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 Arguments
On August 5th, 2026, Examiner reached out to Applicant’s representative, Sean O’Brien, to perform an Examiner Amendment to place the application in condition for allowance. However, after performing a final updated search of pertinent prior art, Examiner discovered a new reference which nullifies the Examiner’s Amendment placing the application in condition for allowance. Examiner has provided an updated grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment, and indicated allowable subject matter herein where appropriate.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claim(s) 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 directed towards the 112(f) claim interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action made an “erroneous assumption” that the recited first blade alignment assembly (claims 15 and 32), the second blade alignment assembly (claim 17) and the tagging device (claim 26) invoke 112f. Applicant argues that 112(b) is not invoked based on the “controlling precedent that the claims are entitled to the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked because the claim elements surely do not recite the terms “means for”” (Arguments, pages 13-14), and that “the Office Actions assumption is plainly inconsistent with the Flo Healthcare precedent and Lighting World precedent”. Applicant also states that “nothing in the Office Action explains why the terms “height adjustment mechanism” (Flo Healthcare) and “connector assembly” (Lighting World) should fall under this legal presumption while Applicant’s claim terms…should be excluded”.
Applicant also argues that “the language in claims 15, 17, 26, and 31 never recites the word “means” nor “for” at all, and certainly not the word “for” followed by a recitation of an aligning or tagging function”.
Claims 15 and 32 recite: “a first blade alignment assembly that is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades…”
Claim 17 recites “a second blade alignment assembly that is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades…”
Claim 26 recites “a tagging device that is configured to associate at least one identifying tag with the blade assembly.”
MPEP 2181(I) provides the following 3-prong analysis (emphasis added):
(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.
The three above identified recitations (a first blade alignment assembly, a second blade alignment assembly, and a tagging device) are generic placeholders and do not have any specific structural meaning, i.e. prong (A) is met. Regarding Applicant’s argument directed towards recitation (or lack thereof in this case) of “for”, please see MPEP prong (B); the identified claim limitations each recite “configured to”, which is identified as a linking phrase for linking the generic placeholder and functional language. Thus, the claim limitations modify the generic placeholders with functional language, and prong (B) is met. Lastly, claims 15, 17, 26 and 32 do not recite sufficient structure for performing the claimed function(s), and thus prong (C) is met, and 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For the above stated reasons, this action is made final herein, as necessitated by amendment. Please see the updated grounds of rejection and allowable subject matter indicated below.
Claim Interpretation
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:
a first blade alignment assembly that is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades relative to the blade block along the first axis in a grinding configuration in claims 15 and 32. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is relying upon [0034] of the specification disclosing the first blade alignment assembly 40. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
a second blade alignment assembly that is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades relative to the blade block along the first axis in a tufting configuration in claim 17. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is relying upon [0058] of the specification disclosing the second blade alignment assembly 130. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
a tagging device that is configured to associate at least one identifying tag with the blade assembly in claim 26. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is relying upon [0060], [0114-0115], and [0099] of the specification disclosing the tagging device. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 Objections
Claims 16, 18, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend each of the recitations of “configured to move the plurality of tufting blades” to reflect “configured to move each of the plurality of tufting blades”. Claim 15 (from which claim 16 depends), claim 17 (from which claim 18 depends), and claim 32 (from which claim 33 depends) all recite that one of the first or second blade alignment assemblies is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades”. However, claims 16, 18, and 33 do not carry the consistent claim language through and seemingly broaden the moving capabilities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17, 23, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bardsley (US 4,285,170).
Regarding claim 14, Bardsley (US 4285170) discloses a system comprising:
a blade assembly comprising a plurality of tufting blades received within a blade block (see Figures 1-4 regarding a blade assembly comprising a plurality of tufting blades 12 within block 13, see also Col. 1 lines 5-35 and Col. 2, lines 50-65; alternatively, please see Figure 7 regarding the blade assembly comprising blades 71 received within a knife block, as well as Figure 9 regarding the jig 81, see also Col. 3 line 29-Col. 4, line 14),
wherein the blade assembly has a first axis, a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis, and a third axis that is perpendicular to each of the first and second axes (see at least Figures 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10, i.e. wherein there are three axes),
wherein each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades has a length that extends along the first axis, a width that extends along the second axis, and a thickness that extends along the third axis (see blades 12 or blades 71),
wherein the plurality of tufting blades are spaced from each other along the third axis (see Col. 2 lines 50-68 and Col. 3, lines 29-40; see also Col. 1 line 56-Col. 2, line 10),
wherein the blade assembly comprises at least one fastener that is configured to retain the plurality of tufting blades in respective fixed positions relative to the blade block (see at least the Abstract disclosing the plurality of knives being fixed within the knife block; see also Col. 1, lines 41-55, i.e. wherein in the embodiment shown in Figures 1-6, the positions of the knives 12 are maintained in by loading and the knife block clamp, see also Col. 3 lines 14-23; wherein in the embodiment shown in Figures 7-9, see Col. 3 line 29-Col. 4, line 6 regarding the spacers 72, pin 72a, clamping portion 82 bolted in place after the blades 71 are positioned within the slots);
a fixture that is configured to hold the blade assembly (see at least cylindrical mandrel 86 or the flat bed disclosed in Col. 4, lines 7-14); and
a grinder that is configured to grind at least one of the plurality of tufting blades of the blade assembly while the blade assembly is held within the fixture and the plurality of tufting blades are received within the blade block (see Figures 3 and 10; see grinding tool 15 or grinder 90; see Col. 1, lines 41-55, Col. 2, lines 1-6, Col. 3, lines 1-28, Col. 4, lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 15, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bardsley further discloses a first blade alignment assembly that is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades relative to the blade block along the first axis in a grinding configuration (see at least slots 84 configured to receive and position the blades in an aligned manner, along the longitudinal direction of each knife, for grinding; see Col. 3, line 49-Col. 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 17, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bardsley further discloses a second blade alignment assembly that is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades relative to the blade block along the first axis in a tufting configuration (see at least slots 84 configured to receive and position the blades in an aligned manner, along the longitudinal direction of each knife, wherein after grinding, the blades are released and configured in a tufting arrangement; see Col. 3, line 49-Col. 4, line 6).
Regarding claim 23, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bardsley further discloses wherein the fixture is configured to hold a plurality of blade assemblies (please see Figure 10, as well as Col. 4, lines 7-14 regarding the plurality of jigs 81 with knives 71 in each respective jig).
Regarding claim 30, Bardsley discloses system comprising:
a blade assembly comprising a plurality of tufting blades received within a blade block (see Figures 1-4 regarding a blade assembly comprising a plurality of tufting blades 12 within block 13, see also Col. 1 lines 5-35 and Col. 2, lines 50-65; alternatively, please see Figure 7 regarding the blade assembly comprising blades 71 received within a knife block, as well as Figure 9 regarding the jig 81, see also Col. 3 line 29-Col. 4, line 14),
wherein the blade assembly has a first axis, a second axis that is perpendicular to the first axis, and a third axis that is perpendicular to each of the first and second axes (see at least Figures 1, 4, 7, 9, and 10, i.e. wherein there are three axes),
wherein each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades has a length that extends along the first axis, a width that extends along the second axis, and a thickness that extends along the third axis (see blades 12 or blades 71),
wherein the plurality of tufting blades are spaced from each other along the third axis (see Col. 2 lines 50-68 and Col. 3, lines 29-40; see also Col. 1 line 56-Col. 2, line 10),
wherein the blade assembly comprises at least one fastener that is configured to retain the plurality of tufting blades in respective fixed positions relative to the blade block (see at least the Abstract disclosing the plurality of knives being fixed within the knife block; see also Col. 1, lines 41-55, i.e. wherein in the embodiment shown in Figures 1-6, the positions of the knives 12 are maintained in by loading and the knife block clamp, see also Col. 3 lines 14-23; wherein in the embodiment shown in Figures 7-9, see Col. 3 line 29-Col. 4, line 6 regarding the spacers 72, pin 72a, clamping portion 82 bolted in place after the blades 71 are positioned within the slots); and
a fixture that is configured to hold the blade assembly in a fixed position relative to a grinder while the plurality of tufting blades are received within the blade block during grinding (see at least cylindrical mandrel 86 or the flat bed disclosed in Col. 4, lines 7-14; see also Figures 3 and 10; see grinding tool 15 or grinder 90; see Col. 1, lines 41-55, Col. 2, lines 1-6, Col. 3, lines 1-28, Col. 4, lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 31, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bardsley further discloses further comprising the grinder that is configured to grind the plurality of tufting blades of the blade assembly held within the fixture, wherein the grinder comprises a grinding wheel (Col. 3, 1-7 and lines 24-28 disclose a grinding wheel, see also element 15; see also Figures 3 and 10).
Regarding claim 32, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bardsley further discloses further comprising: a first blade alignment assembly that is configured to position each tufting blade of the plurality of tufting blades relative to the blade block along the first axis in a grinding configuration (see at least slots 84 configured to receive and position the blades in an aligned manner, along the longitudinal direction of each knife, for grinding; see Col. 3, line 49-Col. 4, line 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19-22, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardsley (US 4285170) in view of Graves (US 20190210177)
Regarding claim 19, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Bardsley is silent regarding the larger structure of the system, and thus does not explicitly teach a first conveyor that is configured to receive the blade assembly in a carrying tray; and a first end of an arm tool that is configured to transfer the blade assembly from the carrying tray to a second conveyor.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Graves teaches of a first conveyor that is configured to receive the blade assembly in a carrying tray (see at least one of tray 110 or 114; see also Figure 6, wherein within the context of the claimed invention, the recitation of a first conveyor is limited by functional language, i.e. the frame of the apparatus is configured to receive one or more carrying trays therein); and
a first end of an arm tool that is configured to transfer the blade assembly from the carrying tray to a second conveyor (see at least one of robotic arm 122 or robotic arm 142 mounted on one arm tool device, Figures 6 and 9; wherein similar to the recitation of a first conveyor, the second conveyor is being interpreted as structure capable of receiving the blade assembly from a carrying tray, wherein the arms 122, 142 are configured to transport workpieces, i.e. the blade assembly of Bardsley in the context of the combined teachings, in between stations configured to receive workpieces; see [0036], [0113], [0118-0123], [0133], [0137], [0141], [0145], [0152], [0153], [0195]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the robotic arm elements, conveyor areas, and trays, as taught by Graves, into the invention of Bardsley. One would be motivated to do so as the incorporation of the arm tool for transferring blades and trays of blades provides an accurate, programmable device, see at least [0116], [0118-0119], [0021], and [0091]. Furthermore, the combined invention would result in a more automated system which is able to produce more consistently sharpened results at higher throughputs with less operator repetitive stress and other injuries, see [0037]. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. an end effector robotic arm for transferring workpieces, to improve a similar sharpening device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Bardsley in view of Graves teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Bardsley further teaches a second end of the arm tool (wherein the incorporated arm tool of Graves comprises robotic arm 122, 142, see Figures 6 and 9) that is configured to:
transfer the blade assembly from the second conveyor to the fixture for grinding; and transfer the blade assembly from the fixture to the second conveyor after grinding (see the mandrel fixture 86 of Bardsley in Figure 10; see Graves: arms 142, 122, as well as the transportation of workpieces in see [0036], [0113], [0118-0123], [0133], [0137], [0141], [0145], [0152], [0153], [0195]).
Regarding claim 21, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Bardsley does not explicitly teach a visual inspection assembly that is configured to inspect each tufting blade of the blade assembly.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Graves teaches a visual inspection assembly that is configured to inspect each tufting blade of the blade assembly (see vision system 150, camera 126, as well as [0027-0029], [0102-0104], [0113], [0116], [0122-0129], [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the vision system and computer components associated therewith, as taught by Graves, into the invention of Bradsley. One would be motivated to do so because the combined invention would result in a more automated system which is able to produce more consistently sharpened results at higher throughputs with less operator repetitive stress and other injuries, see [0037]. The information obtained from the vision system results in a more accurately sharpened workpiece, see [0029].
Regarding claim 22, Bardsley in view of Graves teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Bardsley further teaches wherein the visual inspection assembly is configured to determine whether the blade assembly passes or fails at least one visual inspection metric (see at least Graves: [0027-0029], wherein the vision system is used to profile a blade and determine a path for sharpening, and determines the presence of irregularities using a lest squares fit methodology in order to determine sharpening steps for obtaining a sharpened workpiece, i.e. failing or passing the visual inspection metric of presence; see also [0102-0104], [0113], [0116], [0122-0129], [0133] of Graves).
Regarding claim 24, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Bardsley does not explicitly teach further comprising a deburring station configured to debur the plurality of tufting blades.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices configured to sharpen blades, Graves teaches a deburring station configured to debur the plurality of tufting blades (see at least [0026] regarding removing bits of metal, see also [0034-0035] describing the washing station to remove small bits of metal; see [0108], [0180-0182]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the washing station assembly, as taught by Graves, into the invention of Bardsley. One would be motivated to do so to further incorporate a mechanical cleaning action which serves to remove residue from the knives, such as those created during the sharpening process (see [0155] of Graves; see also [0034-0035]). This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. cleaning brushes, to improve a similar sharpening device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 25, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Bardsley does not explicitly teach further comprising a cleaning station configured to remove previous markings from the blade assembly, wherein the cleaning station comprises a wire brush.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices configured to sharpen blades, Graves teaches a cleaning station configured to remove previous markings from the blade assembly, wherein the cleaning station comprises a wire brush (see brush assembly 820, brushes 824, as well as [0108], [0180-0182], [0026], [0034-0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the washing station assembly, as taught by Graves, into the invention of Bardsley. One would be motivated to do so to further incorporate a mechanical cleaning action which serves to remove residue from the knives, such as those created during the sharpening process (see [0155] of Graves; see also [0034-0035]). This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. cleaning brushes, to improve a similar sharpening device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardsley (US 4285170) in view of Kennedy (US 2023/0049183).
Regarding claim 26, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Bardsley does not explicitly teach further comprising a tagging device that is configured to associate at least one identifying tag with the blade assembly.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kennedy teaches of a tagging device that is configured to associate at least one identifying tag with the blade assembly (wherein [0070] teaches the vision station includes a QR code scanning device that is configured to scan a QR code to obtain data symbol information regarding the blade(s); the system recognizes data and stores the data to a designated file).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated a QR code scanning system within the context of blade sharpening tools, as taught by Kennedy, into the invention of Bardsley. One would be motivated to do so in order to best keep track of the blades, including the number of times blades have been sharpened and whether additional processes have been performed on the blade (see [0070] of Kennedy). This information is valuable when considering reducing redundant sharpening or if a sharpening process has already been completed on a set of blades, or to monitor the steps of the sharpening process.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardsley (US 4285170) in view of Kennedy (US 2023/0049183), and in further view of Graves US 20190049183).
Regarding claim 27, Bardsley in view of Kennedy teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Bardsley does not explicitly teach wherein the tagging device is a printer that is configured to print the at least one identifying tag on the blade assembly.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Graves teaches of using the computer assembly (500) in conjunction with components such as printers, barcode scanners, and the like, i.e. wherein the tagging device is a printer that is configured to print the at least one identifying tag on the blade assembly (see [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a printer element into the tagging system of modified Bardsley, as taught by Graves. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide onsite printing to provide the appropriate tagging elements (see [0114] of Graves), and beneficially provide an internal organizing apparatus within the sharpening system.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardsley (US 4285170) in view of Graves (US 20190210177), and in further view of Worthington (US 8,827,772).
Regarding claim 28, Bardsley in view of Graves teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Bardsley does not explicitly teach further comprising the carrying tray, wherein the carrying tray comprises an identifier associated with at least one parameter of the blade assembly therein.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices for sharpening, Worthing teaches wherein the carrying tray comprises an identifier associated with at least one parameter of the blade assembly therein (wherein the blade housing 16 has an RFID tag associated with each housing, and wherein the RFID tag enables identification of the blade being sharpened; see Col. 3, line 45-Col. 4, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the RFID tagging system as taught by Worthington into the invention of modified Bardsley. One would be motivated to do so in order to allow the controller to specifically tailor the sharpening operation to the exact blade, including by taking account age and wear, and may also provide the ability to notify the user if the useful life of the blade has been reached or exceeded (see Col. 3, line 45-Col. 4, line 3).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardsley (US 4285170).
Regarding claim 29, Bardsley discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Bardsley further discloses wherein the grinder comprises a grinding wheel, wherein the grinder is configured to pass the grinding wheel across the tufting blades along a grinding axis (Col. 3, lines 24-28 disclose a grinding wheel, see also element 15; see the grinding axis shown in Figures 3 and 10, see also Col. 3, lines 1-7).
However, Bardsley is silent regarding the angle shown in Figure 3, and thus does not explicitly teach hat the grinding axis is within 20 degrees of parallel to the second axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Bardsley to have a grinding axis within 20 degrees of parallel to the second axis 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 angle range because the grinding wheel would still produce cutting edges on the knives as at the recited angle, the device would function appropriately within the claimed angle range. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that grinding wheel movement axis “can be parallel to the third axis 20 or within 30 degrees, within 20 degrees, or within 10 degrees…” [0051].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18, and 33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, when taking alone or in combination, does not anticipate, teach, or suggest the first blade alignment assembly (recited in claims 16 and 33) or the second blade alignment assembly (recited in claim 17) structurally disposed in and functioning as required by the claimed invention, in combination with all additionally recited elements.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights