DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 7/24/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 16, 19-23 and 30 are pending. Accordingly, claims 16, 19-23 and 30 have been examined herein. The previous 35 USC 112f interpretations and 35 USC 112a rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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) and further in view of Hasegawa (US PGPUB 20140342644).
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 sharpening jig is configured to magnetically hold the cutting tool,
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.
Batty, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the sharpening jig is configured to magnetically hold the cutting tool.
However, Hasegawa teaches a blade sharpening stand, wherein the sharpening jig is configured to magnetically hold the cutting tool (fig. 1 and 4, magnet 28, [0023]).
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 Hasegawa to provide wherein the sharpening jig is configured to magnetically hold the cutting tool. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the holding magnet 28 of Hasegawa into the device of Batty. Doing so would attract a metal blade of a cutting tool [0023 of Hasegawa] in order promote a secure holding of the blade workpiece [0036 of Hasegawa] which prevents damage to the workpiece and safety of the operator.
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) and further in view of Hasegawa (US PGPUB 20140342644), 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Batty and McCracken. Applicant argues that Batty only teaches a continuously adjusted angle which is then clamped and does not teach stepwise adjustment by means of interlocking teeth. Applicant argues McCracken’s locking mechanism with interlocking teeth is directed towards a handle of a power tool and has no connection to a sharpening jig or the adjustment of a grinding angle. Applicant argues neither Batty nor McCracken teaches a jig for holding a cutting tool that positions the cutting tool at a set positioning angle relative to a sharpening tool and neither teaches the locking teeth are designed such that a jump from tooth to tooth causes a change in the sharpening angle, wherein McCracken is directed towards a handle and not a sharpening angle. Applicant argues any combination of Batty and McCracken would be hindsight reasoning and would render the reference unsuitable for its intended purpose (pages 5-7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically, neither Batty nor McCracken alone was relied upon to teach the claim language. Rather, a combination of Batty and McCracken was relied upon to teach the claim language.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the current rejection, the relied upon motivation for combining the teachings of McCracken with Batty includes 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.
In response to applicant's argument that McCracken’s teachings are directed towards a handle and is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, McCracken is in the same field of abrading. Additionally, McCracken is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of selectively adjusting two pieces and setting a desired angle and configuration.
In response to applicant's argument that McCracken’s selectively adjustable form-fitting mechanism including locking toothings is directed towards a handle and not setting a sharpening angle, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, McCracken was relied upon to teach a known selectively adjustable form-fitting mechanism including locking toothings which was then incorporated into Batty to selectively adjust the angle between the platform and the uprights, wherein the modification was not made via bodily incorporation.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the current rejection, the relied upon motivation for combining the teachings of McCracken with Batty includes 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.
Overall, Batty teaches a jig for holding a cutting tool that positions the cutting tool at a set positioning angle relative to a sharpening tool (fig. 10 of Batty, cutting tool 19, sharpening tool 17). Batty was modified to incorporate the stepwise adjusting mechanism of McCracken including a known selectively adjustable form-fitting mechanism including locking toothings. Batty, as modified, would continue to be capable of operating as intended and positioning a workpiece at a desired angle against a sharpening tool.
See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues neither Batty nor McCracken mentions a magnet and Mobiset fails to cure the deficiencies of the interlocking teeth or adjustment angle (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As mentioned above, Batty in view of McCracken was relied upon to teach the interlocking teeth and adjustment angle. Hasegawa is now relied upon to teach the amended language directed towards the magnet. Overall, claim 16 has been rejected above. The depending claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
5. 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