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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner attempted to propose an examiner’s amendment to place the application in condition for allowance. However, a valid power of attorney form is not on record. Therefore, the examiner was not able to propose the examiner’s amendment to place the application in condition for allowance. The amendment which was not proposed has been listed below:
Claims 22 and 24 are cancelled.
Claim 20, “wherein the at least one ice skate blade is held” now reads “wherein the [[at least one ice skate blade is]] plurality of ice skate blades are held”
Claim 1, last line, “based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades.” now reads “based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades; and operating the apparatus in accordance with the set operating parameter.”
Claim 25, last line, “held by the holding mechanism” now reads “held by the holding mechanism; and the processing entity operating the apparatus in accordance with the set at least one of the operating parameters”
Claim 27, lines 12-13,
“more ice skate blades,
wherein setting the operating parameter comprises”
now reads
“more ice skate blades,
operating the apparatus in accordance with the set operating parameter,
wherein setting the operating parameter comprises”
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed 3/25/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12-18, 20-22 and 24-30 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12-18, 20-22 and 24-30 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections, 35 USC 112(b) rejections and 35 USC 102 rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2026 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, “wherein the at least one ice skate blade is” should read “wherein the [[at least one ice skate blade is]] plurality of ice skate blades are” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 25, “a holding mechanism configured to contiguously hold a plurality of ice skate blades under pressure”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided in figs. 1 and 4.
Claim 25, “a grinding mechanism including an abrasive element and connected to the holding mechanism, the grinding mechanism configured to cause the abrasive element to move relative to, and contact under pressure, ice-contacting surfaces of the plurality of ice skate blades”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided in fig. 7 and includes axle 312, linear control unit 302, slide 304, gearbox 310 and motor 308.
Claim 25, “a processing entity configured for controlling a set of operating parameters, the operating parameters including at least the pressure of the holding mechanism, the pressure of the grinding mechanism and relative movement of the abrasive element and the plurality of ice skate blades; the processing entity being further configured to determine a number of contiguous ice skate blades among the plurality of ice skate blades held together by the holding mechanism; the processing entity being further configured to set at least one of the operating parameters based at least on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades held by the holding mechanism”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure for the hardware component is provided in the second paragraph on page 3 of the specification. Proper corresponding structure for the sequence of steps of the computer implemented 112(f) limitation is provided in the third paragraph on page 16 of the specification through the second paragraph on page 17 of the specification and the last paragraph on page 15 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 21, 24 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 21, 24 and 26-30 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 1 recites determining a number of contiguous ice skate blades among a plurality of ice skate blades inserted into a holding mechanism of the apparatus and held together by a clamping pressure applied by the holding mechanism; and- setting an operating parameter of the apparatus based at least in part on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades, wherein setting the operating parameter comprises at least one of: (i) setting a final clamping pressure to be applied by the holding mechanism to hold together the plurality of ice skate blades based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades; and (ii) setting a grinding pressure to be applied by an abrasive element of a grinding mechanism of the apparatus to the plurality of ice skate blades based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method of operating an ice skate blade grinding apparatus, comprising:
- determining a number of contiguous ice skate blades among a plurality of ice skate blades inserted into a holding mechanism of the apparatus and held together by a clamping pressure applied by the holding mechanism (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 4 of instant application where the number of blades 182 inserted in the apparatus is determined, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.),
and- setting an operating parameter of the apparatus based at least in part on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades, wherein setting the operating parameter comprises at least one of: (i) setting a final clamping pressure to be applied by the holding mechanism to hold together the plurality of ice skate blades based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades; and (ii) setting a grinding pressure to be applied by an abrasive element of a grinding mechanism of the apparatus to the plurality of ice skate blades based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 18 of instant application where the setting is performed, wherein the setting is at least an evaluation and judgement, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 2, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 2 additionally recites “processing the at least one image to identify inter-blade surface transitions, thereby to determine the number of contiguous ice skate blades as one more than a number of transitions”, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 2 recites the method defined in claim 1, wherein the determining comprises:
- processing the at least one image to identify inter-blade surface transitions, thereby to determine the number of contiguous ice skate blades as one more than a number of transitions (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 20 of instant application where the image displays the inter-blade surface transitions, wherein identifying and determining can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of capturing at least one image of an ice-contacting surface of the at least one ice skate blade inserted into the apparatus is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of capturing at least one image of an ice-contacting surface of the at least one ice skate blade inserted into the apparatus is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 3 additionally recites wherein the determining comprises: receiving an input from a user of the apparatus, the input specifying the number of contiguous ice skate blades which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 3 recites the method defined in claim 1, wherein the determining comprises: receiving an input from a user of the apparatus, the input specifying the number of contiguous ice skate blades (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See second paragraph on page 16 of the instant application, wherein the user input may include the number of blades, wherein the determining and receiving can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper).
There are no additional elements recited in Claim 3 for evaluation at step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B. Therefore, Claim 3 only further adds to the abstract idea of Claim 1.
Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 4, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 4 additionally recites wherein the determining comprises: dividing the measured thickness by an average blade thickness which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 4 recites the method defined in claim 1, wherein the determining comprises: dividing the measured thickness by an average blade thickness (involves mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See fourth paragraph on page 17 of specification, wherein the collective thickness depends on the number of ice skate blades and their individual thicknesses, wherein the dividing can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper)
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitations of measuring a collective thickness of the at least one ice skate blade is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the average blade thickness being measured by digital image processing is mere data gathering: (Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)., which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitations of measuring a collective thickness of the at least one ice skate blade is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and the average blade thickness being measured by digital image processing is mere data gathering: (Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis)., which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 6 additionally recites the final clamping pressure is based additionally on a thickness of each of the plurality of ice skate blades which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 6 recites the method defined in claim 1, the final clamping pressure is based additionally on a thickness of each of the plurality of ice skate blades (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See fig. 18 of the instant application, wherein the setting is performed, wherein the setting can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 8 additionally recites further comprising consulting a non-transitory memory based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades to obtain a value of the operating parameter corresponding to said number of contiguous ice skate blades, an association between said number and said value being stored in said non-transitory memory.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of further comprising consulting a non-transitory memory based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades to obtain a value of the operating parameter corresponding to said number of contiguous ice skate blades, an association between said number and said value being stored in said non-transitory memory is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of further comprising consulting a non-transitory memory based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades to obtain a value of the operating parameter corresponding to said number of contiguous ice skate blades, an association between said number and said value being stored in said non-transitory memory is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 12
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 12, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 12 additionally recites wherein the setting comprises determining a collective thickness of the plurality of ice skate blades and setting said operating parameter based on the collective thickness which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 12 recites the method defined in claim 1, wherein the setting comprises determining a collective thickness of the plurality of ice skate blades and setting said operating parameter based on the collective thickness (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See fourth paragraph on page 17 of specification, wherein the collective thickness can be determined/measured, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 13 additionally recites wherein determining the collective thickness comprises capturing at least one image of the at least one ice skate blade and measuring the collective thickness from the at least one image.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of wherein determining the collective thickness comprises capturing at least one image of the at least one ice skate blade and measuring the collective thickness from the at least one image is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of wherein determining the collective thickness comprises capturing at least one image of the at least one ice skate blade and measuring the collective thickness from the at least one image is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 14 additionally recites wherein determining the collective thickness comprises determining an individual thickness of each of the at least one ice skate blade and adding the individual thicknesses to yield the collective thickness.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of wherein determining the collective thickness comprises determining an individual thickness of each of the at least one ice skate blade and adding the individual thicknesses to yield the collective thickness is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of wherein determining the collective thickness comprises determining an individual thickness of each of the at least one ice skate blade and adding the individual thicknesses to yield the collective thickness is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, the analysis of Claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 15 additionally recites wherein determining the individual thickness of a given one of the ice skate blades comprises capturing at least one image of the given ice skate blade and measuring the thickness of the given ice skate blade from the at least one image.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of wherein determining the individual thickness of a given one of the ice skate blades comprises capturing at least one image of the given ice skate blade and measuring the thickness of the given ice skate blade from the at least one image is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of wherein determining the individual thickness of a given one of the at least one ice skate blade comprises capturing at least one image of the given at least one ice skate blade and measuring the thickness of the given at least one ice skate blade from the at least one image is mere data gathering: (Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982), which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, the analysis of Claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 16 additionally recites wherein determining the individual thickness of a given one of the at least one ice skate blade comprises receiving input from a user of the apparatus specifying the thickness of the given at least one ice skate blade which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 16 recites the method defined in claim 14, wherein determining the individual thickness of a given one of the at least one ice skate blade comprises receiving input from a user of the apparatus specifying the thickness of the given at least one ice skate blade (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See second paragraph on page 16 of the instant application, wherein the user input may include the thickness of one or more of the blades, wherein the determining and receiving can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper).
There are no additional elements recited in Claim 16 for evaluation at step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B. Therefore, Claim 16 only further adds to the abstract idea of Claims 1, 12 and 14.
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the analysis of Claim 14 is incorporated. Claim 17 additionally recites wherein determining the individual thickness of a given one of the at least one ice skate blade comprises receiving input from a user of the apparatus specifying a manufacturer or model of the given at least one ice skate blade which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 17 recites the method defined in claim 14, wherein determining the individual thickness of a given one of the at least one ice skate blade comprises receiving input from a user of the apparatus specifying a manufacturer or model of the given at least one ice skate blade (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See second paragraph on page 16 of the instant application, wherein the user input may include the manufacturer and/or model of the blades, wherein the determining and receiving can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper).
There are no additional elements recited in Claim 17 for evaluation at step 2A Prong 2 and step 2B. Therefore, Claim 17 only further adds to the abstract idea of Claims 1, 12 and 14.
Claim 18
Claim 18 has been evaluated and appears to be applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 20
Claim 20 has been evaluated and appears to be applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 21
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 21, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 21 additionally recites determining a desired profile of the at least one ice skate blade which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 21 recites the method defined in claim 1, further comprising: determining a desired profile of the plurality of ice skate blades (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See last two paragraphs on page 8 of specification, wherein the desired profile of the blades can be determined, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.),and
setting said operating parameter of the apparatus based additionally on the desired profile of the plurality of ice skate blades (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See fig. 18 of the instant application, wherein the setting is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 22
Claim 22 has been evaluated and appears to be applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 24
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 24 recites determining a number of contiguous ice skate blades among a plurality of ice skate baldes inserted into the apparatus which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 24 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 24 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions which, when read and executed by a processor of an ice skate grinding apparatus, cause the apparatus to carry out a method that includes (which is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)):
- determining a number of contiguous ice skate blades among a plurality of ice skate blades inserted into a holding mechanism of the apparatus and held together by a clamping pressure applied by the holding mechanism (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 4 of instant application where the number of blades 182 inserted in the apparatus is determined, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.), and
setting an operating parameter of the apparatus at least in part on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades, wherein setting the operating parameter comprises at least one of: (i) setting a final clamping pressure to be applied by the holding mechanism to hold together the plurality of ice skate blades based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades; and (ii) setting a grinding pressure to be applied by an abrasive element of a grinding mechanism of the apparatus to the plurality of ice skate blades based on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 18 of instant application where the setting is performed, wherein the setting is at least an evaluation and judgement, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 25
Claim 25 has been evaluated and appears to be applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 26
Regarding claim 26, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 26 additionally recites wherein the determining is based on information obtained from a source other than an input from a user of the apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of wherein the determining is based on information obtained from a source other than an input from a user of the apparatus is merely selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of wherein the determining is based on information obtained from a source other than an input from a user of the apparatus is merely selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 27
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 1 recites determining a number of ice skate blades among one or more ice skate blades inserted into a holding mechanism of the apparatus and held together by a clamping pressure applied by the holding mechanism;- setting an operating parameter of the apparatus based on the determined number of ice skate blades to control a grinding operation via a processing entity using said operating parameter, the operating parameter including at least one of: a final clamping pressure to be applied by the holding mechanism, a grinding pressure to be applied by an abrasive element of a grinding mechanism, a blade profile and relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades when grinding the one or more ice skate blades,wherein setting the operating parameter comprises consulting a non-transitory memory to retrieve an operating parameter value corresponding to the determined number of ice skate blades, the memory storing an association between determined number of ice skate blades and operating parameter values, including for a given operating parameter at least one operating parameter value for a first determined number of blades and at least one operating parameter value for a second determined number of blades, the first determined number being different than the second determined number which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 27 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 27 recites a computer-implemented method of operating an ice skate blade grinding apparatus, comprising:
- determining a number of ice skate blades among one or more ice skate blades inserted into a holding mechanism of the apparatus and held together by a clamping pressure applied by the holding mechanism (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 4 of instant application where the number of blades 182 inserted in the apparatus is determined, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.),
and- setting an operating parameter of the apparatus based on the determined number of ice skate blades to control a grinding operation via a processing entity using said operating parameter, the operating parameter including at least one of: a final clamping pressure to be applied by the holding mechanism, a grinding pressure to be applied by an abrasive element of a grinding mechanism, a blade profile and relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades when grinding the one or more ice skate blades,wherein setting the operating parameter comprises consulting a non-transitory memory (which is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) to retrieve an operating parameter value corresponding to the determined number of ice skate blades, the memory storing an association between determined number of ice skate blades and operating parameter values, including for a given operating parameter at least one operating parameter value for a first determined number of blades and at least one operating parameter value for a second determined number of blades, the first determined number being different than the second determined number (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 18 of instant application where the setting is performed, wherein the setting is at least an evaluation and judgement, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 28
Regarding claim 28, the analysis of Claim 27 is incorporated. Claim 28 additionally recites wherein setting the relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades comprises setting a position of a rotating element along a direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the rotating element which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 28 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 28 recites the method defined in claim 27, wherein setting the relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades comprises setting a position of a rotating element along a direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the rotating element (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 18 of instant application where the setting is performed, wherein the setting is at least an evaluation and judgement, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 29
Regarding claim 29, the analysis of Claim 28 is incorporated. Claim 29 additionally recites wherein setting the relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades comprises setting a position of a rotating element along a direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the rotating element, wherein the rotating element is a grinding wheel which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 29 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 29 recites the method defined in claim 28, wherein setting the relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades comprises setting a position of a rotating element along a direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the rotating element, wherein the rotating element is a grinding wheel (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 18 of instant application where the setting is performed, wherein the setting is at least an evaluation and judgement, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 30
Regarding claim 30, the analysis of Claim 28 is incorporated. Claim 30 additionally recites wherein setting the relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades comprises setting a position of a rotating element along a direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the rotating element, wherein the rotating element is a contact wheel separated from an ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades by a grinding belt which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 30 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 30 recites the method defined in claim 28, wherein setting the relative movement of the abrasive element and the one or more ice skate blades comprises setting a position of a rotating element along a direction parallel to an axis of rotation of the rotating element, wherein the rotating element is a contact wheel separated from an ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades by a grinding belt (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See FIG. 18 of instant application where the setting is performed, wherein the setting is at least an evaluation and judgement, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 21, 24 or 26-30 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 21, 24 and 26-30 are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is allowed.
Claims 18, 20 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12-17, 21, 24, and 26-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Chan et al. (US PGPUB 20180028898) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the feature of determining a number of contiguous ice skate blades among a plurality of ice skate blades inserted into a holding mechanism and setting an operating parameter based at least in part on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of the respective independent claim.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-18, 20-22 and 26 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Chan et al. (US PGPUB 20180028898) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the feature of a holding mechanism configured to contiguously hold a plurality of ice skate blades under pressure, the processing entity being further configured to determine a number of contiguous ice skate blades among the plurality of ice skate blades held together by the holding mechanism; and the processing entity being further configured to set at least one of the operating parameters based at least on the determined number of contiguous ice skate blades held by the holding mechanism as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claim 25.
Regarding claim 27, Chan et al. (US PGPUB 20180028898) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the feature of wherein setting the operating parameter comprises consulting a non-transitory memory to retrieve an operating parameter value corresponding to the determined number of ice skate blades, the memory storing an association between determined number of ice skate blades and operating parameter values, including for a given operating parameter at least one operating parameter value for a first determined number of blades and at least one operating parameter value for a second determined number of blades, the first determined number being different than the second determined number, as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claim 27.
Claims 28-30 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 27.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 112(f) interpretations do not apply because the claims include a sufficiently definite structure, material or act by name that performs the recited function. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified nonce terms (including mechanism, mechanism, and entity) do not provide structure which performs the associated functions. Therefore, the terms are being interpreted as nonce terms. The 35 USC 112(f) interpretations are maintained. The examiner notes 35 USC 112(f) is not a rejection and rather is an interpretation.
The 35 USC 102 rejections over Proulx have been withdrawn. See above action for more details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights