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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In the Figures, paper channel 3 has two lined arrows. One of the lined arrows is pointing at the space between the tab 4 and surface 8. The second lined arrow is pointing at the S-shaped guide channel which is labeled as 7. It is unclear why label 3 is pointing at the channel labeled as 7.
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.
Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
With regards paragraph [0030] and the Figures, it is unclear what structure allows for channel 7 to be considered S-shaped. This channel has a wavy shape but does not appear to be in the shape of an S
With regards paragraph [0030] and the Figures, item 9 being disclosed as a hand grip groove that is gripped by the user is unclear. These grooves are on the inside of the body 1 intended to hold the roll 11. If the roll is in the tubular body, how are these grooves gripped by the user. If the roll is not in the tubular body, it is still unclear how these grooves can be gripped by the user. Explanation on how the grooves are able to be perform a grip function allowing them to be considered “hand grip grooves” is needed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 1-3, the terms “left”, “lower”, “right”, and “upper” are all indefinite as they are dependent upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation. The structure is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones that do not correspond with these terms. Terms that are true regardless of orientation must be used.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “a paper channel at a front end” is unclear. In light of the drawing objection, it is not clear what represents channel 3. Is it the space between tab 4 and surface 8? Is it the space that holes roll 11? Is it the combination of the space that holds the roll and the space between tab 4 and surface 8? It is also unclear how the channel 3 is at a front end of the body as it extends all the way through and would be at both ends?
With regards toc claim 1, the phrase “at a left end of the paper channel” is unclear. It is unclear how channel 7 is at an end of channel 3? It is unclear how an empty space can have a left end? Claim 3 has the same issue with the second inclined surface at the right end of the paper channel.
With regards to claim 1, it is unclear what structure allows for channel 7 to be considered S-shaped. The channel does not appear to be in the shape of an S. The channel may be wavy shaped.
With regards to claim 2, the phrase “paper guide tab is disposed at a right end of the S-shaped paper guide channel” is unclear. How can the guide channel be at the left end of the paper channel and the tab be at the right end of the guide channel? The tab would be in between the channels making these limitations confusing.
With regards to claim 2, the tab disclosure is unclear. What structure incorporates the tab? As written, the tab is not part of the body which is not supported. Also, it is unclear how the tab can be on the side of the guide channel when the tab clearly defines the guide channel. The tab comprised by the body and is spaced from a portion of the body to define the guide channel. An item cannot be on the side of an item it defines.
With regards to claim 2, the phrase “a tapered surface is disposed on an inner surface” is unclear. What structure allows one surface to be on another surface? The inner surface and the tapered surface appear to be the same surface.
With regards to claim 3, what structures incorporate the second inclined surface? As written, the second inclined surface is not part of the body which is not supported.
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 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perla (2018/0345516) in view of Xie (11,717,977). See Figure below for Examiner added reference labels.
With regards to claims 1-3, Perla discloses the invention including a tubular paper cutting structure (Fig. 1) having a tubular body (20) having a paper channel (50) at a front end thereof (Fig. 1), a paper guide channel (60) at a left end of the paper channel (Fig. 1), a blade at a lower end of the paper guide channel (70), a paper guide tab (t) is disposed at a right end of the paper guide channel (Fig. 1), a tapered surface is disposed on an inner surface of an upper end of the tab (ts), a first inclined surface is disposed at a left end of the paper guide tab (1i), and a second inclined surface is disposed at a right end of the paper channel (40).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Perla fails to disclose the paper guide channel is S-shaped.
Xie teaches it is known in the art of paper guide channels of tubular paper cutters to incorporate a limiting inclined surface (36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Perla with the limiting inclined surface, as taught by Xie, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results. It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have added any reasonable number of limiting inclined surfaces including adding one to the portion of the body defining the other end of the guide channel thereby defining an S-shaped or wavy shaped guide channel. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Perla in view of Xie to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
21 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights