Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/091,549

KNIFE SHARPENING DEVICE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 30, 2022
Examiner
MARKMAN, MAKENA
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
5 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
185 granted / 314 resolved
-11.1% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+39.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
352
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.1%
+3.1% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 314 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/1/2026 has been entered. Priority Examiner thanks Applicant for their efforts in order to convert the instant application from a CON of U.S. Application No. 16/273,912, which is a CON of 15/590,486, now U.S. Patent 10,201,884, which claims benefit of provisional application 62/333,587. However, the status of the application has not been updated to reflect Applicant’s efforts to convert the instant application. Examiner recommends requesting a new filing receipt to correct the status of the application. See MPEP 211.02(a) and 211.03. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 4/1/2026 that the updated amended claims overcome the prior art rejection(s) of record are persuasive, as Examiner concurs that the prior art does not anticipate, teach, or suggest the subject matter recited in independent claims 15 and 18 (wherein independent claim 11 was already previously indicated as allowable). However, outstanding issues remain, including correcting priority to a prior filed application(s) as indicated above, as well as claim recitations which require amendments. Please see below for further details. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21, claim limitations recited in each identified claim either create indefinite metes and bounds as a result of the limitations being unclear as to what is being imparted within the context of the claimed invention, or recite antecedent basis issues. In an effort to expedite prosecution, Examiner has provided proposed amendments in order to resolve the outstanding issues within the claims. Please see below. Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom. 15. (Proposed Amendment) A method of sharpening a blade of a knife, the method comprising: securing the knife to a clamp so that when the knife is secured in the clamp, the blade of the knife defines a plane; rotating a pair of opposing rotatable dials so that a honing guide attached (1) in between the pair of opposing rotatable dials and (2) to respective outer circumferences of the opposing rotatable dials changes an angle of incident of a honing bar relative wherein the honing guide is configured to support the honing bar and is configured to sharpen the blade in a sawing motion in a first direction, wherein each of the pair of opposing rotatable dials moves the honing bar so as to change the angle of incident, and wherein a longitudinal length of the honing guide is oriented in a second direction different from the first direction, and sharpening the blade of the knife by moving the honing bar while the honing bar is simultaneously supported by the honing guide and in contact with both the honing guide and the blade. 17. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 15, wherein the honing bar is allowed to slide on the honing guide and blade of knife to maintain[[ a ]] the same angle of incident between the honing guide and blade of knife, for a length of the blade of the knife. 18. (Proposed Amendment) A method of sharpening a blade of a knife, the method comprising: securing the knife to a clamp so that when the knife is secured in the clamp, the blade of the knife defines a plane; providing a pair of opposing rotatable dials; providing a honing guide that is: (1) attached in between the pair of opposing rotatable dials, and (2) directly attached to respective outer circumferences of the opposing rotatable dials; rotating the pair of opposing rotatable dials so that respective ends move relative sharpening the blade of the knife by moving the honing bar while the honing bar is simultaneously supported by the honing guide and in contact with both the honing guide and the blade. 20. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 18, wherein the honing bar is allowed to slide on the honing guide and blade of knife to maintain[[ a ]] the same angle of incident between the honing guide and blade of knife, for a length of the blade of the knife. 21. (Proposed Amendment) The method of claim 18, wherein the honing guide is configured to support the honing bar and is configured to sharpen the blade in a sawing motion in a first direction, wherein each of the pair of opposing rotatable dials moves the honing bar so as to change the angle of incident, and wherein a longitudinal length of the honing guide is oriented in a second direction different from the first direction. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Please see the suggested claim amendments provided above. Examiner notes that the dependent claims identified above also require amendments in order to place the application in condition for allowance. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding independent claim 15, Emmanuel (US 1,386,001) previously taught the claimed invention as elucidated in the previous office action, however, Emmanuel does not anticipate, teach, or disclose wherein the honing guide is configured to support the honing bar and is configured to sharpen the blade in a sawing motion in a first direction, and wherein a longitudinal length of the honing guide is oriented in a second direction different from the first direction. The movement of the sharpening device (14) is sawing back and forth along the rod (10), i.e. the sawing movement is oriented in the same direction as the longitudinal length of the rod (10). Thus, Applicant’s amendments have been considered to overcome the prior art. Regarding independent claim 18, McRae (US 4,229,910) discloses a honing guide (20) attached in between a pair of opposing rotatable dials (50/ 60, Figure 1), and wherein the honing guide is attached in between the pair of opposing rotatable dials (Figure 1), and (2) directly attached to respective outer circumferences of the opposing rotatable dials (Col. 3, lines 3-13); rotating the pair of opposing rotatable dials so that respective portions of the honing guide that are directly attached to the respective outer circumferences of the opposing rotatable dials moves radially along the respective outer circumferences of the pair of opposing rotatable dials, which, in turn, changes an angle of incident (Col. 3, lines 3-30). McRae does not teach or disclose a clamp for the knife disposed as recited in the claimed invention, as well as wherein the honing guide is configured to support the honing bar, and sharpening the blade of the knife by moving the honing bar while simultaneously supported by and in contact with the honing guide and the blade. The sharpening stone (22) is not supported by the bar (20), nor is the sharpening stone moved in order to sharpen the knife; rather, the knife is displaced in order to impart sharpening. McGeoch (US 4,217,735) discloses a clamp for a blade (see Figures 12 and 13), rotatable opposing dials (16, 17), a honing guide (22/23), rotating the pair of opposing rotatable dials so that respective portions (18, 19, 20, 21) of the honing guide (22/23) that are directly attached to the respective outer circumferences of the opposing rotatable dials (16, 17, see Figure 8) moves radially along the respective outer circumferences of the pair of opposing rotatable dials (Col. 3, lines 6-31). However, McGeoch does not disclose or teach rotation of the opposing dials and thereby movement of the guiding guide in turn, changes an angle of incident of a honing bar relevant to the clamped blade of the knife, wherein the honing guide is configured to support the honing bar, sharpening the blade of the knife by moving the honing bar while simultaneously supported by and in contact with the honing guide and the blade. The honing bar (3) is not moved as a result of the rotation of opposing dials, rather, the clamped knife is moved in order to impart sharpening. The prior art does not anticipate, teach, or suggest the combination of elements disposed in and functioning as required by the claimed invention(s). Thus, the subject matter of independent claims 15 and 18 has been found allowable, as indicated herein. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm. 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. /MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 30, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 16, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 01, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600003
KNIFE DETECTING AND SHARPENING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576470
ELECTRIC HAND TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12544877
METHOD OF CLEANING AN ALUMINUM WHEEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544875
MULTI-TIP TOOLING DESIGN FOR ULTRASONIC IMPACT GRINDING OF CMCS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539550
Method and System of Rivering Filtration for Power Saw Machine
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 314 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month