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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the
application. The objections to the drawings, specification, and claims are withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation as well as rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) are withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 3, “in” is repeated. One occurrence of the word “in” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner (EP 1228840).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses a machining apparatus for a ski (see fig. 1), said machining device comprising: a support (parallel receptacles 23 of ski holder 22; see paragraph [0012] and fig. 1) supporting the ski so as to be conveyed therealong in in a conveying direction in a longitudinal direction of the ski (ski holder 22 is driven in feed direction 30; see paragraph [0012]); and a device configured to machine side walls of the ski using at least one cutting tool (grinding device 18 comprises grinding wheel disk 21; see fig. 2), said cutting tool being arranged on a tool carrier (grinding wheel disks 21 are arranged on adjusting slides 11; see fig. 2) that is guided adjustably in a direction transverse to the conveying direction and parallel to the support (adjusting slides 11 move along slide rods 12 transversely to feed direction 30; see paragraph [0010]); wherein a resilient actuator (adjusting drives 16; see fig. 2) for the tool carrier is configured to be positioned with resilient prestressing against the side wall of the ski being conveyed along the support (adjusting drives 16 move the adjusting slides 11 so that they are in position to machine side edges 28 and 29 of ski 24; see paragraph [0012] and fig. 2).
As evidenced by Hou et al. (see introduction section of attached NPL) and the Wikipedia entry titled “Grinding (Abrasive Cutting)”, it is known that grinding is a type of cutting that is particularly useful when emphasis is placed on accuracy. Further, it is disclosed in the instant specification that “all cutting tools suitable for this purpose, including driven milling cutters, could be used” (pg. 5, lines 14-17). Wagner, as discussed above, discloses that a grinding tool is sufficient for removing the material. In other words, it is known in the art to use either a grinding tool or a milling tool to machine the edges of skis.
Regarding claim 2, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the device for machining the side walls of the ski (grinding device 18) has a frame with a guide rail, extending transversely to the conveying direction and parallel to the support (guide 10 comprises slide rods 12, which extend transversely to feed direction 30; see fig. 1 and paragraph [0010]), for the tool carrier which can be driven by the resilient actuator (adjusting drives 16 move the adjusting slides 11 so that they are in position to machine side edges 28 and 29 of ski 24; see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the device for machining the side walls of the ski includes a frame with two tool carriers (grinding device 18 comprises guides 10 and two adjusting slides 11), provided on both sides of the support and displaceable transversely to the conveying direction and parallel to the support (adjusting slides 11 are located on both sides of parallel receptacles 23 and move along slide rods 12, transversely to feed direction 30; see fig. 3 and paragraph [0012]), for a cutting tool in each case, as well as an actuator for resiliently acting on the tool carriers (adjusting drives 16 move the adjusting slides 11 so that they are in position to machine side edges 28 and 29 of ski 24; see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the frame (cross slides 6) has a common guide rail (guide 5) for the two tool carriers extending transversely to the conveying direction and parallel to the support (grinding devices 18 are mounted on cross slides 6, which are mounted on guide 5, which is transverse to feed direction 30).
Regarding claim 5, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the frame is pivotably mounted (guides 10 are pivotally mounted about pivot axes 9, see paragraph [0010]) about a pivot axis parallel to the conveying direction between a working position and a maintenance position (pivot axes 9 are parallel to feed direction 30; see fig. 3 and paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the resilient prestressing of the cutting tool setting is adjustable (adjusting drives 16 are adjustable by nature of being pneumatic cylinders; since the structure and associated operation of a pneumatic cylinder permit variable volumes, the resilient prestressing setting is adjustable, see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the actuator is a pneumatic cylinder (adjusting drives 16 are preferably pneumatic, see paragraphs [0007, 0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the frame is pivotably mounted (guides 10 are pivotally mounted about pivot axes 9, see paragraph [0010]) about a pivot axis parallel to the conveying direction between a working position and a maintenance position (pivot axes 9 are parallel to feed direction 30; see fig. 3 and paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the frame is pivotably mounted (cross slides 6 are pivotably mounted via link axes 14) about a pivot axis parallel to the conveying direction between a working position and a maintenance position (link axes 14 are pivotable parallel to feed direction 30; see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the resilient prestressing of the cutting tool setting is adjustable (adjusting drives 16 are adjustable by nature of being pneumatic cylinders; since the structure and associated operation of a pneumatic cylinder permit variable volumes, the resilient prestressing setting is adjustable, see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the resilient prestressing of the cutting tool setting is adjustable (adjusting drives 16 are adjustable by nature of being pneumatic cylinders; since the structure and associated operation of a pneumatic cylinder permit variable volumes, the resilient prestressing setting is adjustable, see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the resilient prestressing of the cutting tool setting is adjustable (adjusting drives 16 are adjustable by nature of being pneumatic cylinders; since the structure and associated operation of a pneumatic cylinder permit variable volumes, the resilient prestressing setting is adjustable, see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the resilient prestressing of the cutting tool setting is adjustable (adjusting drives 16 are adjustable by nature of being pneumatic cylinders; since the structure and associated operation of a pneumatic cylinder permit variable volumes, the resilient prestressing setting is adjustable, see paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the actuator is a pneumatic cylinder (adjusting drives 16 are preferably pneumatic, see paragraphs [0007, 0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the actuator is a pneumatic cylinder (adjusting drives 16 are preferably pneumatic, see paragraphs [0007, 0010]).
Regarding claim 17, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the actuator is a pneumatic cylinder (adjusting drives 16 are preferably pneumatic, see paragraphs [0007, 0010]).
Regarding claim 18, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner further discloses wherein the actuator is a pneumatic cylinder (adjusting drives 16 are preferably pneumatic, see paragraphs [0007, 0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (EP 1228840) in view of Reut (US 20130178136).
Regarding claim 8, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose wherein the device has at least one nozzle for removing the chips produced during side wall machining.
Reut discloses wherein the device has at least one nozzle for removing the chips produced during side wall machining (nozzles 37 are arranged to spray water on the grinding disk to remove dust and debris; see paragraph [0022] and fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wagner in view of Reut to include nozzles designed to remove debris. Wagner further discloses that regular cleaning results in a consistent grinding effect (see paragraph [0022]). A consistent machining operation is known to reduce defects, which can reduce waste and associated costs.
Regarding claim 19, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner, as modified by Reut to include cleaning nozzles, discloses wherein the device has at least one nozzle for removing the chips produced during side wall machining (nozzles 37 are arranged to spray water on the grinding disk to remove dust and debris, see fig. 7 and paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Wagner discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Wagner, as modified by Reut to include cleaning nozzles, discloses wherein the device has at least one nozzle for removing the chips produced during side wall machining (nozzles 37 are arranged to spray water on the grinding disk to remove dust and debris, see fig. 7 and paragraph [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to Applicant’s assertion that Wagner does not disclose a support supporting the ski so as to be conveyed along it in a conveying direction in a longitudinal direction of the ski, Examiner respectfully points to paragraph [0012] of the previously attached machine translation of Wagner. Specifically, Wagner discloses that the ski holder 22 formed by the feed slide is driven in the feed direction 30 (see paragraph [0012], last sentence). Because parallel receptacles 23 are formed as part of ski holder 22 and ski holder 22 is driven in feed direction 30, Wagner does disclose a support that conveys the ski in a conveying direction. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 5204987 to Klingel, drawn to an apparatus for treating steel edges of skis and other runner devices; EP 1559451 to Moroni, drawn to a device for processing or finishing the blades of a ski or snowboard; US 5762730 to Pieber, drawn to a method for machining steel edges for skis and the like.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571) 270-3818. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724