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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 17, and 18 have been amended. Claims 8 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the amendments to
the previous drawing objections, are persuasive. The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-10, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
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 “a depth limit stop within a spring travel of the platen member and configured to limit inward movement of the cutting tool and thereby limit inward movement of the platen member towards the neutral plane thereby limiting inward deflection of the flexible abrasive belt towards the neutral plane” of claims 1 and 17;
“to advance a portion of the flexible abrasive belt outwardly away from the neutral plane” of claim 17,
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 17 recite: “a depth limit stop within a spring travel of the platen member and configured to limit inward movement of the cutting tool and thereby limit inward movement of the platen member towards the neutral plane thereby limiting inward deflection of the flexible abrasive belt towards the neutral plane”. The drawings do not show the “depth limit stop within a spring travel” to specifically “limit inward movement” as recited by the claims.
Claims 1 and 17 also require “a spring biasing member disposed at least partially between the frame and the platen assembly,” which pertain to embodiments with outwards pressing springs of figures 2A, 21, 23, 25A, 25B, and 27A with springs labeled as 116, 608, 724, 812, and 908. As objected to, the figures of 2A, 21, 23, 25A, 25B, and 27A do not show “a depth limit stop within a spring travel of the platen member and configured to limit inward movement of the cutting tool”. At best, 910 of Fig. 27A limits inward movement because that is where the spring 908 is fixed to and refers to it as “a stationary support”.
The specification discloses:
“This may be carried out by tilting the belt path in a “backward” direction so that the top of the belt path is moved in a direction away from the user and using a substantially horizontal set of edge guides to support the presentation of the tool. Another way in which the non-orthogonal angle can be established is by skewing the presentation angle of the knife inwardly with respect to the belt.” Page 8, lines 22-27;
“Generally, the edge guide rollers 140, 142 provide edge guide surfaces that serve as plunge depth limiting surfaces to limit the distance the knife 130 can be lowered, or advanced, toward the belt 112.“ Page 12, lines 10-12;
“Some embodiments involving the platen assembly include a moving abrasive belt powered by an electric motor. The belt is support by a spring loaded member that provides an opposing sharpening force. The force is limited by providing a limit stop within the desired spring travel of the platen.” Page 33, lines 20-23;
“When the blade is inserted, the platen is allowed to move toward, and possibly up to, the tangent plane. The travel is limited by a depth limit stop to insure the belt doesn’t deflect beyond the tangent plane thereby; limiting the maximum force applied and ensuring the belt is still in conformance to the platen so than the desired bevel shape is imparted to the blade.” Page 33, lines 26-30;
“As noted above, a retention flange or other mechanism (not separately shown) can further be used to retain a distal end of the shaft 612 in the associated base 606 and limit the maximum travel of the platen head.” Page 34, lines 15-18.
As disclosed, the only inward limit is in regards to 140 and 142 of the embodiment of figure 3, which does not have the spring required by claims 1 and 17. The remaining limits/stops disclosed in the specification are referring to outward limits and not inward limits. Therefore, the claimed language of claims 1 and 17 do not have support in the specification, and is new matter.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites: “toward the contact region away from the tangential plane to the neutral plane” and lacks antecedent basis since “tangential plane” has not been introduced. For examination purposes, and for consistency, claim 17’s “neutral plane” limitation has been construed as the tangential plane (TP) and its being advanced towards the neutral plane (NP).
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 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dovel (U.S. Patent No. 9,808,901 B2), Phillips (U.S. Patent No. 5,210,978 A), Jacobi (U.S. Patent No. 3,374,583 A), and Mumford (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0108631 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Dovel teaches a sharpener (100 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B) for sharpening a cutting tool (170 Figs. 7A-7C; Abstract), comprising:
a frame (frame of 100 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B);
a flexible abrasive belt (114 Fig. 2B) that is movable relative to the frame by an electric motor (“electric motor” Col. 1 , lines 50-51) along a belt path (belt path of 114 shown in Fig. 2B) comprising at least a first roller and a second roller (116A, 116B, 116C Fig. 2B), the flexible abrasive belt comprising an outer abrasive surface (outer abrasive surface of 114 Fig. 2B for contact with 170) and an inner backing layer (inner backing layer of 114 Fig. 2B for contact with rollers 116A, 116B, 116C); a guide assembly (120 and 130 Fig. 2B; Cols. 3-4, lines 65-5; Col. 4, lines 13-21) adjacent the flexible abrasive belt (114 Fig. 2B) comprising a side support surface (124A and 124B Fig. 2B) configured to contactingly support a side surface of the cutting tool (Col. 4, lines 6-9) during a sharpening operation.
But is silent on a platen assembly positioned between the first and second rollers, the platen assembly being configured to exert a biasing force upon the inner backing layer of the flexible abrasive belt to advance the flexible abrasive belt outwardly from a tangential plane extending from the first roller to the second roller, the platen assembly being moveable relative to the tangential plane;
a spring biasing member disposed at least partially between the frame and the platen assembly, the spring biasing member being configured to exert a biasing force on the platen assembly so as to advance the flexible abrasive belt outwardly from the tangential plane;
and a depth limit stop within a spring travel of the platen assembly and configured to limit inward movement of the cutting tool and thereby limit inward movement of the platen assembly towards the tangent plane thereby limiting inward deflection of the flexible abrasive belt towards the tangent plane.
Phillips in an analogous sharpener teaches a platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2) positioned between the similar configuration first and second rollers (42 and 44 Fig. 1), the platen assembly configured to exert a biasing force (biasing force shown pressing against “W” in Figs. 1 and 2) upon the inner backing layer (inner backing layer of 45) of the similar configuration flexible abrasive belt (45 Figs. 1 and 2) to advance (shown advanced in Fig. 1) the flexible abrasive belt outwardly from a tangential plane (tangential plane which runs vertically from the top roller to the bottom roller; TP Fig. 1-A inserted below) extending from the first roller to the second roller (42 and 44 Fig. 1; TP Fig. 1-A inserted below), the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2) being moveable relative to the tangential plane.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel with the platen assembly as taught by Phillips for the purpose of improving the accuracy and angle of the sharpener on the desired workpiece.
Jacobi, in analogous belt friction finishing device, and teaches a spring biasing member (91 Fig. 4) disposed at least partially between the similar configuration frame (23 Fig. 4) and the similar configuration platen assembly (81 Fig. 4), the spring biasing member being configured to exert a biasing force (“biased outwardly” Col. 3, line 49) on the similar configuration platen assembly (81 Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel with the spring biasing member as taught by Jacobi for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, allowing the system to dampen or conform when applying the workpiece to the abrasive belt.
Mumford teaches a similar configuration spring assembly (182 Fig. 2) comprising of a depth limit stop (180 Fig. 2) within a spring travel (spring travel of 182).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel as modified with the depth limit stop as taught by Mumford for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, to limit the movement of the assembly to prevent damage.
As a result of Dovel being modified with Phillips and Jacobi, the limitation of “in which a cutting edge of the cutting tool (cutting edge of 170 Figs. 7A-7C of Dovel) is presented against the outer abrasive surface of the flexible abrasive belt (outer abrasive surface of 114 Fig. 2B of Dovel) at a position opposite the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips)”, has been met.
Additionally, as a result of Dovel as modified being modified with the depth limit stop of Mumford, the functional limitation of ”a depth limit stop (180 Fig. 2 of Mumford) within a spring travel (spring travel of 182 of Mumford) of the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips) and configured to limit inward movement of the cutting tool (cutting edge of 170 Figs. 7A-7C of Dovel) and thereby limit inward movement of the platen assembly towards the tangent plane (tangential plane which runs vertically from the top roller to the bottom roller; TP Fig. 1-A inserted below of Phillips) thereby limiting inward deflection of the flexible abrasive belt (114 Fig. 2B of Dovel) towards the tangent plane”, has been met.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to Claim 2: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein an amount of force supplied (force supplied by actuator to 60; Col. 2, lines 52-54 of Phillips) to the cutting tool by the outer abrasive surface (outer abrasive surface of 114 of Dovel) during the sharpening operation is controlled by the biasing force supplied by the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips).
Referring to Claim 3: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the platen assembly has opposing first and second ends, wherein the first end of the platen assembly is attached to a frame coupled to at least a selected one of the first or second rollers, and wherein the second end of the platen assembly is configured to move with respect to the frame.
Phillips in an analogous sharpener teaches wherein the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2) has opposing first and second ends (end of 60 Fig. 1), wherein the first end (64 Fig. 1) of the platen assembly is attached to a frame (24 Fig. 1) coupled (shown coupled to 42 and 44 Fig. 1) to at least a selected one of the first or second rollers (42 and 44 Fig. 1), and wherein the second end (end of 60 Fig. 1) of the platen assembly is configured to move (configured to move via motor and ball screw drive 66 Fig. 1) with respect to the frame (24 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel as modified with the mounted configuration as taught by Phillips for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, fixing and securing moving elements in an efficient manner which requires less space.
Referring to Claim 4: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips) is configured to place a segment (segment of 45 shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above of Phillips) of the flexible abrasive belt extending between the first and second rollers (42 and 44 Fig. 1 of Phillips) along a neutral plane (NP Fig. 1-A inserted above of Phillips), the neutral plane having a first linear segment (FS Fig. 1-A inserted above of Phillips) that extends from the first roller (42 Fig. 1 of Phillips) to the platen assembly and a second linear segment (SS Fig. 1-A inserted above of Phillips) that extends from the second roller (44 Fig. 1 of Phillips) to the platen assembly, the second linear segment being non-parallel to the first linear segment (shown non-parallel in Fig. 1-A inserted above of Phillips).
Referring to Claim 5: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips) comprises a platen surface (68 Figs. 1, 2, 11, and 12 of Phillips) that contactingly engages the inner backing layer (inner backing layer of 45 Fig. 2B of Phillips) along a length of the belt path (shown in Fig. 1 of Phillips) less than an overall distance (overall distance shown in Fig. 1 of Phillips) between the first and second rollers (42 and 44 Fig. 1 of Phillips).
Referring to Claim 6: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 5, wherein the platen surface (68 Figs. 1, 2, 11, and 12 of Phillips) is nominally flat (shown in Fig. 12 of Phillips).
Referring to Claim 7: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 5, wherein the platen surface is curvilinear (shown in Figs. 1, 2, and 11 of Phillips).
Referring to Claim 9: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein a selected one of the first or second rollers (116A, 116B, 116C Fig. 2B of Dovel) is characterized as a drive roller (116B Fig. 2B) coupled to the electric motor (shown coupled in Fig. 2B; “electric motor” Col. 1 , lines 50-51) and a remaining one of the first or second rollers (116A, 116C Fig. 2B of Dovel) is characterized as an idler roller (idler roller 116C not coupled to motor shown Fig. 2B of Dovel).
Referring to Claim 10: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 9, further comprising a biasing member (118 Fig. 4 of Dovel) coupled to the idler roller (idler roller 116C Fig. 2B of Dovel) and configured to maintain a desired tension in the flexible abrasive belt (Col. 3, lines 56-57 of Dovel) during the sharpening operation.
Referring to Claim 11: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the platen assembly comprises an elongated, flexible plate (68 Figs. 1, 2, 11, and 12; 68 is flexible as it is retained by 110 and its “flexibly resilient shank” 122, Cols. 3-4, lines 36-3 of Phillips).
Referring to Claim 12: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the first roller (116A Fig. 2B of Dovel) has a first outermost diameter (shown in Fig. 2B of Dovel) and the second roller (116C Fig. 2B of Dovel) has a different, second outermost diameter (shown in Fig. 2B of Dovel).
Referring to Claim 13: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the electric motor (“electric motor” Col. 1 , lines 50-51 of Dovel) is disposed within a housing (104 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B; Col. 3, lines 40-4 1 of Dovel), the housing having a user handle portion (110 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B of Dovel) configured to be gripped by a hand of a user and held in free space during the sharpening operation (Col. 3, lines 37-39 of Dovel).
Referring to Claim 14: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the guide assembly (120 and 130 Fig. 2B of Dovel) is moveable (“rotatable” Col. 4, lines 13-21 of Dovel) with respect to the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips).
Referring to Claim 16: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the belt path (belt path of 114 shown in Fig. 2B of Dovel) is characterized as a triangular belt path (triangular belt path shown in Fig. 2B of Dovel).
Referring to Claim 17: Dovel teaches a sharpener (100 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B) for sharpening a cutting tool (170 Figs. 7A-7C; Abstract), comprising:
a frame (frame of 100 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B):
a flexible abrasive belt (114 Fig. 2B) that is movable relative to the frame by an electric motor (“electric motor” Col. 1 , lines 50-51) supported by at least a first support roller (116A, 116B, 116C Fig. 2B), the flexible abrasive belt having a front side with an abrasive surface (outer abrasive surface of 114 Fig. 2B for contact with 170) and a back side (inner backing layer of 114 Fig. 2B for contact with rollers 116A, 116B, 116C) opposite the front side;
a guide assembly (120 and 130 Fig. 2B; Cols. 3-4, lines 65-5; Col. 4, lines 13-21) adjacent the flexible abrasive belt (114 Fig. 2B) to support the cutting tool (Col. 4, lines 6-9) during a sharpening operation in which a cutting edge of the cutting tool is presented against the flexible abrasive belt (114 Fig. 2B), the guide assembly (120 and 130 Fig. 2B) having a guide surface (124A and 124B Fig. 2B) configured to contactingly engage the cutting tool.
But is silent on: a neutral plane having opposing proximal and distal ends;
a platen member disposed to contactingly support the back side of the flexible abrasive belt between the proximal and distal ends of the neutral plane opposite a contact region, a spring biasing member disposed between the platen member and the frame, the spring biasing member being configured to apply a biasing force to the platen member to advance a portion of the flexible abrasive belt outwardly away from the neutral plane;
and wherein the guide assembly further comprises a depth limit stop within a spring travel of the platen member and configured to limit inward movement of the cutting tool and thereby limit inward movement of the platen member towards the neutral plane thereby limiting inward deflection of the flexible abrasive belt towards the neutral plane.
Phillips in an analogous sharpener teaches a neutral plane (TP Fig. 1-A inserted above) having opposing proximal and distal ends (top and bottom ends of TP Fig. 1-A inserted above);
a platen member (68 Figs. 1, 2, 11, and 12) disposed to contactingly support the back side (shown in Fig. 1) of the similar configuration flexible abrasive belt (45 Figs. 1 and 2) between the proximal and distal ends (top and bottom ends of TP Fig. 1-A inserted above) of the neutral plane opposite a contact region (contact region CR where 68 contacts 45 shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above), the platen member (68 Figs. 1, 2, 11, and 12) applying a biasing force (biasing force shown pressing against “W” in Figs. 1 and 2) to advance a portion of the flexible abrasive belt (45 Figs. 1 and 2) outwardly away from the neutral plane (TP Fig. 1-A inserted above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel with the platen assembly as taught by Phillips for the purpose of improving the accuracy and angle of the sharpener on the desired workpiece.
Jacobi, in analogous belt friction finishing device, and teaches a spring biasing member (91 Fig. 4) disposed between the similar configuration platen member (81 Fig. 4) and the similar configuration frame (23 Fig. 4), the spring biasing member (91 Fig. 4) being configured to apply a biasing force (“biased outwardly” Col. 3, line 49) to the platen member to advance a portion of the similar configuration flexible abrasive belt (11 Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel with the spring biasing member as taught by Jacobi for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, allowing the system to dampen or conform when applying the workpiece to the abrasive belt.
As a result of modifying Dovel with Phillips and Jacobi, all the structure required by the claim is taught by Dovel as modified and is capable of meeting the functional limitation of “to advance a portion of the flexible abrasive belt outwardly away from the neutral plane”.
Mumford teaches a similar configuration spring assembly (182 Fig. 2) comprising of a depth limit stop (180 Fig. 2) within a spring travel (spring travel of 182).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel as modified with the depth limit stop as taught by Mumford for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, to limit the movement of the assembly to prevent damage.
Additionally, as a result of Dovel as modified being modified with the depth limit stop as taught by Mumford the functional limitation of ”a depth limit stop (180 Fig. 2 of Mumford) within a spring travel (spring travel of 182 of Mumford) of the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, 67, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips) and configured to limit inward movement of the cutting tool (cutting edge of 170 Figs. 7A-7C of Dovel) and thereby limit inward movement of the platen assembly towards the tangent plane (tangential plane which runs vertically from the top roller to the bottom roller; TP Fig. 1-A inserted above of Phillips) thereby limiting inward deflection of the flexible abrasive belt (114 Fig. 2B of Dovel) towards the tangent plane”, has been met.
Referring to Claim 18: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 17, teaches wherein the spring biasing member (91 Fig. 4 of Jacobi) attached to the platen member (81 Fig. 4 of Jacobi) but is silent on advancing a medial portion of the flexible abrasive belt toward the contact region away from the tangential plane to the neutral plane.
Phillips in an analogous sharpener teaches a biasing member (62 Figs. 1, 2, 11, and 12) attached to the platen member (68 Figs. 1, 2, 11, and 12) to advance a medial portion (medial portion of the TP Fig. 1-A) of the flexible abrasive belt (45 Figs. 1 and 2) toward the contact region away (CR Fig. 1-A) from the tangential plane (TP Fig. 1-A) to the neutral plane (NP Fig. 1-A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sharpener of Dovel as modified with the platen assembly as taught by Phillips for the purpose of improving the accuracy and angle of the sharpener on the desired workpiece.
Referring to Claim 19: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 17, wherein the electric motor (“electric motor” Col. 1 , lines 50-51 of Dovel) is disposed within a housing (104 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B; Col. 3, lines 40-4 1 of Dovel), the housing having a user handle portion (110 Figs. 1, 2A and 2B of Dovel) configured to be gripped by a hand of a user and held in free space during the sharpening operation (Col. 3, lines 37-39 of Dovel).
Referring to Claim 20: Dovel as modified teaches the sharpener of claim 17, wherein the guide assembly (120 and 130 Fig. 2B of Dovel) is moveable (“rotatable” Col. 4, lines 13-21 of Dovel) with respect to the platen assembly (60, 62, 64, 66, and 68 Figs. 1 and 2 of Phillips).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723