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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 11/11/2025 have been entered, wherein claims 16 and 19-30 are pending. Accordingly, claims 16 and 19-30 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 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
4. 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 § 102
5. 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 16, 19, 21, 23-26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Werner (DE 202020103080).
Regarding claim 16, Werner teaches a sharpening jig (figs. 1-2) for holding a cutting tool to be sharpened or polished (blade 14), the sharpening jig comprising:
at least two parts that are adjustable relative to each other to set different positioning angles (figs. 1-2, body 1 and the adjusting screw bolt are interpreted as the at least two parts, wherein fig. 1 and fig. 2 show the adjustment relative to each other to set different angles via turning the head of the screw bolt, last two paragraphs on page 4 of the attached translation),
wherein the sharpening jig is configured to hold the cutting tool (blade 14) and to position a blade (blade 14) of the cutting tool at the set positioning angle (figs. 1-2) relative to a sharpening or polishing tool (last three paragraphs on page 1 of the attached translation),
wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other are configured to be adjustable stepwise between different positions (second to last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation, Werner teaches the adjusting means includes a screw bolt that is screwed to the desired projecting length. The head of the screw is capable of being adjustable in a stepwise manner between different positions, wherein partial rotations of the head of the screw is interpreted as different steps) and are configured to be lockable in different positions (second to last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation, Werner teaches the adjusting means includes a screw bolt that is screwed to the desired projecting length and that the screw bolt can be fixed my means of a lock nut screwed onto the screw bolt. Therefore, Werner teaches wherein the parts adjustable relative to each other are lockable in different positions) in a form -fitting manner relative to one another (second to last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation, Werner teaches the adjusting means includes a screw bolt that is screwed to the desired projecting length and that the screw bolt is screwed into a screw-in sleeve. The interaction of the screw bolt with the screw in sleeve is interpreted as a “form-fitting manner” because the threads of the screw bolt form fit the screw in sleeve in order to adjust the screw bolt).
Regarding claim 19, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Werner teaches further comprising a guide for adjusting the at least two parts in guided movement between the different positions (second to last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation, Werner teaches the adjusting means includes a screw bolt that is screwed to the desired projecting length and that the screw bolt is screwed into a screw-in sleeve. The screw-in sleeve is interpreted as a guide for adjusting the parts in guided movement between different positions).
Regarding claim 21, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Werner 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, which enables the sharpening jig to hold the cutting tool (fig. 2, body 1 having contact surface on end to support blade 14).
Regarding claim 23, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Werner teaches further comprising a pedestal defining a positioning plane for positioning the body on a flat base (fig. 2, the bottom surface and bottom end of the screw 4 is interpreted as the pedestal which defines a positioning plane for positioning the body 1 on a flat base 15), wherein an angle between the positioning plane and the at least one contact surface is adjustable in order to change the positioning angle (figs. 1-2 show the adjustment of the angle between the positioning plane and the contact surface in order to change the positioning angle).
Regarding claim 24, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 23. Additionally, Werner teaches wherein the pedestal is adjustable relative to the body (figs. 1-2, via screw 4), and the angle between the positioning plane and the at least one contact surface is adjustable by adjusting the pedestal relative to the body (as seen from figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 25, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 24. Additionally, Werner teaches wherein the pedestal extends along a longitudinal axis and is adjustable along the longitudinal axis relative to the body (fig. 2, the pedestal extends along a longitudinal axis of the screw 4 and is adjustable along the longitudinal axis relative to the body via adjustment of the screw 4), wherein a length of the pedestal is variable (the prior art is not required to teach this because the language recites the term “or”), or wherein the pedestal and the body are lockable in the different positions relative to each other offset along the longitudinal axis (via lock nut of Werner, second to last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation).
Regarding claim 26, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 23. Additionally, Werner teaches wherein the pedestal is arranged removably on the body (Werner teaches the screw can be screwed into the screw-in sleeve (second to last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation). The screw is arranged removably on the body. That is, the screw can be unscrewed to be removed from the body).
Regarding claim 29, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Werner teaches further comprising an adjusting element that is displaceable relative to the body in order to change the positioning angle (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. The shaft of the screw bolt is interpreted as the 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 (fig. 1-2, the shaft of the screw bolt increases the positioning angle by displacement of the shaft of the screw bolt from an upper side to a lower side of the body (action transitioning from fig. 1 to fig. 2) and decreases the positioning angle by displacement from the lower side to the upper side of the body (action transitioning from fig. 2 to fig. 1)).
Claims 16, 19-21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa (US PGPUB 20140342644).
Regarding claim 16, Hasegawa teaches a sharpening jig (fig. 1) for holding a cutting tool (fig. 4, knife 50) to be sharpened or polished, the sharpening jig comprising:
at least two parts that are adjustable relative to each other to set different positioning angles (plate 20 and body 10 are interpreted as two parts that are adjustable relative to each other to set different positioning angles),
wherein the sharpening jig is configured to hold the cutting tool (fig. 4, knife 50) and to position a blade of the cutting tool at the set positioning angle relative to a sharpening or polishing tool (fig. 5),
wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other are configured to be adjustable stepwise between different positions (fig. 1, the plate 20 and body 10 are capable of being adjusted in a stepwise manner between different positions, wherein the steps can include loosening knob 22, and incrementally moving the plate with respect to the body, wherein the incremental movements are interpreted as steps) and are configured to be lockable in the different positions (via knobs 22 [0024]) in a form-fitting manner relative to one another (The interaction of the tightening knobs 22 which are screwed to the blade set plate 20 and are slidably engaged with the curved vertical guide grooves 14 [0024] is interpreted as a form-fitting manner relative to one another).
Regarding claim 19, Hasegawa teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches further comprising a guide for adjusting the at least two parts in guided movement between the different positions (fig. 1, slot 14).
Regarding claim 20, Hasegawa teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other are resiliently biased against each other into a mutually locked state (Hasegawa teaches tightening knobs 22 is loosened to allow adjustability and then tightened to securely hold the position [0024]. The state in which the tightening knobs 22 are tightened to securely hold the position is interpreted as being 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 (loosening of the knobs 22 [0024]).
Regarding claim 21, Hasegawa teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Hasegawa 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 (pate 20, which has at least one contact surface configured to contact the blade (fig. 4)), which enables the sharpening jig to hold the cutting tool (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 30, Hasegawa teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Hasegawa teaches further comprising a scale for reading a number of degrees of the set positioning angle (fig. 1, scale 15. [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (DE 202020103080) in view of Mobiset (DE 202020001180).
Regarding claim 22, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Werner 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 modified Werner 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 side of Werner to incorporate the offset side 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 Werner) in order to obtain the predictable results of securing a blade for grinding.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (DE 202020103080) in view of Hummel (US PGPUB 20090088053) and Zhou (CN 205465319).
Regarding claims 27-28, Werner teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 23. Werner does not explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of the pedestals, which together define the positioning plane for positioning the sharpening jig on the base, wherein a subset of the pedestals are adjustable relative to the body or relative to another subset of the pedestals in order to change the positioning angle, wherein at least two of the pedestals are of different configurations and are interchangeable with one another in order to change the positioning angle.
However Hummel teaches an apparatus for sharpening a tool blade, wherein the apparatus includes two pedestals (adjustment levelers 25, see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Zhou teaches a clamping mechanism directed towards solving the problem of providing known tilt angles. Specifically, Zhou teaches the apparatus of fig. 1 includes a pedestal (support member 5) that is adjusted in order to set the tilt angle. Zhou teaches the support member has a plurality of sizes according to the size of different desired angles, and each support member is marked with an angle value (such as 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 degrees) (first paragraph on page 3 of the attached translation).
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 Werner to incorporate the teachings of Hummel and Zhou to provide two supporting pedestals, wherein the pedestals are interchangeable with different sized pedestals. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the pedestal of Werner to include two rear pedestals, as taught by Hummel. Doing so would increase the stability of the jig and prevent damage to the workpiece. Additionally, it would have been obvious to replace the adjusting means of Werner with the adjusting means of Zhou, wherein the adjusting means of Werner is replaced with a collection of pedestals that are selected according to the desired angle (as taught by Zhou). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known angle adjusting mechanism for another known angle adjusting mechanism in order to obtain the predictable results of providing an adjustable grinding angle.
In summary, Werner, as modified, teaches further comprising a plurality of the pedestals (as incorporated from Hummel and Zhou, see above combination), which together define the positioning plane for positioning the sharpening jig on the base (the plurality of pedestals, as modified, define the positioning plane for positioning the sharpening jig on the base), wherein a subset of the pedestals are adjustable relative to the body or relative to another subset of the pedestals (As modified above, the jig has a collection of pedestals that can be selected according to the desired angle, wherein a subset of the pedestals (two selected pedestals) are adjustable relative to the body (the action of selecting the two selected pedestals and applying the selected two pedestals is interpreted as the pedestals being adjustable relative to the body)) in order to change the positioning angle (the two selected pedestals provide the desired positioning angle), wherein at least two of the pedestals are of different configurations (different angle values as taught by Zhou) and are interchangeable with one another in order to change the positioning angle (as taught and incorporated from Zhou), wherein the at least two parts adjustable relative to each other continue to be adjustable stepwise between different positions (wherein the action of removing the previous pedestals, the action of selecting the two selected pedestals, and the action of applying the selected two pedestals is interpreted as wherein the at least two parts are adjustable stepwise between different positions) and are configured to be lockable in the different positions in a form-fitting manner relative to one another (the interaction of the pedestals and the body, wherein the pedestals are selected in order to determine the desired angle and swapped out with the preexisting pedestals, is interpreted as being lockable in different positions in a form-fitting manner relative to one another).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Werner and Hasegawa fail to disclose the amended language of claim 1. Applicant argues Werner’s screw is steplessly adjustable and Hasegawa’s plate is freely moveable. Neither adjustment is repeatable in set steps which improves the reproducibility (top of page 8 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., repeatable in set steps which improves the reproducibility) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, the claim language only requires to be adjustable step wise. Regarding Werner, the head of the screw is capable of being adjustable in a stepwise manner between different positions, wherein partial rotations of the head of the screw is interpreted as different steps. This qualifies as Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) because the prior art meets the general limitation of “adjustable step wise”. The language does not specify “adjustable step wise”. Regarding Hasegawa, the plate 20 and body 10 are capable of being adjusted in a stepwise manner between different positions, wherein the steps can include loosening knob 22, and incrementally moving the plate with respect to the body, wherein the incremental movements are interpreted as steps. This qualifies as Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) because the prior art meets the general limitation of “adjustable step wise”. The language does not specify “adjustable step wise”. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach “form-fitting”. Specifically, Applicant argues Werner fails to teach form-fitting locking (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The interaction of the screw bolt with the screw in sleeve is interpreted as a “form-fitting manner” because the threads of the screw bolt form fit the screw in sleeve in order to adjust the screw bolt, wherein Werner also teaches a lock nut. Therefore, Werner teaches the at least two parts are configured to be lockable in different positions in a form fitting manner. See above rejection for more details. Regarding Hasegawa, Applicant argues no form-fitting lock between the two parts is provided. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hasegawa teaches are configured to be lockable in the different positions (via knobs 22 [0024]) in a form-fitting manner relative to one another (The interaction of the tightening knobs 22 which are screwed to the blade set plate 20 and are slidably engaged with the curved vertical guide grooves 14 [0024] is interpreted as a form-fitting manner relative to one another). See above rejection for more details.
Applicant submits the remaining prior art fails to cure the deficiencies of Werner and Hasegawa and for these reasons, claim 16 and its dependents should be allowable. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 16 has been rejected above. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Overall, the examiner recommends narrowing the independent claim to be directed towards a single species. This would allow specific features of the specific species to be claimed. However, the dependent claims would need to be amended accordingly so 35 USC 112 issues are not introduced by mixing species.
Conclusion
8. 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights