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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner thanks Applicant for their election of Group II (claims 14-22), made without traverse on 10/30/2025. Additional claims 23-33 are also examined herein, and grouped within Group II.
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 9, 10, 16, 19, 20, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, please amend the claim to read “a first end of an arm tool”.
Regarding claim 10, please amend the claim to read “by the first end of the arm tool”.
Regarding claim 16, please amend “configure to” to “configured to”.
Regarding claim 19, please amend “a first end of arm tool” to reflect “a first end of an arm tool”.
Regarding claim 20, please amend “a second end of arm tool” to reflect “a second end of said arm tool”.
Regarding claim 26, please add a period at the end of the claim.
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 14-33 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.
Claims 14 and 30 each recite: “wherein the blade assembly has a first axis, a second axis that is parallel to the first axis, and a third axis that is perpendicular to each of the first and second 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”. It is unclear how the width axis (second axis) is parallel to the length axis (first axis). When seeking clarification from the specification, Figures 1 and 2 show first axis 16, second axis 18, and third axis 20, as well as grinding wheel movement axis 92. Neither the second nor third axes is parallel to the first axis. Examiner is interpreting the claim to impart that there are three axes of the blade assembly, as reflected within the specification.
Regarding claim 31, “a grinder” and “a grinding wheel” are recited. However, claim 31 depends from claim 29, and “a grinder” has antecedent basis established within independent claim 14, and “a grinding wheel” has antecedent basis established within claim 29. Examiner also kindly points out that Applicant may have intended claim 31 to depend from independent claim 30, not claim 29, as claim 31 recites the exact subject matter of the final limitation of claim 14 and a portion of the recitations of claim 29. For the purposes of examination, the claims are being interpreted “as is”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 31 recites the system of claim 29, further comprising a grinder that is configured to grind the tufting blades of the blade assembly held within the fixture, wherein the grinder comprises a grinding wheel. Claim 14 recites “a grinder that is configured to grind the tufting blades of the blade assembly held within the fixture”, and claim 29 recites, inter alia, “wherein the grinder comprises a grinding wheel”. Thus, claim 31 does not further limit the scope of the claimed invention, as all recitations of claim 31 are previously recited verbatim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 14-19, 21-24, and 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christenson (US 9,079,284) in view of Aberle (US 3,499,249).
Regarding claim 14, Christenson discloses a system comprising:
a blade assembly comprising a plurality of blades received within a blade block (see Figure 8 regarding the knife holder tray 200 and knives 2; wherein Examiner recognizes the intended workpiece type as a tufting blade, and wherein the prior art is configured to hold a variety of different blades, i.e. the prior art discloses the claimed invention as it is capable of holding blades and blade assemblies),
wherein the blade assembly has a first axis, a second axis that is parallel to the first axis, and a third axis that is perpendicular to each of the first and second axes (wherein the assembly of knives 2 has a first axis which is parallel to the longitudinal axes of the knives, as well as second and third axes),
wherein each blade of the plurality of 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 (please see Figures 7-10 regarding the individual axes of each knife),
wherein the plurality of blades are spaced from each other along the third axis (wherein the knives 2 are spaced apart from each other, as can be seen in Figure 9), wherein the blade assembly comprises at least one fastener that is configured to retain the plurality of blades in respective fixed positions relative to the blade block (Col. 8, lines 31-67 disclose fastener elements configured to retain the plurality of knives 2 in position);
a fixture that is configured to hold the blade assembly (see Figure 6); and
a grinder that is configured to grind the blades of the blade assembly held within the fixture (see grinder assembly 700 configured to grind knives 2 held within the fixture shown in Figure 6).
However, Christenson does not explicitly teach that the type of blades being sharpened includes a tufting blade.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Aberle (US 3,499,249) teaches of a system for sharpening the cutting edges of knives used in tufting machines, i.e. tufting blades (see Abstract, as well as Col. 2, lines 43-61; see also Col. 3, lines 15-46).
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 to ability to sharpen tufting blades, as taught by Aberle, into the invention of Christenson. One would be motivated to so do in order to increase the versatility of the device of Christenson by enabling a user to sharpen different types of blades. Furthermore, Christenson intimates and suggests alternative blade types, including scissors, shears, clippers, blades, or other cutting devices (Col. 6, lines 15-23), and thus already contemplates different applications for the apparatus. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. expanding the abilities of an apparatus to sharpen a different blade type, to improve a similar sharpening device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches 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 (wherein gripper mechanism 600 is configured to position each knife 2 of the plurality of knives; wherein gripper assembly 600 moves in a 3-D coordinate space, see arrows d, w, and h in Figure 1, as well as the drive assemblies disclosed in Col. 9, lines 6-25).
Regarding claim 16, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches wherein the first blade alignment assembly comprises a first linear actuator that is configured to move the plurality of tufting blades along the first axis in a first direction; and a second linear actuator coupled to a first guide, wherein the second linear actuator is configure to move the plurality of tufting blades with the first guide along the first axis in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (see at least drive assemblies 300, 400, and 500 disclosed in Col. 9, lines 6-25; wherein the first drive assembly 300 is described in Col. 9, lines 26-56; wherein the second drive assembly 400 is discloses in Col. 10, lines 22-46; wherein the third drive assembly 500 is disclosed in Col. 10, lines 47-63; see also Col. 11, lines 1-38).
Regarding claim 17, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches 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 (wherein the gripper assembly 600, using the drive assemblies 300, 400, and 500 as described above, replaces the knives 2 back into the tray 200 after treatment, i.e. the blades can be replaced into the appropriate tray and then later used for tufting; furthermore, the blades can be individually gripped).
Regarding claim 18, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches wherein the second blade alignment assembly comprises a first linear actuator that is configured to move the plurality of tufting blades along the first axis in the first direction; and a second linear actuator coupled to a second guide, wherein the second linear actuator is configure to move the plurality of tufting blades with the first guide along the first axis in the second direction (see at least drive assemblies 300, 400, and 500 disclosed in Col. 9, lines 6-25; wherein the first drive assembly 300 is described in Col. 9, lines 26-56; wherein the second drive assembly 400 is discloses in Col. 10, lines 22-46; wherein the third drive assembly 500 is disclosed in Col. 10, lines 47-63; see also Col. 11, lines 1-38).
Regarding claim 19, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches a first conveyor that is configured to receive a plurality of blade assemblies in a carrying tray (referring to Figures 6 and 12, wherein there are multiple blade assemblies in respective trays, and a drive system 300 comprising belts and pullies); and
a first end of arm tool that is configured to transfer each blade assembly of the plurality of blade assemblies from the carrying tray to a second conveyor (see at least Figure 7 regarding the several blade assemblies, as well as Figure 3; wherein as can be seen in Figure 24, the one tray is mounted for conveyance and grinding of the knives; see also wherein the gripper assembly 600, using the drive assemblies 300, 400, and 500).
Regarding claim 21, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches further comprising a visual inspection assembly that is configured to inspect each tufting blade of the blade assembly (wherein Col. 17, lines 56-67 disclose sensors 762 which sense the profiles of knives/blades; see also Col. 4, lines 13-22; see also sensor 608 as well as Col. 8, line 67-Col. 9, line 5; see also Col. 14, lines 8-33 regarding knife sensor 608).
Regarding claim 22, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches wherein the visual inspection assembly is configured to determine whether the blade assembly passes or fails at least one visual inspection metric (wherein knife sensor 608 is configured to detect the spine edge of each knife within respective trays 200, and wherein the knife position sensor 608 detect the presence or absence of a knife, i.e. failing or passing the visual inspection metric of presence; see Col. 14, lines 8-33).
Regarding claim 23, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches wherein the fixture is configured to hold a plurality of blade assemblies (please refer to Figure 6 regarding the several blade assemblies).
Regarding claim 24, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches further comprising a deburring station configured to debur the plurality of tufting blades (wherein Col. 19, lines 30-33 specifically disclose sand blasting and polishing as additional steps; see also Col. 17, lines 8-23 disclosing honing stones, finer honing stones, steeling rods 758).
Regarding claim 29, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches 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 that is within 20 degrees of parallel to the second axis (please see at least grinding station 702 of grinding assembly 700, grinding stones 724 and 732; Col. 14, lines 34-56; see also the pivoting action described in Col. 16, line 59-Col. 17, line 7; please also refer to the 112b rejection; wherein claim 1 recites the first axis is along the length of the blades, and wherein the second axis is parallel to the blade, but also recites that the second axis is in a width direction; wherein Col. 16, line 43-Col. 17, line 7 disclose that the grinding station 702 may pivot about axis 746, see Figure 26, to accommodate for the profile of the knife 2 and to keep grinding stones perpendicular to the curvature of the knife blade; wherein remaining perpendicular to the curvature of the knife blade would be along the axis that is parallel with the width of the blade, i.e. within 20 degrees of parallel of the second axis).
Regarding claim 30, Christenson discloses a system comprising:
a blade assembly comprising a plurality of blades received within a blade block (see Figure 8 regarding the knife holder tray 200 and knives 2),
wherein the blade assembly has a first axis, a second axis that is parallel to the first axis, and a third axis that is perpendicular to each of the first and second axes (wherein the assembly of knives 2 has a first axis which is parallel to the longitudinal axes of the knives, as well as second and third axes),
wherein each blade of the plurality of 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 (please see Figures 7-10 regarding the individual axes of each knife),
wherein the plurality of blades are spaced from each other along the third axis (wherein the knives 2 are spaced apart from each other, as can be seen in Figure 9), wherein the blade assembly comprises at least one fastener that is configured to retain the plurality of blades in respective fixed positions relative to the blade block (Col. 8, lines 31-67 disclose fastener elements configured to retain the plurality of knives 2 in position); and
a fixture that is configured to hold the blade assembly in a fixed position relative to a grinder (see Figure 6 regarding the structure that is configured to hold the assembly of knives, as well as grinder assembly 700).
However, Christenson does not explicitly teach that the type of blades being sharpened includes a tufting blade.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Aberle (US 3,499,249) teaches of a system for sharpening the cutting edges of knives used in tufting machines, i.e. tufting blades (see Abstract, as well as Col. 2, lines 43-61; see also Col. 3, lines 15-46).
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 to ability to sharpen tufting blades, as taught by Aberle, into the invention of Christenson. One would be motivated to so do in order to increase the versatility of the device of Christenson by enabling a user to sharpen different types of blades. Furthermore, Christenson intimates and suggests alternative blade types, including scissors, shears, clippers, blades, or other cutting devices (Col. 6, lines 15-23), and thus already contemplates different applications for the apparatus. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. expanding the abilities of an apparatus to sharpen a different blade type, to improve a similar sharpening device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 31, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches the system of claim 29, further comprising a grinder that is configured to grind the tufting blades of the blade assembly held within the fixture, wherein the grinder comprises a grinding wheel (please see at least grinding station 702 of grinding assembly 700, grinding stones 724 and 732; see also Col. 17, lines 8-23 disclosing honing stones, finer honing stones, steeling rods 758; see also Col. 19, lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 32, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches the system of claim 29, 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 (wherein gripper mechanism 600 is configured to position each knife 2 of the plurality of knives; wherein gripper assembly 600 moves in a 3-D coordinate space, see arrows d, w, and h in Figure 1, as well as the drive assemblies disclosed in Col. 9, lines 6-25).
Regarding claim 33, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches wherein the first blade alignment assembly comprises: a first linear actuator that is configured to move the plurality of tufting blades along the first axis in a first direction; and a second linear actuator coupled to a first guide, wherein the second linear actuator is configured to move the plurality of tufting blades with the first guide along the first axis in a second direction that is opposite the first direction (see at least drive assemblies 300, 400, and 500 disclosed in Col. 9, lines 6-25; wherein the first drive assembly 300 is described in Col. 9, lines 26-56; wherein the second drive assembly 400 is discloses in Col. 10, lines 22-46; wherein the third drive assembly 500 is disclosed in Col. 10, lines 47-63; see also Col. 11, lines 1-38).
Claim(s) 20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christenson (US 9,079,284) in view of Aberle (US 3,499,249), and in further view of Graves (US 2019/0210177).
Regarding claim 20, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Christenson does not explicitly teach further comprising a second end of arm tool 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.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices configured to sharpen blades, Graves teaches of a second end of arm tool that is configured to transfer blade assemblies from one position to another; see at least Figures 20-23, as well as [0036], [0058-0061], [0151-0154], and arm 142).
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 element, as taught by Graves, into the invention of Christenson. 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 that is an improvement over the gripping assembly of Christenson, see at least [0116], [0118-0119], [0021], and [0091]. 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
Regarding claim 25, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Christenson further teaches further comprising a cleaning station configured to remove previous markings from the blade assembly (Col. 4, lines 23-27; Col. 18, lines 6-14).
However, modified Christenson does not explicitly teach 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 wherein the cleaning station comprises a wire brush (see brush assembly 820, brushes 824, as well as [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 brush assembly, as taught by Graves, into the cleaning assembly of modified Christenson. 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), as solely spraying or using a cleaning agent may be ineffective when seeking to remove material from the surface of the blades (see [0108] of Graves). 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 Christenson (US 9,079,284) in view of Aberle (US 3,499,249), and in further view of Kennedy (US 2023/0049183).
Regarding claim 26, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Christenson does not explicitly teach 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 modified Christenson. 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 Christenson (US 9,079,284) in view of Aberle (US 3,499,249) and Kennedy (US 2023/0049183), and in further view of Graves (US 2019/0210177).
Regarding claim 27, Christenson in view of Aberle and Kennedy teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Christenson 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 Christenson, 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 Christenson (US 9,079,284) in view of Aberle (US 3,499,249) and in further view of Worthington (US 8,827,772).
Regarding claim 28, Christenson in view of Aberle teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Christenson does not explicitly teach further comprising the carrying tray, wherein the carrying tray comprises an identifier associated with at least one parameter of the plurality of blade assemblies 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 plurality of blade assemblies 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 Christenson. 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knecht (US 2011/0281503), see Abstract and Figure 1.
Ferguson (US 20100257711), see Figures 1A and 6.
Matsutani (US 5,155,943), see Figures 4 and 5.
Cox (US 4,602,576), see Figure 1.
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