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
Applicant’s amendments, in combination with Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of the response filed 1/14/2026, with respect to claim 9 were deemed sufficient to overcome the prior art rejection. The rejections are withdrawn herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 16-20 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. Please also refer to the indication of allowable subject matter below.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please amend ‘course’ to read ‘coarse’. 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, please amend the claim to reflect “wherein the plurality of arms comprises four arms” for clarification and antecedent basis purposes.
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) 1, 3, 8, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiocchetti (US 2006/0000312).
Regarding claim 1, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first platen configured to hold a first workpiece (see channels for supporting workpieces L, disclosed in [0044] and [0047]; see also Figure 1, element 3);
a first dressing board (see sharpening unit 80 comprising grinding wheels 81, 83); and
a blade holder (17) comprising a plurality of arms extending from a central axis, wherein the blade holder is configured to hold a blade at an end of each respective arm (see blades 19A, 19B, 19C located on respective arms of rotating unit 17),
wherein the blade holder is operable to rotate the plurality of arms around the central axis ([0046-0047]),
wherein the blade holder is configured to trim the first workpiece using at least one blade, wherein the blade holder is configured to dress at least one blade on the first dressing board ([0024]; see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chiocchetti ‘312 further discloses wherein the blade holder is configured to simultaneously dress one blade on the first dressing board and another blade on the second dressing board (wherein as can be seen in Figure 1A, each blade 19A, 19B, and 19C has a sharpening unit 80 which each comprise grinding wheels 81, 83, and wherein the blades 19A, 19B, and 19C may be simultaneously dressed; see also [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chiocchetti ‘312 further discloses wherein the first dressing board comprises a first region corresponding to a first blade grit size and a second region corresponding to a second blade grit size ([0022]: wherein the first grinding wheel has a first grit and the second grinding wheel has a second grit).
Regarding claim 16, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses a method comprising:
rotating a blade holder (17) to align a first blade of the blade holder with a first platen and a second blade of the blade holder with a first dressing board (see blades 19A, 19B, 19C, each having sharpening devices 80, and workpieces L provided in channels, see [0044], [0047], Figure 1, as well as grinding wheels 81, 83 of each sharpening unit 80);
trimming a first workpiece on the first platen using the first blade (see Figures 1, 2, and 3);
dressing the second blade using the first dressing board (see [0011], [0046], and [0059]; see Figure 4);
rotating the blade holder to align the second blade of the blade holder with the first platen (see [0046-0047], wherein element 17 rotates such that each blade 19A, 19B, 19C can cut a workpiece being held); and
trimming a second workpiece on the first platen using the second blade (wherein Figure 3 shows blade 19C trimming workpiece L).
Regarding claim 17, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chiocchetti ‘312 further discloses further comprising rotating the first dressing board after dressing the second blade (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 18, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Chiocchetti ‘312 further discloses wherein rotating the blade holder to align the first blade with the first workpiece also aligns a third blade with a third workpiece (see Figure 2, wherein there are multiple workpieces L and blades 19A, 19B, and 19C, wherein during rotation of element 17 about axis A-A, a first blade will come into alignment with a workpiece, and a third blade will sequentially become aligned with a workpiece).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti (US 2006/0000312).
Regarding claim 4, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Chiocchetti ‘312 does not explicitly teach wherein the blade holder has four arms.
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 an additional blade and arm, i.e. in addition to blades 19A, 19B, and 19C, into the invention of Chiocchetti ‘312. This modification would be considered a duplication of parts, i.e. providing one additional duplicate of the blade and arm configuration provided by Chiocchetti ‘312, wherein the additional blade and arm would perform the same function and operation as the other three disclosed by Chiocchetti ‘312 ; see MPEP 2144.04 (VI.)(B.). Chiocchetti ‘312 intimates modifications to the apparatus as shown (see [0082]), and one would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the wear on the other three blades by distributing the cutting work to four blades, i.e. leading to a reduction in the replacement frequency of blades, which is a goal noted by Chiocchetti ‘312 in [0007].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti (US 2006/0000312) in view of Francesconi (US 20230321857).
Regarding claim 5, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Chiocchetti ‘312 does not explicitly teach a sensor arm configured to measure a condition of a trimmed region of the first workpiece.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Francesconi teaches a sensor arm configured to measure a condition of a trimmed region of the first workpiece (see [0023-0026], wherein the inspection system comprising a vision system includes cameras to scan a set of quality values consisting of one or more photographic scans of a roll in output from the cutting machine).
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 teachings of Francesconi including the vision inspection system, into the invention of Chiocchetti. One would be motivated to do so in order to control the quality of the products in output which enables optimal sharpening of the cutting blade while avoiding unwanted edge losses and deformations in order to increase the working life of the tool, with consequent higher production rate and productivity levels (see [0015-0017]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti (US 2006/0000312) in view of Arndt (US 2014/0273761).
Regarding claim 6, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Chiocchetti ‘312 does not explicitly teach wherein the blade holder further comprises a sensor configured to measure a condition of the blade held at the end of a respective arm.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Arndt (US 2014/0273761) teaches wherein the blade holder further comprises a sensor configured to measure a condition of the blade held at the end of a respective arm ([0004]: sensor monitoring the condition of the blade’s edge).
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 sensor as taught by Arndt, into the invention of Chiocchetti ‘312. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable both manual and automatic sharpening, thus allowing for the blades to be maintained in a sharp condition without an operator initiating the sharpening sequence. By incorporating a sensor and monitoring structure, the blades are sharpened only when it is deemed necessary, thus reducing the overall frequency of sharpening operations and down-time of the blades, which is a goal of Chiocchetti’s (see [0007], [0010]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti (US 2006/0000312) in view of Pan (CN 209831278).
Regarding claim 7, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Chiocchetti ‘312 does not explicitly teach wherein each arm of the blade holder comprises an actuator, wherein each actuator is configured to extend or retract the blade at the end of the respective arm.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices incorporating multiple tools, Pan teaches wherein each arm of the blade holder comprises an actuator, wherein each actuator is configured to extend or retract the blade at the end of the respective arm (see advancing and retreating taught in lines 799-804; 882-893).
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 advancing and retreating mechanism as taught by Pan, into the invention of Chiocchetti ‘312. One would be motivated to do so because as noted by Chiocchetti ‘312, as a blade is used, the diameter of the blade wears away and decreases ([0007]); the incorporation of the advancing and retreating mechanisms would act as a compensation for the diameter decreasing, thus extending the life of the blade further, such that the blade can be worn, but sharpened and used again.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti (US 2006/0000312) in view of Sung (US 2003/0084894).
Regarding claim 20, Chiocchetti ‘312 discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Chiocchetti ‘312 does not explicitly teach wherein the first blade has a course grit size and the second blade has a fine grit size.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of saw blade devices, Sung teaches of multiple blades having various grit sizes, i.e. a coarse grit size and a fine grit size ([0006], [0012], [0045], [0137], [0142).
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 various grit sizes into the blades of Chiocchetti, as taught by Sung. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the wear characteristics of the bladed tool, and resist premature wear, thereby extending the cutting tool’s useful life (see [0142], [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 19 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:
Regarding claims 9-15, the amendments are arguments submitted in the recent response were deemed sufficient to overcome the prior art of record. The prior art does not anticipate, teach, or suggest the combination of elements disposed in and functioning as required by the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, the subject matter recited by claims 2 and 19 would require the blades of Chiocchetti to perform cutting operations simultaneously, which would require extensive modification to the apparatus disclosed by Chiochetti, i.e. logs being trimmed above and below the work table.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights