mechanism” (e.g., a subcombination), the main body each claim clearly recites the blade holder and/or the blade as parts of the claim combination.
(2) In claim 4, lines 3-4, “the slot or notch … in the blade” has no antecedent basis.
(3) In claims 6 and 19, “about 8.2 kg” and “about 16.4 kg” are indefinite because the specification lacks some standard for measuring the degrees intended.
(4) In claims 8 and 9, it is not understood how the blade holder further limits the structure of the blade retention mechanism.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 7, 8, 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) that presses 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 holder (11) comprises a housing (14,15), and when a blade (12) is being installed in the blade holder (11), the blade clamp (19,22) is flush with the housing (14,15 ) when the lever portion (19) is in the second closed position (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 8, Collins’ blade holder (11) is a utility knife.
Regarding claim 11, Collins’ blade holder (11) comprises a housing (14,15), and wherein a portion (28) of the housing (14,15) selectively rotates relative to the blade clamp (19,22) to extend over at least a portion (24) of the lever portion (19) and hold the lever portion (19) in the second closed position (Fig.2), and wherein the lever portion (19) is only movable into the first open position (Fig.3) when the housing (14,15) and the portion (24) of the lever portion (19) are rotated relative to each other so the portion (28) of the housing (14,15) does not extend over the 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 (`9) 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 (Fig.2).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Collins’ blade retention mechanism / utility knife 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) provide a desirable clamping load, such as the claimed about 8.2 kg to about 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.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 2-5, 9, 10 and 12 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.
2. Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22 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.
3. Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed spring member (870, see Fig.8A of this instant application) between the blade (110) and the blade holder (not shown), wherein the protrusion portion (135) of the blade clamp (125) in the second closed position applies pressure to the spring member (870) causing the spring member (870) to compress and apply additional force to the blade (110) in the blade holder.
4. Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed blade holder (not shown) comprising a housing (not shown) having a notch or detent (not shown), and wherein at least one end of the protrusion portion (135, see Fig.3A of this instant application) of the blade clamp (125) is positioned to engage with the notch or detent in the housing to further secure the blade (110) to the blade holder.
5. Claims 4 and 5 contain allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed blade holder (not shown) comprises a slot or notch (note shown), and wherein the protrusion portion (145) further comprises a peg (146, see Figs.6, 7A and 7B) along a length of the protrusion portion (145), the peg (146) positioned to engage the slot or notch in the blade holder or the blade (110) to further secure the blade (110).
6. Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed blade clamp (125) being configured to rotate across the blade (110) to engage the protrusion portion (145, see Fig.7A of this instant application) against the blade (110) causing the blade (110) to flex and further secure the blade (110) to the blade holder.
7. Claim 12 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins’ over-center cam (22) is not configured to press a planar face of the blade (12) but a curved surface (42) of the blade (12).
8. Claim 14 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed spring member (870, see Fig.8A of this instant application) between the removeable blade (110) and the blade holder, wherein the protrusion portion (135) of the blade clamp (125) in the second closed position applies pressure to the spring member (870) causing the spring member (870) to compress and apply additional force to the removeable blade (110) in the blade holder.
9. Claim 15 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed at least one end of the protrusion portion (135) of the blade clamp (125) engages with a notch or detent (not shown) in a housing of the utility knife (100) to further secure the removeable blade (110) to the blade holder.
10. Clams 17 and 18 contain allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed protrusion portion (145) further comprising a peg (146, see Figs.6, 7A and 7B of this instant application) along a length of the protrusion portion (145), the peg (146) engaging a slot/notch in the blade holder, the removeable blade (110) and/or a housing of the knife (100) to further secure the removeable blade (110).
11. Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed blade clamp (125) rotating across the removeable blade (110) of the knife (100) to engage the protrusion portion (135) against the removeable blade (110) of the knife (100) causing the removeable blade (110) to flex and further secure the removeable blade (110) to the blade holder.
12. Claim 22 contains allowable subject matter. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 3,900,950 to Collins (note the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, Collins fails to show the claimed lever portion (130) of the blade clamp (125) is locked in place by a portion of a housing (107) of the knife (100) extending over at least a portion of the lever portion (130), and wherein the lever portion (130) is only engageable when the portion of the housing (107) of the utility knife (100) is rotated out of an operating position.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 1,998,188 shows a knife comprising a locking lever (21) with a cam member (20) for locking a blade (30) to a handle (8) of the knife.
U.S. Patent No. 12,246,464 shows a lever (720, see Fig.9) configured to press a planar face of a blade (706, see Fig.10) to retain the blade (706) in a blade holder (714).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0274024 shows a folding knife having a blade holder for releasably holding a blade.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0255087 shows a utility knife with a replaceable blade.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0395991 shows a knife having a pivoting ramped blade lock.
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