DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 15, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 15, 2024 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16, limitation: “wherein the two points” should read “wherein .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 - 4, 6 - 13, 15 - 24, 26 – 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallegger (US 20040014415) in view of Jhones (US 20140154963 A1).
In re claim 1, (currently amended) Stallegger discloses a knife sharpening device [0001] comprising:
a plate (Fig. 1: 3) with two sharpening rods (4, 5),
which are arranged on the plate (3) so that they can swivel ([0010] and [0011]),
wherein the plate (3) has a slot (8), which is open at one end (9) and closed at an opposite end (10) [0022];
wherein the sharpening rods (4, 5) and the slot (8) are arranged in axial alignment with each other (4 and 5 aligned with 8 in z-axis, Fig. 2) and serve to insert a knife [0025];
PNG
media_image1.png
599
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 – Stallegger : Depicts Axial alignment in the Z-axis.
wherein the sharpening rods (4, 5) each have at least one sharpening insert (46);
wherein the sharpening rods (4, 5) are kept at a predetermined distance from each other in a rest position by a force of one spring in each case (leaf spring, 18 and 19, respectively), and
wherein the sharpening rods (4, 5) can be spread apart against the force of the spring (18 or 19) in a sharpening position upon insertion of the knife when the knife comes into contact with the sharpening inserts [0025],
wherein the plate (3) has three points (12, 13, and 15), at which the sharpening rods are held relative to the plate (held to plate, see Fig. 1).
wherein the two points of the three points (two points 12, 13) at which the sharpening rods are held relative to the plate, are arranged at either sides in an area of the open end of the slot (arranged at either sides of the open end of the slot, 8, see Fig.1).
Stallegger discloses the sharpening rod are held at points relative to plate and these points are arranged in an area of the closed end of the slot that has a swivel axis, but Stallegger is silent in regards to the point being a common point and further having a common swivel axis.
However, Johnes teaches a rotatable hand-held blade sharpening apparatus, that the sharpening rods are held at a connection point this is a common point and has a common swivel axis (sharpening tools, 10 and 14, are rotatably interconnected accomplished by use of the pivot pin at common axis, 26, see [0063]).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that having two sharpening rods held on the plate in the area of the closed end of the slot with two pins and with one common pin are elements that are functional equivalents providing the permission of relative bodily adjustments in addition to pivotal adjustments of the sharpening rods. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted two pins with one common pin. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of a modification that would amount to one known manner of adjusting and pivoting the sharpening rods using two pins for another way of using one common pin, as well as an ease of manufacturing and construction due to less pieces/elements.
In re claim 3, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the three points, at which the sharpening rods are held on the plate, are arranged relative to each other in a V-shape (Stallegger: 3 points, as shown in Fig. 1, the V-Shape of the slots/holes for engagement of the sharpening rods).
PNG
media_image2.png
640
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 – Stallegger : Depicts V-Shape of points, with arrows.
In re claim 4, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1 ,
wherein at least one sharpening rod is movable at the point, at which the at least one sharpening rod is held on the plate (Stallegger: [0023]).
In re claim 6, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the plate three points (Stallegger : 12, 13, and as modified with the teaching of Jhones having a common third point/axis, 26), are configured to hold at least two sharpening rods (Stallegger : holds sharpening rods 4 and 5 at points 12, 13, and Jhones common point/axis, 26).
In re claim 7, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein each of the three points in the plate are oblong holes (Stallegger : 12) or a bore (Stallegger: 32).
In re claim 8, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the plate has at least one grip element (Stallegger : [0016] and [0030]) on at least one of two sides of the slot (Stallegger : Fig. 1, grip element at least on one side of slot, 8).
In re claim 9, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the plate has one bore on each side of the slot (Stallegger : Fig. 3: 31 and 32) and the sharpening rod positioned in an area of the respective bore has a pin (Stallegger : 14), by means of which the sharpening rod engages the bore (Stallegger : Fig. 1).
In re claim 10, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 3,
further comprising a bore that is an oblong hole (Stallegger : 12).
In re claim 11, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the plate is composed of a cut-resistant material (Stallegger : some materials described in [0013] and [0030], materials for elements are steel, plastic, and ceramic).
In re claim 12, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the slot in the plate has a width which increases exponentially from its closed end towards its open end (Stallegger : slot 8, Fig. 1).
In re claim 13, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the sharpening rods are configured in the form of a protective body (Stallegger : plastic, [0030]), which protects the sharpening insert arranged on the respective sharpening rod against contact by a user and/or against damage and/or against visibility (Stallegger :[0030]).
In re claim 15, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein one spring is arranged on one sharpening rod in each case (Stallegger :spring, 19 on sharpening rod, 4, Fig. 1).
In re claim 16, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the spring is a bending spring or a torsion spring (Stallegger :leaf spring or spring wire, [0011]).
For examination purposes the term “bending spring” is interpreted as a “leaf spring” see screenshot below.
PNG
media_image3.png
194
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 17, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the restoring force of the spring directed towards a center line (Stallegger : Center line given in figure below) of the slot varies when the sharpening rods move from the rest position to the sharpening position (Stallegger : Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
640
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 – Depicts Centerline and spring.
In re claim 18, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein one spring (Stallegger : 19) is arranged on each sharpening rod (Stallegger : spring 19 and 18, are arranged on 4 and 5, respectively, see Fig. 1),
wherein the springs are fixed in a holding device (Stallegger :holding device with two intersecting sharpening rods, loaded toward each other by springs, 0001) and can be moved in this fixed state from a rest position to a sharpening position against the restoring force of the springs (Stallegger :upon pressure of the knife on intersecting sharpening rods are spread apart against the force of the springs, 0001).
In re claim 19, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the sharpening insert comprises at least one ceramic (Stallegger :[0030]).
In re claim 20, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one sharpening insert, arranged on each sharpening rod, has areas for producing different sharpening effect and/or sharpening intensity (Stallegger : sharpening rods and inserts made of ceramics achieves high grinding power [0005] and [0007], [0030].
In re claim 21, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
further comprising a swivel axis (Stallegger : axis of feature, pin, 7) arranged approximately at right angles relative to the plate (Stallegger : Fig. 1, [0022]) .
PNG
media_image5.png
640
549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 – Stallegger :Pin 7, has an axis in which a swivel action can occur, provides a 90 deg angle to plate.
In re claim 22, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the sharpening rods are combined to form a replacement module (Goodwin: mount jaws, 5 and 6 cannot secured by bolt and thumb nut, capable of being replaced).
Wherein the replacement module is configured to be removed from the knife sharpener in one piece and replaced by a new replacement module when the sharpening inserts become blunt after prolonged use (Goodwin: bolt, 4 that mount jaws 5 and 6 are secured by thumb nut,7; if not secured by bolt and thumb nut capable of being replaced) .
In re claim 23, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein in the rest position, the distance of the two sharpening rods from each other corresponds at least to a width of the slot in the plate (Stallegger : Sharpening rods, 4 and 5 are width of slot at rest, given distance of slots, 12 and 13, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
640
549
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 – Stallegger : Depicts at least width of slot for sharpening rods distance.
In re claim 24, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein in the sharpening position, one sharpening rod in each case is in contact with one side of the knife with its sharpening insert (Stallegger : [0006] and [0025]).
In re claim 26, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 23,
wherein sharpening edges of the sharpening inserts of both sharpening rods face the plate (Stallegger : sharpening inserts 46 and 47, are made of ceramic that contains sharpening edges, Fig. 1, [0006]).
wherein the sharpening edges are arranged at right angles relative to the swivel direction of the sharpening rods around a swivel axis (Stallegger : sharpening edges arranged at right angles, see Fig. 1).
In re claim 27, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 23,
wherein honing edges of the sharpening inserts of both sharpening rods face away from the plate (Stallegger : sharpening inserts 46 and 47, are made of ceramic that contains honing (Stallegger : sharpening edges Fig. 1, [0006]).
wherein the honing edges are arranged at right angles relative to the swivel direction of the sharpening rods around a swivel axis (Stallegger : honing edges arranged at right angles, see Fig. 1).
In re claim 29, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein a first one of the sharpening rods comprises a pin (Jhones: combination of pivot pin and sharpening rod, 10) and a second one of the sharpening rods comprises a corresponding opening (Jhones: opening of sharpening rod, 14, see Fig. 2a) through which the pin extends through such that the first one and the second one of the sharpening rods are rotatably affixed at the common swivel axis (pivot pin extends and rods are rotatably affixed on the common swivel axis, 26, see [0063]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallegger (US 20040014415) in view of Jhones (US 20140154963 A1) and in further view of Gangelhoff et al (US5440953A).
In re claim 14, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1 and having a sharpening rod which prevents the user from coming into contact with the sharpening inserts (rods made of plastic in the form of a protective body to hold the inserts as a finger guard, see Stallegger [0030])”. However, Stallegger is silent about a protective body, which protects the spring arranged on the respective sharpening rod against contact by a user and/or against damage and/or dirt and/or against visibility.
Gangelhoff et al teaches a knife sharpening device, wherein the form of a protective body (sharpening elements with a protective sleeve, Col 2: lines 61-62), which protects the spring arranged on the respective sharpening rod against contact by a user and/or against damage and/or dirt and/or against visibility (Col 2: lines 57- 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stallegger/Jhones to incorporate the teachings of Gangelhoff et al to at least partially protect the spring with the predictive result of including a cover on the sharpening rod that houses connection of spring to rod because doing so would provide security as well as prevention of contamination of the springs (Col 2: lines 57- 63).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallegger (US
20040014415) in view of Jhones (US 20140154963 A1) and in further view of Schefer (EP 0547001 A1).
In re claim 25, Stallegger/Jhones teaches, the knife sharpening device according to claim 1,
wherein the sharpening insert comprises as working areas a sharpening edge [0007],
Stallegger/Goodwin does not teach, wherein the honing edge is configured in the form of a curved edge.
However, Schefer teaches a hand tool, wherein the honing edge is configured in the form of a curved edge (Fig. 14: 96, 97).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify Stallegger/Jhones with the teachings of Schefer of curved edges because it can be used to machine round or convex surfaces on workpieces (Schefer: [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of Stallegger, Jhones, Gangelhoff or Rieser don’t show either in claim 28, the combination of the “polishing surface has end faces, one end face of a sharpening edge and the opposite end face is a honing edge, wherein the honing edge has a profile comprising grooves”. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, absent impermissible hindsight, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112b rejection for claims 1, 5 - 6, and 7, applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejections and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 - 9, filed February 15, 2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in view of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, in this case, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection applicant argues:
Stallegger fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious “a plate that has three points at which the sharpening rods are held relative to the plate wherein the sharpening rods are commonly held at one point of the three points at which the sharpening rods are held relative to the plate, wherein the one point is arranged in an area of the closed end of the slot”. Applicant also argues that Goodwin does not cure the deficiencies of Stallegger as Goodwin does not disclose or suggest a plate at all and Goodwin operates in a completely different manner and one skilled in the art would not modify due to the operation in fundamentally different ways, in that the rods of Goodwin do not move upon the introduction of a knife and they do not attach or rotate with respect to a plate as claimed. Applicant argues if the combination were to be the device modified would either not have a plate or the rods would be locked in pace with the thumb nut. Applicant states unmotivated modifications to the device of Stallegger would be required to arrive to what is claimed when accompanied only with the additional teachings of Goodwin. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference Jhones (US 20140154963 A1) that provides “sharpening tool may rotate about a common axis of rotation”, see rejection of the same above. In regards to the unmotivated modifications to the device of either the plate of Stallegger would not be used or that the sharpening rods be locked in place with the thumb nut, however, seems as if the applicant is looking at the patents individually and not looking at the combination where the plate of Stallegger has separate utility allowing the tool to be sharpened to be held as well as directing the placement of the tool to be sharpened for the user and the combination of Stallegger and Johnes will now allow both the rotation on a common axis and the plate, see rejection of the same above.
Therefore, claim 1 as set forth is rejected and therefore regarding the dependent claims 3 – 4, 6 – 29 are not allowable over the art of record.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 - 10, filed February 15, 2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that:
Claim 14 is allowable at least for the reasons presented above for claim 1 and being dependent from claim 1. Applicant also argues that Gangelhoff does not teach or suggest a sharpening rod in the form of a protective body but instead discloses a separate sleeve around the springs, not a sharpening rod in the form of a protective body as claimed; and is in no way capable of preventing the user from coming into contact with the sharpening inserts as claimed. However, prior art reference Stallegger (US 20040014415) provides “rods made of plastic in the form of a protective body to hold the inserts as a finger guard”. The combination of Stallegger and Gangelhoff allows for protection of the user from sharpening inserts and the spring from debris given the protective body of the rods of both references, see rejection of the same above.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed February 15, 2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered. Applicant disagrees with this finding at least for the reasons presented above for claim 1 and claim 1 has thus been rejected therefore the rejection for claim 25 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10 - 11, filed February 15, 2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 28 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, in this case, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection applicant argues:
Claim 28 is allowable at least for the reasons presented above for claim 1 and being dependent from claim 1. Applicant also argues that Rieser does not teach suggest, or render obvious the features of claim 28, specifically the grooves 7 & 8 of Rieser are not part of the honing edge (sharp edge-made of harder material than knife blade) of a sharpening insert, rather are configured to accept round sharpening rods 4 & 5. Additionally, Rieser discloses grooves on either side of the sharpening rod and not what is recited that one end of the sharpening rod is a sharpening edge-create brand new edge by removing material from knife (instant case, 31) and the other end is a honing edge-method that realigns the sharp edge of a knife (instant case, 32) having a profile comprising grooves. Further, unmotivated modifications to the device would be required to arrive to what is claimed. Examiner agrees and this claim is allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARONDA TIYILLE FELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. 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.
/SHARONDA T FELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723