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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recites “the sharpening bar” that should be “the knife sharpening bar”.
Claim 1, 5, and 12 recites “the rod brackets” that should be “the two return closed rod brackets”.
Claim 8 recites “the brackets” and “the rod brackets” that should be “the two return closed rod brackets”.
Claim 9 recites a “,” at the end of the sentence that should be a “.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “the café rod brackets” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or if applicant intends to refer to the two return closed rod brackets. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the café rod brackets as brackets as “the two return closed rod brackets”.
Claim 5 and 12 recites “wherein the rod brackets each has a size of 1 ½ inches, and a diameter of ½ inches”. The claim is indefinite due to the limitation being unclear to the examiner what size of the rod brackets is being referred to. Is the size the length, the perimeter, the radius, the depth, or some other measurement? For purpose of examination examiner has interpreted the size to be any size of the rod brackets.
Claims 2-4, 6-11, and 13-14 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graves (4,197,677) in view of Phillips (4,850,149).
Regarding Claim 1, Graves teaches A kitchen article (Fig. 3), comprising a knife sharpening bar (Ref. 30, Fig. 3) and two return closed rod brackets (Ref. 34&36, Fig. 3), wherein the brackets are configured for receiving the knife sharpening bar (Fig. 3-4),
wherein the cafe rod brackets are configured for mounting in a horizontal line to a kitchen cabinet or wall (Ref. 37, Fig. 4 shows the brackets are used to mount onto a wall, examiner notes the flat base is interpreted as a wall), and
wherein the knife sharpening bar is configured for insertion into the cafe rod brackets to form a towel bar (note examiner interprets this limitation as intended use, Fig. 4 shows the knife sharpening bar is inserted into brackets allowing for space in between the wall and bar and would be capable of forming a towel bar).
Graves fails to explicitly teach a drill driver wherein the sharpening bar is configured for mounting on the drill drive. Phillips teaches a knife sharpening device with a sharpening bar and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Phillips teaches a kitchen article (Fig. 1), comprising a knife sharpening bar (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) and an electric drill driver (Ref. 17, fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]) that is powered by a battery (Ref. 19, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sharpening bar, as taught by Graves, to be mounted into the battery powered electric drill driver, as taught by Phillips, adding further functionality of the bar to rotate thereby preventing uneven wear of the sharpening bar and allowing for even honing of the knife that is sharpened ([Col. 2, Line 53-55]).
Regarding Claim 2, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the incorporation of the battery powered electric drill driver as taught by Phillips, Graves as modified further teaches wherein the drill driver is an electric drill driver (Ref. 17, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]).
Regarding Claim 3, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and given the incorporation of the battery powered electric drill driver as taught by Phillips, Graves as modified further teaches wherein the drill driver is powered by a battery (Ref. 19, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood under the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Graves further teaches wherein the rod brackets (34&36) having a height (Fig. 4, note examiner interprets a height as a size) and a diameter (Ref. 50&52, Fig. 4). However, Graves does not expressly disclose the height having a size of 1 ½ inches and a diameter of ½ inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the height size and diameter, as taught by Graves, to have a height of 1 ½ inches and a diameter of ½ inches since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Graves would not operate differently with the claimed size and diameter since the brackets are configured for receiving the knife sharpening bar. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the size is 1 ½ inches and diameter is ½ inches (instant application specification [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Graves teaches a method of fabrication, comprising:
providing a design of a kitchen article and forming the kitchen article (Fig. 3), and,
providing a knife sharpening bar (Ref. 30, Fig. 3), two return closed cafe rod brackets (Ref. 34&36, Fig. 3),
wherein the brackets are configured for receiving the knife sharpening bar (Fig. 3-4),
wherein the rod brackets are configured for mounting in a horizontal line to a kitchen cabinet or wall (Ref. 37, Fig. 4 shows the brackets are used to mount onto a wall, examiner notes the flat base is interpreted as a wall), and
wherein the knife sharpening bar is configured for insertion into the rod brackets to form a towel bar (Fig. 4 shows the knife sharpening bar is inserted into brackets allowing for space in between the wall and bar and would be capable of forming a towel bar).
Graves fails to explicitly teach a drill driver wherein the sharpening bar is configured for mounting on the drill drive. Phillips teaches a knife sharpening device with a sharpening bar and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Phillips teaches a kitchen article (Fig. 1), comprising a knife sharpening bar (Ref. 19, Fig. 1) and an electric drill driver (Ref. 17, fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]) that is powered by a battery (Ref. 19, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sharpening bar, as taught by Graves, to be mounted into the battery powered electric drill driver, as taught by Phillips, adding further functionality of the bar to rotate thereby preventing uneven wear of the sharpening bar and allowing for even honing of the knife that is sharpened ([Col. 2, Line 53-55]).
Regarding Claim 9, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and given the incorporation of the battery powered electric drill driver as taught by Phillips, Graves as modified further teaches wherein the drill driver is an electric drill driver (Ref. 17, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]).
Regarding Claim 10, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and given the incorporation of the battery powered electric drill driver as taught by Phillips, Graves as modified further teaches wherein the drill driver is powered by a battery (Ref. 19, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]).
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood under the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Graves further teaches wherein the rod brackets (34&36) having a height (Fig. 4, note examiner interprets a height as a size) and a diameter (Ref. 50&52, Fig. 4). However, Graves does not expressly disclose the height having a size of 1 ½ inches and a diameter of ½ inches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the height size and diameter, as taught by Graves, to have a height of 1 ½ inches and a diameter of ½ inches since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Graves would not operate differently with the claimed size and diameter since the brackets are configured for receiving the knife sharpening bar. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the size is 1 ½ inches and diameter is ½ inches (instant application specification [0030]).
Claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves as modified as applied to claim 1-3 and 8-10, above, and further in view of Dovel (2013/0324014).
Regarding Claim 4, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the battery is rechargeable. Dovel teaches a kitchen article with a knife sharpening bar and drill driver and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of knife sharpeners. Dovel further teaches a drill driver (Ref. 116, Fig. 3A) powered by a battery that is rechargeable ([0050] describes a grinding tool that uses batteries to power and rotate a motor that can be recharged by a power plug). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery, as taught by Graves as modified, to be rechargeable, as taught by Dovel, as it is old and well known in the art to have a rechargeable battery to yield the predictable result of powering a drill driver rotate a sharpening bar and to allow the user to easily provide more power the battery by connecting to the domestic electric grip thereby reducing electric waste and reducing the cost to repower the drill driver.
Regarding Claim 7, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery is rechargeable via a USB wall charger. Dovel teaches a kitchen article with a knife sharpening bar and drill driver and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of knife sharpeners. Dovel further teaches a drill driver (Ref. 116, Fig. 3A) wherein a battery is rechargeable via a USB wall charger ([0050] describes a grinding tool that uses batteries to power and rotate a motor that can be recharged by a power plug). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery, as taught by Graves as modified, to be rechargeable, as taught by Dovel, as it is old and well known in the art to have a rechargeable battery to yield the predictable result of powering a drill driver rotate a sharpening bar and to allow the user to easily provide more power the battery by connecting to the domestic electric grip ([0050]) thereby reducing electric waste and reducing the cost to repower the drill driver.
Regarding Claim 11, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the battery is rechargeable. Dovel teaches a kitchen article with a knife sharpening bar and drill driver and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of knife sharpeners. Dovel further teaches a drill driver (Ref. 116, Fig. 3A) powered by a battery that is rechargeable ([0050] describes a grinding tool that uses batteries to power and rotate a motor that can be recharged by a power plug). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery, as taught by Graves as modified, to be rechargeable, as taught by Dovel, as it is old and well known in the art to have a rechargeable battery to yield the predictable result of powering a drill driver rotate a sharpening bar and to allow the user to easily provide more power the battery by connecting to the domestic electric grip thereby reducing electric waste and reducing the cost to repower the drill driver.
Regarding Claim 14, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery is rechargeable via a USB wall charger. Dovel teaches a kitchen article with a knife sharpening bar and drill driver and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of knife sharpeners. Dovel further teaches a drill driver (Ref. 116, Fig. 3A) wherein a battery is rechargeable via a USB wall charger ([0050] describes a grinding tool that uses batteries to power and rotate a motor that can be recharged by a power plug). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery, as taught by Graves as modified, to be rechargeable, as taught by Dovel, as it is old and well known in the art to have a rechargeable battery to yield the predictable result of powering a drill driver rotate a sharpening bar and to allow the user to easily provide more power the battery by connecting to the domestic electric grip ([0050]) thereby reducing electric waste and reducing the cost to repower the drill driver.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graves as modified as applied to claim 1-3 and 8-10, above, and further in view of Decker (5,099,721).
Regarding Claim 6, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Graves further teaches wherein the knife sharpening bar is without a handle (Fig. 3-4 show the sharpening bar without a handle). Graves as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the knife sharpening bar is a standard carbon steel sharpening bar. Decker teaches a kitchen article with a knife sharpening bar and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Decker further teaches sharpening bars (Ref. 16&18, Fig. 1) is a standard carbon steel sharpening bar ([Col. 3, Line 66] describes a knife sharpening bar made of carbon steel). Given both Graves and Decker teach sharpening bars, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the knife sharpening bar, as taught by Graves as modified, to be standard carbon steel, as taught by Decker, as it is old and well known in the art that sharpening rods can be made of carbon steel to yield the predictable result of sharpening knives and to improve strength and durability of the rod as properties of carbon steel.
Regarding Claim 13, Graves as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Graves further teaches wherein the knife sharpening bar is without a handle (Fig. 3-4 show the sharpening bar without a handle). Graves as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the knife sharpening bar is a standard carbon steel sharpening bar. Decker teaches a kitchen article with a knife sharpening bar and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Decker further teaches sharpening bars (Ref. 16&18, Fig. 1) is a standard carbon steel sharpening bar ([Col. 3, Line 66] describes a knife sharpening bar made of carbon steel). Given both Graves and Decker teach sharpening bars, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the knife sharpening bar, as taught by Graves as modified, to be standard carbon steel, as taught by Decker, as it is old and well known in the art that sharpening rods can be made of carbon steel to yield the predictable result of sharpening knives and to improve strength and durability of the rod as properties of carbon steel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract is acknowledged and examiner withdraws the Specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 8 are acknowledged and the 35 USC 101 rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and some of the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, there are new 112(b) rejections based upon the amended claims. Specifically, it is still unclear to the examiner what part of the rod brackets “a size” is intended to refer to and there are some antecedent basis issues.
Applicant's arguments filed 15 September, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of references cannot be combined for a sharpening bar that is configured for mounting into a drill driver, 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). Currently applicant’s claims do not require the sharpening bar to be mounted into the drill driver and the brackets at the same time. Graves teaches Graves teaches A kitchen article (Fig. 3), comprising a knife sharpening bar (Ref. 30, Fig. 3) and two return closed cafe rod brackets (Ref. 34&36, Fig. 3), wherein the brackets are configured for receiving the knife sharpening bar (Fig. 3-4). When the sharpening bar is removed, Phillips teaches a kitchen article (Fig. 1), comprising a knife sharpening bar (Ref. 19, Fig. 1) and an electric drill driver (Ref. 17, fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]) that is powered by a battery (Ref. 19, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 41-42]). Therefore, having the sharpening bar, as taught by Graves, to be mounted into the battery powered electric drill driver when not in the bracket, as taught by Phillips, adds further functionality of the bar to rotate thereby preventing uneven wear of the sharpening bar and allowing for even honing of the knife that is sharpened ([Col. 2, Line 53-55]).
Conclusion
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723