Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 6-1-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR Patent No. 2932661 to Gueytron.
Referring to claim 1, Gueytron discloses a shellfish shucking knife comprising: an elongated handle – at 4, sized to fit in a user’s hand – see figure 1, and an elongated blade – at 1, connected to the elongated handle – see figure 1, the elongated handle – at 4, and the elongated blade – at 1, having an axis – see longitudinal axis in figure 1, wherein the elongated blade – at 1, includes a proximal end adjacent the elongated handle – at 4 – see connection of 1 to 4 in figure 1, and a distal end – free end of 1 as seen in figure 1, a cutting edge – lower edge of 1, and a non-dominant hand edge – top of 1, opposite the cutting edge – see figure 1, a hinge blade – at 2, extending from the cutting edge generally orthogonal to the axis – see at 2 in figure 1, a primary muscle blade – front lower edge of 1, along the cutting edge – see bottom of 1, distal to the hinge blade – at 2 – see at the front lower edge of 1 in figure 1, a secondary muscle blade – top front edge of 1, along the non-dominant hand edge – see figure 1.Gueytron does not disclose the hinge blade extends from the cutting edge at a distance of about 10 mm to about 65 mm above the elongated handle, and the hinge blade extends from the cutting edge at a distance of about 35 mm above the elongated handle. However, as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in pages 2 and 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant places no criticality/particular reason for having the claimed dimensions in that as seen in pages 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant discloses the dimensions are effective but does not provide reasoning/rationale as to what makes these claimed dimensions more effective than other non-claimed dimensions and given the device of Gueytron is a handheld tool that functions similar to applicant’s claimed device, making the components of Gueytron to have the claimed dimensions would not render the device of Gueytron inoperable for its intended purpose of shucking oysters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and make the hinge blade extend any suitable distance from the cutting edge including the claimed distances, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the hinge blade engages sufficient portions of the oyster to facilitate cutting of the oyster as desired.
Referring to claim 5, Gueytron further discloses the hinge blade – at 2, extends from the cutting edge – at 1, at an angle of about 70 degrees to about 135 degrees relative to the axis – see about 90 degrees in figure 1.
Referring to claims 8 and 9, Gueytron does not disclose the hinge blade extends about 4 mm to about 25 mm from the axis, and the hinge blade extends about 13 mm from the axis. However, as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in pages 2 and 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant places no criticality/particular reason for having the claimed dimensions in that as seen in pages 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant discloses the dimensions are effective but does not provide reasoning/rationale as to what makes these claimed dimensions more effective than other non-claimed dimensions and given the device of Gueytron is a handheld tool that functions similar to applicant’s claimed device, making the components of Gueytron to have the claimed dimensions would not render the device of Gueytron inoperable for its intended purpose of shucking oysters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and make the hinge blade extend any suitable distance from the axis including the claimed distances, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the hinge blade engages sufficient portions of the oyster to facilitate cutting of the oyster as desired.
Referring to claims 10 and 11, Gueytron does not disclose he hinge blade extends about 2.25 mm to about 6.5 mm along the cutting edge and the hinge blade extends about 3.5 mm along the cutting edge. However, as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in pages 2 and 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant places no criticality/particular reason for having the claimed dimensions in that as seen in pages 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant discloses the dimensions are effective but does not provide reasoning/rationale as to what makes these claimed dimensions more effective than other non-claimed dimensions and given the device of Gueytron is a handheld tool that functions similar to applicant’s claimed device, making the components of Gueytron to have the claimed dimensions would not render the device of Gueytron inoperable for its intended purpose of shucking oysters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and make the hinge blade extend any suitable distance along the cutting edge including the claimed distances, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the hinge blade engages sufficient portions of the oyster to facilitate cutting of the oyster as desired.
Referring to claims 12 and 13, Gueytron does not disclose the hinge blade has a thickness of about 0.4 mm to about 2.25 mm, and the hinge blade has a thickness of about 1.2 mm. However, as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in pages 2 and 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant places no criticality/particular reason for having the claimed dimensions in that as seen in pages 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant discloses the dimensions are effective but does not provide reasoning/rationale as to what makes these claimed dimensions more effective than other non-claimed dimensions and given the device of Gueytron is a handheld tool that functions similar to applicant’s claimed device, making the components of Gueytron to have the claimed dimensions would not render the device of Gueytron inoperable for its intended purpose of shucking oysters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and make the hinge blade any suitable thickness including the claimed thicknesses, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the hinge blade engages sufficient portions of the oyster to facilitate cutting of the oyster as desired.
Referring to claim 15, Gueytron does not disclose the primary muscle blade has a length of about 60 mm. However, as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in pages 2 and 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant places no criticality/particular reason for having the claimed dimensions in that as seen in pages 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant discloses the dimensions are effective but does not provide reasoning/rationale as to what makes these claimed dimensions more effective than other non-claimed dimensions and given the device of Gueytron is a handheld tool that functions similar to applicant’s claimed device, making the components of Gueytron to have the claimed dimensions would not render the device of Gueytron inoperable for its intended purpose of shucking oysters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and make the muscle blade any suitable length including the claimed length, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the blade engages sufficient portions of the oyster to facilitate cutting of the oyster as desired.
Referring to claim 16, Gueytron further discloses a side shucking blade at the distal end – see rounded tip of 1 in figure 1, the side shucking blade – at the tip of 1, is formed where the primary muscle blade – bottom of 1, and the secondary muscle blade – top of 1, meet – see figure 1. Gueytron does not disclose the side shucking blade has a thickness of about 0.1 mm to about 0.75 mm, and the side shucking blade has a thickness of about 0.3 mm. However, as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure in pages 2 and 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant places no criticality/particular reason for having the claimed dimensions in that as seen in pages 5-7 of applicant’s originally filed specification, applicant discloses the dimensions are effective but does not provide reasoning/rationale as to what makes these claimed dimensions more effective than other non-claimed dimensions and given the device of Gueytron is a handheld tool that functions similar to applicant’s claimed device, making the components of Gueytron to have the claimed dimensions would not render the device of Gueytron inoperable for its intended purpose of shucking oysters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and make the side shucking blade any suitable thickness including the claimed thicknesses, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the blade engages into portions of the oyster to facilitate cutting of the oyster as desired. Gueytron further discloses the side shucking blade – at the tip of 1, has a half circle shape – see figure 1. Gueytron further discloses the side shucking blade – at the tip of 1, has an elliptical, parabolic, or oval shape – see parabolic shape in figure 1.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gueytron as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,888,698 to Morsell et al.
Referring to claims 2 and 3, Gueytron does disclose the elongated handle – at 4, includes a power grip pad – see outer surface of 4 in figure 1. Gueytron does not disclose the elongated handle includes a thumb pad, and a finger guard, the finger guard adjacent the proximal end of the elongated blade. Morsell et al. does disclose the elongated handle – at 300, includes a power grip pad – at 310,320,330,340, a thumb pad – at 360-363, and a finger guard – at 350-353, the finger guard – at 350-353, adjacent the proximal end of the elongated blade – at 100,101 – see at 352 in figure 1a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and add the thumb pad and finger guard of Morsell et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more comfortable while allowing the user to better manipulate the device during use.
Referring to claim 4, Gueytron as modified by Morsell et al. further discloses a portion of the finger guard – at 351, is configured to form a kick stand – see figure 1a of Morsell et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and add the thumb pad and finger guard of Morsell et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more comfortable while allowing the user to better manipulate the device during use.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gueytron as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0134585 to Maloni.
Referring to claim 14, Gueytron does not disclose the primary muscle blade has a length of about 25 mm to about 75 mm. Maloni does disclose the primary muscle blade – at bottom edge of 21,22, has a length of about 25 mm to about 75 mm – see paragraph [0017] detailing a length of 2.875 inches equating to 73 mm. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Gueytron and add the primary muscle blade having a length of 73 mm as disclosed by Maloni, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the blade has sufficient surface contact with the oyster during use as desired.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 6-1-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 4 detailed in the last office action dated 12-11-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Gueytron reference FR 2932661 discloses an elongated blade – at 1, connected to the elongated handle – see figure 1, the elongated handle – at 4, and the elongated blade – at 1, having an axis – see longitudinal axis in figure 1, wherein the elongated blade – at 1, includes a proximal end adjacent the elongated handle – at 4 – see connection of 1 to 4 in figure 1, and a distal end – free end of 1 as seen in figure 1, a cutting edge – lower edge of 1, and a non-dominant hand edge – top of 1, opposite the cutting edge – see figure 1, a hinge blade – at 2, extending from the cutting edge generally orthogonal to the axis – see at 2 in figure 1, a primary muscle blade – front lower edge of 1, along the cutting edge – see bottom of 1, distal to the hinge blade – at 2 – see at the front lower edge of 1 in figure 1, a secondary muscle blade – top front edge of 1, along the non-dominant hand edge – see figure 1. Further, applicant does not claim the hinge blade is integrally formed with the elongated blade. Further, applicant’s remarks/arguments as related to the different function between applicant’s claimed invention and the function of the device disclosed by Gueytron are not persuasive in that functional/intended use claim limitations are not detailed in the claim that are commensurate with applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 6-1-26. Further, the secondary muscle blade – at the top front edge of item 1, is a cutting blade in that the cutting edge of item 1 of Gueytron extends along the entire front edges of item 1 as seen in figure 1. Further, applicant’s remarks/arguments as related to the different function between applicant’s claimed secondary muscle blade and the secondary muscle blade – at the top front edge of item 1 of Gueytron are not persuasive in that functional/intended use claim limitations are not detailed in the claim that are commensurate with applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 6-1-26. Further, regarding the claim limitations of hinge blade extends from the cutting edge at a distance of about 10 mm to about 65 mm above the elongated handle, Gueytron does disclose the hinge blade – at 2, is spaced above the elongated handle – at 4 as seen in figure 1 and it would have been obvious to take the device of Gueytron and have the hinge blade – at 2, spaced between 10-65mm above the elongated handle as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action. Applicant has not placed any criticality/particular reason for having the hinge blade above the elongated handle between 10-65mm as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action and as detailed in the last office action dated 12-11-25. Further, having the hinge blade – at 2 of Gueytron located above the elongated handle – at 4 at a distance of between 10-65mm would not render the device of Gueytron inoperable for its intended purpose in that Gueytron discloses the spacing is a small distance as seen between items 2 and 4 in figure 1 and applicant’s claimed distance is 10-65mm/0.4-2.6in and therefore the hinge blade – at 2 of Gueytron would be disposed in a similar position as detailed in figure 1 of Gueytron and therefore would function as intended. Further, as seen in figure 1 of Gueytron, the hinge blade – at 2 is directly attached to the elongated blade – at 1 and is not directly attached to the elongated handle – at 4, with the hinge blade – at 2 positioned along the elongated blade – at 1.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 5, 7-13 and 15-16, applicant places no criticality/particular reason for claimed hinge blade and side shucking blade dimensions in view of other values for the disclosed dimensions of the hinge blade and side shucking blade as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 6-1-26 detailing particular reasons for the claimed dimensions are not persuasive in that applicant has not provided any evidence to support the alleged criticality in view of the closest prior art devices.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 14, the Maloni reference US 2003/0134585 discloses the primary muscle blade – at bottom edge of 21,22, has a length of about 25 mm to about 75 mm – see paragraph [0017] detailing a length of 2.875 inches equating to 73 mm. Items 21-24 of Maloni form the cutting blade and therefore define a primary muscle blade having a length in the claimed range with the entire blade being about 73mm and the length of items 21,22 proximate the handle being about 50mm. The combination of the Maloni reference with the Gueytron reference renders the claim indefinite as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-4, the Morsell et al. reference US 9888698 discloses the elongated handle – at 300, includes a power grip pad – at 310,320,330,340, a thumb pad – at 360-363, and a finger guard – at 350-353, the finger guard – at 350-353, adjacent the proximal end of the elongated blade – at 100,101 – see at 352 in figure 1a, and a portion of the finger guard – at 351, is configured to form a kick stand – see figure 1a of Morsell et al. Further, Morsell et al. discloses a similar handheld cutting blade to that of Gueytron and therefore this combination of references would be using a one similar functionally equivalent handle grip structure such as that of Morsell et al. with another similar functionally equivalent handle grip being that of Gueytron. Further, the grip pad, thumb pad and finger guard of Morsell et al. are disposed behind the cutting blades as seen in figures 1a-1c and therefore incorporating these grip features in a similar location behind the blades of Gueytron would allow the device of Gueytron to function as intended since these grip features of Morsell et al. when incorporated into the device of Gueytron would not interfere with the function of the blades and other structures of Gueytron. Further, there is a motivation/rationale to combine the Gueytron and Morsell et al. references which is making the device more comfortable while allowing the user to better manipulate the device during use as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action and as detailed in the last office action dated 12-11-25. Further, the handle grip features of Morsell et al. do provide a protective barrier as seen in figures 1A-1C where these features of Morsell et al. keep the user’s hand/fingers away from the blades given their location between the handle and blades as shown. Further, applicant has not positively recited in the claims that the handle grip features provide a protective barrier. Further, applicant’s remarks/arguments as related to the different function between applicant’s claimed invention and the function of the device disclosed by Morsell et al. are not persuasive in that functional/intended use claim limitations are not detailed in the claim that are commensurate with applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 6-1-26. Therefore, the combination of these references renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Conclusion
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights