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
1. Amendments filed 2/10/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 16 and 19-30 are pending. Accordingly, claims 16 and 19-30 have been examined herein. This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/5/2026 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 Interpretation
3. 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 29, “an adjusting element that is displaceable relative to the body in order to change the positioning angle, wherein the adjusting element increases the positioning angle by displacement from an upper side to a lower side of the body and decreases the positioning angle by displacement from the lower side to the upper side of the body, or vice versa”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided in figures 1-3 as adjusting washers 8.
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 § 112
4. 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 24-29 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.
Regarding claim 24, the language is drawn towards the feature of the pedestal being adjustable relative to the body. This feature is drawn towards a different embodiment from claim 16, wherein claim 16 requires the locking toothings of fig. 5. Overall, the mix of embodiments does not have proper written description support.
Claim 25 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 26, the language is drawn towards the feature of the pedestal is arranged removably on the body. This feature is drawn towards a different embodiment from claim 16, wherein claim 16 requires the locking toothings of fig. 5. Overall, the mix of embodiments does not have proper written description support.
Regarding claim 27, the language is drawn towards the feature of a subset of pedestals are adjustable relative to the body or relative to another subset of the pedestals. This feature is drawn towards a different embodiment from claim 16, wherein claim 16 requires the locking toothings of fig. 5. Overall, the mix of embodiments does not have proper written description support.
Claim 28 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 29, the language is drawn towards the feature of the adjusting element, wherein the adjusting element displaces form an upper side to a lower side and vice versa. This feature is drawn towards a different embodiment from claim 16, wherein claim 16 requires the locking toothings of fig. 5. Overall, the mix of embodiments does not have proper written description support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 16, 19-21, 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batty (US PGPUB 20120270479) in view of McCracken (US Patent 6499172).
Regarding claim 16¸ Batty teaches a sharpening jig (fig. 1) for holding a cutting tool to be sharpened or polished (fig. 10), the sharpening jig comprising:
at least two parts that are adjustable relative to each other to set different positioning angles (platform 1 and uprights 2-3, wherein the platform is adjustable relative to the uprights to set different positioning angles (fig. 1)),
wherein the sharpening jig is configured to hold the cutting tool and to position a blade of the cutting tool at the set positioning angle relative to a sharpening or polishing tool (fig. 10 showing the jig holding the tool and being capable of positioning the tool at the set positioning angle relative to the sharpening or polishing tool),
wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other are configured to be adjustable stepwise between different positions (fig. 1, the two parts are adjustable are capable of being adjusted in a stepwise manner between the different positions within the range 1c and 1d) and are configured to be lockable in the different positions (via locking screws 6, [0124]).
Batty does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other are configured to be adjustable stepwise between different positions and are configured to be lockable in the different positions in a form -fitting manner relative to one another,
wherein at least one of the at least two parts includes locking toothings that engage with the other of the at least two parts and the locking toothings are configured such that a jump from tooth to tooth results in a change in the positioning angle.
However, McCracken teaches a rotary motion configuration to selectively allow rotation through a predetermined range, wherein the rotary motion configuration also has locking means for locking a set position. McCracken teaches
wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other (fig. 1, handle 10 and housing 14) are configured to be adjustable stepwise between different positions (col. 6, lines 49-67) and are configured to be lockable in the different positions (col. 6, lines 61-66) in a form -fitting manner relative to one another (fig. 3, teeth 48 and grooves 50),
wherein at least one of the at least two parts includes locking toothings (teeth 48, fig. 3) that engage with the other of the at least two parts (grooves 50 of other part) and the locking toothings are configured such that a jump from tooth to tooth results in a change in the positioning angle ((col. 6, lines 49-67), wherein McCracken teaches the locking teeth 48 are selectively allowed to “ratchet” over the locking grooves for pivoting to different positions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Batty to incorporate the teachings of McCracken to provide wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other are configured to be adjustable stepwise between different positions and are configured to be lockable in the different positions in a form -fitting manner relative to one another, wherein at least one of the at least two parts includes locking toothings that engage with the other of the at least two parts and the locking toothings are configured such that a jump from tooth to tooth results in a change in the positioning angle.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate McCracken’s selectively locking configuration (including teeth, grooves, and locking mechanism 36) for the selectively locking configuration of Batty (locking screws 6 and other cooperating structures). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known selectively locking configuration for selectively limiting rotary movement for another known selectively locking configuration for selectively limiting rotary movement to obtain the predictable results of selectively limiting and locking rotary movement between two parts. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and selectively adjust the angle of the platform of Batty.
Regarding claim 19, Batty, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Batty, as modified, teaches further comprising a guide for adjusting the at least two parts in guided movement between the different positions (fig. 2 of Batty, wherein the through hole at the top of the uprights are interpreted as a guide for adjusting the at least two parts in guided movement between the different positions).
Regarding claim 20, Batty, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Batty, as modified, teaches wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other are resiliently biased against each other into a mutually locked state, and wherein the locked state is releasable with reduction or removal of the resilient bias, so that the at least two parts are adjustable relative to each other (Batty was modified to incorporate the locking configuration of McCracken (see above rejection of claim 16 for more details), wherein the locking configuration of McCracken includes the handle biasing against the housing with a small amount of pressure to keep the locking teeth seated in the grooves 50, but also allow the ratcheting. In the locked state, the teeth 48 lodge into engagement under increased pressure (col. 6, lines 56-64). The selective range of pressure is interpreted as the parts being resiliently biased against each other into a mutually locked state, wherein the locked state is releasable with reduction of the resilient bias, so that the parts are adjustable relative to each other).
Regarding claim 21, Batty, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Batty, as modified, teaches wherein at least one of the parts adjustable relative to one another is configured as a body having at least one contact surface configured to contact the blade (fig. 10 of Batty, platform 1 is configured as a body having a contact surface configured to contact the blade), which enables the sharpening jig to hold the cutting tool (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 23, Batty, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Batty, as modified, teaches further comprising a pedestal defining a positioning plane for positioning the body on a flat base (fig. 1-1c of Batty, wherein the bottom of the uprights are interpreted as pedestals defining a positioning plane for positioning the body on a flat base), wherein an angle between the positioning plane and the at least one contact surface is adjustable in order to change the positioning angle (fig. 1 of Batty, via adjusting the angle of the platform 1).
Regarding claim 30, Batty, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Batty, as modified, teaches further comprising a scale for reading a number of degrees of the set positioning angle (fig. 3f, [0039] of Batty).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batty (US PGPUB 20120270479) in view of McCracken (US Patent 6499172), as applied to claims 16 and 21 above, and further in view of Mobiset (DE 202020001180).
Regarding claim 22, Batty, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Batty, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the body has at least two contact surfaces that are offset in parallel to one another and a step formed between the contact surfaces, wherein the blade is held in contact with one of the two contact surfaces, and wherein the step is configured to support a rear of the blade.
However, Mobiset teaches a sharpening jig (figs. 10-11), wherein a body 70 has at least two contact surfaces (surface indicated by 75’ and corresponding offset surface) that are offset in parallel to one another (fig. 11, Additionally, Mobiset teaches the surfaces are angled at an angle of 105 degrees with respect to the bottom 71 (page 29 of the attached translation, second to last paragraph), thereby being parallel to one another) and a step formed between the contact surfaces (fig. 11, step between to previously interpreted contact surfaces), wherein the blade is held in contact with one of the two contact surfaces, and wherein the step is configured to support a rear of the blade (Mobiset teaches the sides have magnets for holding the blades (page 29 of the attached translation, second to last paragraph). Additionally, the device of Mobiset is capable of holding the blade in contact with one of the two contact surfaces, and is capable of wherein the step is configured to support a rear of the blade).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Batty, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mobiset to provide wherein the body has at least two contact surfaces that are offset in parallel to one another and a step formed between the contact surfaces, wherein the blade is held in contact with one of the two contact surfaces, and wherein the step is configured to support a rear of the blade. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the holding surface of Batty, as modified, to incorporate the offset surface teachings of Mobiset. Doing so would provide increased utility by allowing the jig to hold smaller knives. Additionally, doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one holding configuration (of Mobiset) for another holding configuration (of Batty) in order to obtain the predictable results of securing a blade for grinding.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Regarding claims 24-29, a determination of allowability over the prior art could not be made in view of the above 35 USC 112(a) rejections.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues Werner and Hasegawa fails to teach the amended language of claim 16. Applicant argues the remaining references fail to cure the deficiencies of Werner and Hasegawa. Applicant argues claim 16 and the respective dependents are allowable.
However, Werner and Hasegawa are no longer relied upon to teach the language of claim 16. Rather, Batty in view of McCracken was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 16. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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