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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 30 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12 February 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 20 recites, “sharpening the starting from an initial inoperative position;”. This line includes no markings indicating any deletions relative to the prior version of the claims (i.e., relative to the prior version of the claims as filed 29 December 2025). However, in the prior version of the claims as filed 29 December 2025, this same phrase reads – sharpening the blade starting from an initial inoperative position; –. The word “blade” appears to have been inadvertently omitted from claim 1 at line 20 as filed 30 April 2026. Therefore, claim 1 at line 20 should be amended as follows: – sharpening the blade starting from an initial inoperative position; –.
Claim 1 at the paragraph at lines 29-35 should be amended as indicated below:
- in a first phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels, said one or more primary actuators used to move the primary carriage are controlled by the control unit based on a signal generated by a cutting edge detection sensor, the cutting edge detection sensor the cutting edge of the blade, and the control unit interrupts a run of the primary carriage along the primary direction after a detection of the cutting edge by the cutting edge detection sensor such that the run of the primary carriage along the primary direction is correlated to the actual diameter of the blade; and
These amendments reduce the run-on nature of the recitation and make clear that the control unit, rather than the cutting edge detection sensor, is the structure that interrupts the run of the primary carriage.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0078134 A1 to Chiocchetti et al. in view of WO 2007/097724 A2 to Karavelioglu.
Regarding claim 1, Chiocchetti discloses a cutting-off machine 1 (see Fig. 1) for transversal cutting of logs 3 of paper material (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 37), comprising:
- a structure 7 (the structure 7 of Chiocchetti including channels 9) on which are moved the logs 3 to be transversely cut in order to obtain rolls 5 of shorter length (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 39);
- a cutting unit 15 arranged at a predetermined position of said structure 7 (see Fig. 1; the position is ‘predetermined’ with respect to at least the motor 21 and chain 23) and comprising a support plate 19 for a blade 17 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 40), wherein the blade 17 is removably connected to a respective rotary actuator 25 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 43 disclosing the blade 17 being connected to the rotary actuator 25, noting that ‘connected to’ encompasses an indirect connection via intermediary components; see paragraphs 69-70 disclosing the blade 17 being ‘removable’ since the blade can be replaced), the rotary actuator 25 being arranged at one end of said plate 19 (the rotary actuator 25 being arranged at an upper end of the plate 19 relative to Fig. 1; noting that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘at’ includes in, on, or near, such that the rotary actuator 25 being near the upper end of the plate 19 satisfies this limitation) and adapted to control a rotation of the blade 17 around an axis of rotation A-A of the blade 17 with a predetermined speed (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 42; per paragraph 45, the control unit 39 controls the actuator 25, such that the speed of rotation is ‘predetermined’ due to being determined by logic of the control unit 39), the blade 17 being arranged along a plane (see Fig. 1, where the blade 17 is arranged along a plane that extends vertically), the plane orthogonal to said axis of rotation A-A in a pre-established position in the cutting unit 15 (see Fig. 1, where the plane extends vertically and the axis of rotation A-A extends horizontally), the blade 17 having a cutting edge 18 whose diameter defines an actual diameter of the blade 17 (see Fig. 2, where the cutting edge 18 is at the circumference of the blade 17, such that the cutting edge 18 defines an actual diameter of the blade 17);
- a sharpening unit 29 with two grinding wheels 47 (see Fig. 1), the grinding wheels 47 being adapted to sharpen the blade 17 on opposite sides with respect to said plane (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 47) and equipped with an abrasive side (each of the wheels 47 has an abrasive side that contacts the blade 17; the sides of the wheels 47 that contact the blade 17 are ‘abrasive’ because these sides perform a grinding operation per paragraph 47), the sharpening unit 29 providing a sharpening operation of the blade 17 (see paragraph 47);
- a positioning device (having the primary carriage 31 and secondary carriages discussed below) for positioning said grinding wheels 47 with respect to the blade 17 (see Figs. 2 and 3), by means of which each of the grinding wheels 47 is arranged in a position of contact of the abrasive side of the grinding wheels 47 with the blade 17 in a step of sharpening the blade 17 starting from an initial inoperative position (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 44-45 and 48; the ‘initial inoperative position’ can be a position at which the primary carriage 31 is moved as far radially from the blade 17 as permitted by the threaded bar 41);
wherein
- said positioning device comprises a primary carriage 31 that is movable along a primary direction f31 radially with respect to the blade 17 (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 45-46), starting from an initial waiting position (an uppermost position of the primary carriage 31 along the threaded bar 41 as is evident from Fig. 2), by means of one or more primary actuators 37 (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 45-46), two secondary carriages 55 (see Fig. 3 and paragraph 54; per paragraphs 51 and 67, each of the two grinding wheels 47 can be provided with the structure illustrated in Fig. 3; the broadest reasonable interpretation of a ‘carriage’ includes a movable part of a machine for supporting some other movable object or part, such that element 55 fits this definition due to being movable axially by the secondary actuator 61 and due to supporting the shaft 51 and grinding wheel 47) each of which is supported by the primary carriage 31 (see Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 47) and is movable along a secondary direction parallel to the axis of rotation A-A of the blade 17 by means of a corresponding secondary actuator 61 (see Figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs 13, 55, and 57; the secondary carriages 55 are ‘movable along’ a direction parallel to axis A-A because the secondary carriages 55 are movable in the direction f61, and the direction f61 has a component along the axis A-A; note that the claim merely requires that the secondary carriages are ‘movable along’ the secondary direction, which is satisfied because movement of the carriages 55 includes a component in a left-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1 – in other words, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘movable along’ is satisfied even if the movement of the carriages 55 is at a slight angle relative to secondary direction because the movement of the carriages includes movement along the secondary direction), and a control unit 39 that is programmed to control the one or more primary actuators 37;
- in a first phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47, said one or more primary actuators 37 used to move the primary carriage 31 are controlled by the control unit 39 based on a signal generated by a cutting edge detection sensor 63 which detects the cutting edge of the blade 17 (see Figs. 1 and 2 showing contact between the grinding wheels 47 and the cutting edge of the blade 17 that is detected by the sensor 63; per paragraphs 62-64, the sensor 63 detects the cutting edge of the blade 17 by detecting a force in the direction S shown in Fig. 3 that occurs as a result of contact between the respective grinding wheel 47 and the cutting edge of the blade 17) and [the control unit 39] interrupts a run of the primary carriage 31 along the primary direction f31 after a detection of the cutting edge by the cutting edge detection sensor 63 such that the run of the primary carriage 31 along the primary direction f31 is correlated to the actual diameter of the blade 17 (see paragraphs 64 and 71); and
- in a second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47 which involves sharpening the blade 17 following the contact of the grinding wheels 47 with the blade 17 (the second phase occurring when the grinding wheels are in the operative position, such as following movement from the idle position per paragraph 13; note that the terms ‘first phase’ and ‘second phase’ are merely names of the phases and are not interpreted as requiring any particular order of operations that occur; regardless, even if the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ are interpreted as temporal requirements, the ‘second phase’ regardless takes place following the ‘first phase’ because the second phase extends to include the time during which the grinding wheels 47 contact the blade 17, whereas the first phase ends when the run of the primary carriage is interrupted), the secondary actuators 61 are controlled, so as to push the abrasive side of the grinding wheels 47 against the blade 17 with a thrust f61 having a predetermined value (see paragraphs 13 and 55, the latter of which discloses the predetermined value of the thrust f61 as the ‘fixed’ value; see also paragraph 63 describing the thrust f61 as a known value), the thrust f61 being constant and not interrupted during the second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47 (see paragraph 55, where the thrust is ‘constant and not interrupted’ because the value of the thrust is “fixed”; the thrust f61 continues throughout the grinding operation consistent with, e.g., paragraphs 13 and 61, which describe the thrust as moving the grinding wheels 47 into the operative position and also as eliminating parasitic forces that occur during grinding, such as vibrations; note also that the ‘thrust’ that is constant and not interrupted is the thrust applied to the grinding wheels 47 by the secondary actuators 61, rather than the thrust acting on the blade 17 from the grinding wheels 47 – this is the same ‘constant and not interrupted’ thrust as disclosed in the present application1), the second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47 extending from a beginning of the sharpening operation to a completion of the sharpening operation (the second phase beginning when the run of the primary carriage 31 is stopped and continuing through sharpening, since the grinding wheels 47 are held in contact with the blade 17 during this time period; see paragraphs 13 and 61 as evidence that the secondary actuators 61 continue to exert the thrust f61 on the grinding wheels 47 during sharpening).
Regarding claim 2, Chiocchetti discloses that the cutting edge detector sensor 63 is constrained to the primary carriage 31 (see Figs. 1 and 2, where the sensor 63 is ‘constrained to’ the primary carriage 31 because the sensor 63 necessarily moves as a result of movement of the carriage; note that ‘constrained to’ does not require that the sensor is directly connected to the primary carriage).
Regarding claim 3, Chiocchetti discloses that the primary carriage is made by (the phrase ‘made by’ is interpreted as open-ended, synonymous with ‘comprising’ or ‘including’) two independent units 35 (the units 35 being ‘independent’ because each of the units 35 performs its own guiding function, with the two units 35 being guided by separate tracks 33; put another way, since each unit 35 is guided by its own track 33, the units 35 are not dependent upon each other, but are instead dependent upon their respective tracks 33).
Regarding claim 4, Chiocchetti discloses that the thrust is increased as the actual diameter of the blade decreases (first, claim 4 is an apparatus claim, rather than a method claim, and the manner of operating an apparatus does not distinguish over the prior art in accordance with MPEP 2114(II); second, as disclosed by Chiocchetti, the thrust of the grinding wheels 47 is adjustable per paragraph 55, such that the structure of Chiocchetti has the ability to increase the thrust as the diameter decreases, such as by the operator increasing the thrust following several grinding operations, which grinding operations decrease the diameter of the blade; note also that claim 4 makes no requirement of any controller programmed to increase the thrust in response to a detection of a particular diameter of the blade, such that claim 4 is merely reciting a mode of operating the device; finally, claim 4 does not specify what the thrust is increased relative to, such that Chiocchetti discloses that the thrust is increased during each grinding operation compared to a time between grinding operations, and Chiocchetti also discloses that multiple grinding operations occur at different blade diameters, such that Chiocchetti discloses that the thrust is increased during a griding operation compared to a non-grinding operation that takes place at a larger diameter of the blade).
Regarding claim 7, Chiocchetti discloses that between a sharpening step of the blade 17 and a subsequent sharpening step of the blade 17 (the cutting-off machine 1 of Chiocchetti is usable to sharpen the blade 17 multiple different times, such as moving the grinding wheels 47 to the idle position between sharpening operations consistent with paragraph 13 and moving the slide away from the blade 17 consistent with paragraph 64; note that claim 7 is an apparatus claim, not a method claim, so the manner of operating the machine does not distinguish over Chiocchetti consistent with MPEP 2114(II)), a second blade 17 rotation speed varies between 95% and 105% compared to a predetermined nominal value (this feature is satisfied because no requirement is made of the ‘predetermined nominal value’; indeed, the definition of ‘nominal’ includes existing in name only, such that regardless of what the blade rotational speed is, the speed is between 95% and 105% of some potential value; since no requirement is made of the predetermined nominal value, the blade rotation speed can be compared to a value X, where X is 105% to 95% of the speed of the blade; finally, claim 7 is an apparatus claim, rather than a method claim, and Chiocchetti discloses sufficient structure to be operated in a mode where the blade speed varies between sharpening operations, such as by turning the machine off and then back on between sharpening operations, where the blade speed decreases to zero when the machine is off and then increases back to a cutting speed when cutting is resumed).
Regarding claim 8, Chiocchetti discloses that the primary carriage 31 is constrained on an internal side by means of a linear guide 33 (see Figs. 1 and 2; relative to Fig. 1, the ‘internal side’ of the carriage 31 is a right side) and the linear guide 33 allows the primary carriage to slide along the primary direction f31 (see Fig. 2 and paragraph 44).
Chiocchetti discloses that the secondary actuators are controlled by some undisclosed structure (see the secondary actuators being described as ‘controlled’ at paragraph 13), and Chiocchetti further discloses that the control unit controls “the instrumentation of the cutting machine” (see paragraph 58). However, since Chiocchetti does not explicitly and unambiguously state that the control unit controls the secondary actuators, Chiocchetti is considered as failing to disclose that the secondary actuators are controlled by the control unit and that the control unit is programmed to control the secondary actuators as required by claim 1.
Karavelioglu teaches a control unit that is programmed to control secondary actuators (see page 6, lines 8-11; note also that the grinding is automatic without any support of from any user per page 5, lines 8-11). Having the control unit programmed to control the secondary actuators is advantageous because the control unit is able to automatically control operation of the grinding operation (see Karavelioglu at page 7, lines 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure and program the control unit of Chiocchetti to control the secondary actuators in view of the teachings of Karavelioglu. This modification is advantageous because by having the control unit control the secondary actuators, operation of the machine of Chiocchetti can be performed automatically. For example, the movement of the grinding wheels between the operative and idle positions as contemplated by Chiocchetti (see paragraph 13) can be automated, such that an operator need not manually control movement of the grinding wheels.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti as modified by Karavelioglu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0282395 A1 to Mazzaccherini et al.
Relevant to claims 5 and 6, Chiocchetti, as modified, discloses that in said second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47, the force provided by the secondary actuators 61 is a predetermined value (see Chiocchetti at paragraph 55 – the predetermined value is the fixed value).
Relevant to claim 6, Chiocchetti, as modified, discloses that the force provided by the secondary actuators 61 can be increased as a diameter of the blade 17 decreases (this functional recitation is satisfied because Chiocchetti discloses that the force can be set by the operator – since the force can be set by the operator, the operator can elect to increase or decrease the force, including at a time when the diameter of the blade is reduced, such as after performing several sharpening operations with an initial force value; note that claim 6 is not a method claim and that claim 6 does not require a control unit, or similar structure, that controls the force to increase as the blade diameter decreases; instead, claim 6 is merely describing a manner of operating the claimed device, and Chiocchetti, as modified, discloses structure that enables the force to be increased as a diameter of the blade decreases due to the operator being able to set the force).
Chiocchetti, as modified, fails to disclose that the secondary actuators are each driven by a corresponding electric motor, and in said second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels, said electric motors provide a predetermined torque as required by claims 5 and 6. Chiocchetti, as modified, also fails to disclose that the torque provided by said electric motors is increased as a diameter of the blade decreases as required by claim 6.
Mazzaccherini though, teaches an actuators for axially moving grinding wheel (which is the same function as the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti, as modified) that are electric motors (see paragraph 130).
Noting that Chiocchetti explicitly discloses that the actuators can take different forms (see page paragraph 12 of Chiocchetti), it would have been obvious to one of under skill in the art under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results to substitute an electric motor as taught by Mazzaccherini for each of the secondary actuators disclosed by Chiocchetti, as modified. First, Chiocchetti, as modified, differs from the claimed invention by substitution of an electric motor in place of each of the secondary actuators disclosed by Chiocchetti. Mazzaccherini teaches electric motors that perform the exact same function as the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti, as modified – namely, moving grinding wheels axially into contact with a blade. One of ordinary skill in that art could have substituted an electric motor in place of each of the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti, as modified, and the results of this substitution would have been predictable because (1) Chiocchetti explicitly disclosed that different types of secondary actuators can be provided and (2) Mazzaccherini teaches electric motors that perform the exact same function as the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti. Furthermore, since Chiocchetti, as modified, desires an adjustable pressing force for the grinding wheels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electric motors with a predetermined torque, where the predetermined torque is adjustable to achieve the desired pressing force (i.e., this modification includes being able to control the torque to achieve the desired pressing force in view of the combined teachings of the references). Further still, since the pressing force is adjustable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the electric motors to be able to provide a torque that increases as the diameter of the blade decreases – this feature merely results from the adjustability of the pressing force of the grinding wheels (e.g., if an operator opts to increase the pressing force as the blade’s diameter is reduced; note again that this feature is in an apparatus claim, not a method claim, and also note that the claim makes no require that a controller increases the torque in response to a detection of a particular diameter; a manner of operating the device does not distinguish over prior art disclosing the structure required by the claim per MPEP 2114(II)).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti as modified by Karavelioglu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 2 030 515 A2 to Steiner.
Chiocchetti, as modified, fails to disclose that the contact between the abrasive side of the wheels and the blade is detected by detecting a slowdown of the blade as required by claim 11.
Steiner, though, teaches that it is known in the art to detect contact between an abrasive wheel and a blade by detecting slowdown of the blade (see the second paragraph at page 2 of the English translation of Steiner; detecting the speed as taught by Steiner encompasses detecting a slowdown, since a slowdown is a speed detection indicating that the speed has decreased).
Chiocchetti, as modified, acknowledges that anomalous situations occur and that an operator is notified when an anomalous situation occurs (see paragraphs 67-68 of Chiocchetti). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chiocchetti, as modified, to further include detecting contact between the wheels and blade of Chiocchetti, as modified, by detecting the speed of the blade, inclusive of any slowdowns of the blade, in view of the teachings of Steiner. This modification is advantageous because the modification allows the operator of the machine to receive additional information related to any anomalous situation in order to better diagnose the anomalous situation. For example, in the event one or more of the sensors that detects the force exerted on the grinding wheels of Chiocchetti, as modified, malfunctions, this modification provides additional information from which the operator can more easily determine that the one or more of the sensors has malfunctioned. If the blade speed indicates that contact is occurring between the grinding wheels and the blade, but if the one or more sensors that detect force do not indicate any change in detected force, then the operator has information from which the operator can determine that the one or more sensors that detect force are potentially malfunctioning. Rather than replace the blade, the operator is altered to the possibility that one of the sensors that detects force has malfunctioned. As such, this modification is advantageous to provide additional information that is advantageous for the purpose of troubleshooting any malfunction.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti as modified by Karavelioglu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0282395 A1 to Mazzaccherini et al.
Relevant to claim 12, Chiocchetti, as modified, discloses that in said second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47, the force provided by the secondary actuators 61 is a predetermined value (see Chiocchetti at paragraph 55 – the predetermined value is the fixed value).
Chiocchetti, as modified, fails to disclose that the secondary actuators are each driven by a corresponding electric motor, and in said second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels, said electric motors provide a predetermined torque and the contact between the abrasive side of the grinding wheels and the blade is detected by detecting a stop of said electric motors resulting from the contact between the grinding wheels and the blade as required by claim 12.
First, Mazzaccherini though, teaches actuators for axially moving grinding wheels (which is the same function as the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti, as modified) that are electric motors (see paragraph 130).
Noting that Chiocchetti explicitly discloses that the actuators can take different forms (see page paragraph 12 of Chiocchetti), it would have been obvious to one of under skill in the art under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results to substitute an electric motor as taught by Mazzaccherini for each of the secondary actuators disclosed by Chiocchetti, as modified. First, Chiocchetti, as modified, differs from the claimed invention by substitution of an electric motor in place of each of the secondary actuators disclosed by Chiocchetti. Mazzaccherini teaches electric motors that perform the exact same function as the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti, as modified – namely, moving grinding wheels axially into contact with a blade. One of ordinary skill in that art could have substituted an electric motor in place of each of the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti, as modified, and the results of this substitution would have been predictable because (1) Chiocchetti explicitly disclosed that different types of secondary actuators can be provided and (2) Mazzaccherini teaches electric motors that perform the exact same function as the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti. Furthermore, since Chiocchetti, as modified, teaches that the thrust exerted by the grinding wheels can have a fixed value (see Chiocchetti at paragraph 55), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the electric motors to provide a predetermined torque, at least when the fixed thrust value is selected, since the torque provided by the motors determines the thrust values of the grinding wheels. Note also that the electric motors providing a predetermined torque is merely a manner of operating the machine which does not structurally distinguish over the structure of Chiocchetti, as modified.
Second, regarding the recitation, “the contact between the abrasive side of the grinding wheels and the blade is detected by detecting a stop of said electric motors resulting from the contact between the grinding wheels and the blade”, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this recitation is merely a manner of operating the recited machine. This recitation does not require any structure that detects the stop of the electric motor, and therefore this recitation encompasses a human operator detecting the stop of the electric motor (e.g., audibly or visually). Per MPEP 2114, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. In the case of claim 12, Chiocchetti, as modified, teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, since the claim makes no requirement of any structure that detects a stop of the electric motors. For example, the claim does not require any sensor that detects a rotational speed of the electric motors. Moreover, a human operator of the machine of Chiocchetti, as modified, is able to observe (e.g., either visually or audibly) that one of the electric motors of Chiocchetti, as modified, has stopped, such as by audibly hearing a stop of the electric motor or such as by observing a stationary grinding wheel. When using the machine of Chiocchetti, as modified, if one of the grinding wheels is pressed sufficiently hard against the blade to stop the electric motor of the grinding wheel, an observer is able to detect that the grinding wheel is in contact with the blade by observing the stopping of the electric motor via stoppage of the grinding wheel. Since claim 12 makes no requirement of any structure that detects the stoppage of the electric motor, and since a human operator is able to detect stoppage of the motor either audibly or via observance of the grinding wheel, Chiocchetti, as modified, discloses the features of claim 12. Claim 12 in describing the contact being detected attempts to distinguish over the prior art only by reciting a manner of operating the claim machine, rather than a structure that performs the recited function. If the claim required, e.g., a sensor that detects the stoppage of the electric motor, then the examiner would not make this rejection. However, since the claim makes no requirement of any structure that detects the stop of the motor, and since an operator is able to detect a stop of the motor, the manner of detecting contact recited in claim 12 does not distinguish over the prior art. The examiner suggests reciting some structure of the machine that detects the stop of the electric motor to overcome this rejection.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiocchetti as modified by Karavelioglu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0284277 A1 to Casella et al., as evidenced by Karavelioglu.
Chiocchetti, as modified, also fails to disclose that said sensor is an optical sensor or an inductive sensor or an ultrasonic sensor as required by claim 13.
Casella teaches providing a positioning device for positioning grinding wheels 5 with a cutting edge detection sensor that is an optical sensor 15 (see Fig. 1, where the positioning device includes carriage 6; see paragraphs 29-30; paragraph 30 discloses the sensor 15 being an optical sensor, since the sensor 15 can include an optical receiver/detector). Casella teaches that providing an optical sensor for measuring a distance to a blade is advantageous for detecting a deformation of the blade (see paragraph 29), and Casella teaches that blade deformation is an indication that a blade is too hot for use and that precautionary steps (such as pausing cutting) should be taken (see paragraphs 3 and 4). Furthermore, it is known in the art that a sensor mounted on a positioning device that carries grinding wheels is advantageous to aid in positioning of the grinding wheels with respect to the blade (see Karavelioglu at page 2, lines 20-25 and page 7, lines 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Chiocchetti, as modified, with an additional sensor in the form of an optical sensor in view of the teachings of Casella. This modification is advantageous for multiple reasons. For one, the modification allows for determining when the blade is deformed due to, e.g., overheating, and thus allows the control unit to take corrective action (such as stopping cutting to allow the blade to cool) so that the blade does not become damaged. Further, the modification is advantageous because signals provided by the optical sensor are further usable to determine the alignment of the grinding wheels with respect to the blade as acknowledged by Karavelioglu. Thus, this modification provides additional information usable to determine that the grinding wheels are properly aligned with the blade. As acknowledged by Chiocchetti, anomalous situations are detected by the sensors of Chiocchetti, and this modification provides additional information in the event of an anomalous situation so that a more appropriate corrective action can be taken. For example, following this modification, if the optical sensor of Chiocchetti, as thus modification, determines that the grinding wheels are properly aligned with the blade, but the force sensors of Chiocchetti fail to register any force, this situation can be an indication that the grinding wheels are positioned too far axially away from the blade (rather than being too far radially from the blade). The use of only force sensors provides no indication regarding whether the force sensors failing to register a force is indicative of too great of radial spacing of the grinding wheels with respect to the blade or too greater of axial spacing of the grinding wheels with respect to the blade, whereas providing the optical sensor provides additional information related to the position of the grinding wheels with respect to the blade. Thus, the use of two types of sensors to determine alignment between the grinding wheels and blade allows for a better determination of the correction action that should be taken to properly grind the blade compared to providing only one type of sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 (along with the objections to claim 1 set forth herein being resolved).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests, “wherein each of said independent units has a first side parallel to an internal side of the plate and a second side orthogonal and underlying the first side, each of the first sides slides along a respective guide, and each of the second sides constitutes a bracket structure” as recited by claim 9, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 9. Similarly, no known reference teaches or suggests, “wherein each of said independent units has a first side parallel to an internal side of the plate and a second side orthogonal and underlying the first side, each of the first sides slides along a respective guide, and each of the second sides constitutes a bracket structure” as required by claim 10, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Prior to addressing the Applicant’s arguments, the examiner notes that the inventive cutting-off machine as disclosed in the specification positions the grinding wheels in a different manner than Chiocchetti. In the inventive cutting-off machine as disclosed in the present specification, at the interruption of the run of the primary carriage, the grinding wheels are positioned spaced from the blade. Then, the inventive cutting-off machine as disclosed in the present specification activates the motors that form the secondary actuators at a constant torque to urge the grinding wheels to move into contact with the blade. However, in Chiocchetti, the grinding wheels contact the blade to indicate when to interrupt the run of the primary carriage. As such, the grinding wheels of Chiocchetti are in contact with the blade, rather than spaced from the blade, at the time the run of the primary carriage is interrupted. The force provided by the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti is used to determine when the grinding wheels contact the blade, so the grinding wheels of Chiocchetti must contact the blade at the interruption of the run of the primary carriage. However, the present claims do not capture this distinction. Thus, while the examiner acknowledges that the secondary actuators as disclosed in the present specification perform a different function than the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti, the language of claim 1 does not capture this distinction. The examiner suggests more particularly describing how the control unit is programmed to control the secondary actuators to move the grinding wheels from a position spaced from the blade to a position in contact with the blade following the interruption of the run as one avenue for the Applicant to amend claim 1 to overcome the present rejections under 35 USC 103. The examiner below provides an additional suggestion for overcoming several rejections of dependent claims. The examiner would welcome a telephonic interview to the extent that Applicant has any further questions regarding claim interpretation, in particular with respect to claims reciting features that can be interpreted as manners of operating the claimed cutting machine.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant at paragraph A. at pages 8-9 of the Remarks argues that Chiocchetti “teaches a pre-load used only for detecting contact, not a constant thrust maintained during sharpening” and that Chiocchetti teaches “a force-feedback system that inherently requires a variable thrust”. These arguments are not persuasive. Paragraph 13 of Chiocchetti teaches that the pre-load brings the grinding wheels into the operative position and is removable to bring the grinding wheels to an idle position, so the pre-load is retained while the grinding wheels are in the operative position (i.e., during grinding). Removal of the pre-load removes the grinding wheels from the operative position – without the pre-load force, the grinding wheels are not urged against the blade. Therefore, the pre-load force is retained throughout the blade sharpening operation in order to retain the grinding wheels in the operative positions. Paragraph 61 of Chiocchetti provides further support that the pre-load continues throughout the blade sharpening operation, since the preload eliminates ‘parasitic’ forces acting on the grinding unit such as vibrations – the grinding wheels are pressed against the blade as a result of the pre-load force in order to remove these parasitic forces. Thus, Chiocchetti’s pre-load continues to be applied during the sharpening operation as evidenced by paragraph 61.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the thrust of Chiocchetti is variable, this argument is also not persuasive. The force exerted by the secondary actuators 61 is fixed, and this is the force described in claim 1 at the final paragraph. Not only that, but in Chiocchetti, the variation is force between the grinding wheels and the blade is remedied by altering the movement amount of the primary carriage, such as altering the movement amount of the primary carriage for a subsequent grinding operation (see paragraph 64), not by altering the pre-load force of the secondary actuators. Since paragraph 64 of Chiocchetti contemplates altering the primary carriage’s magnitude of movement for a subsequent sharpening operation, paragraph 64 of Chiocchetti teaches that the forces exerted on the grinding wheels by both the primary and secondary actuators is constant during the sharpening operation. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments related to the force-feedback system necessitating a variable thrust are not persuasive – the feedback system of Chiocchetti retains the pre-load force during the sharpening operation, thus satisfying the requirement that the secondary actuators push the abrasive side of the grinding wheels against the blade with a thrust having a predetermined, constant, not interrupted value.
Also regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s argument against Karavelioglu at paragraph B. on page 9 is not persuasive because Karavelioglu is only relied upon for teaching programming the control unit of Chiocchetti to perform operations already contemplated by Chiocchetti. Karavelioglu is not relied upon for teaching the constant thrust, and therefore Applicant’s argument against Karavelioglu is not persuasive. The modification of Chiocchetti in view of Karavelioglu merely configures the control unit of Chiocchetti to further control the secondary actuators in the manner already contemplated by Chiocchetti.
Still regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s argument against the modification of Chiocchetti in view of Karavelioglu at paragraph D. on page 9 is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that there is not motivation to modify Chiocchetti to include a constant thrust. However, the constant thrust is disclosed by Chiocchetti prior to the modification, so the motivation need not be related to providing the constant thrust. Instead, the motivation is to configure the control unit of Chiocchetti to control the secondary actuators in the manner already contemplated by Chiocchetti, where having the control unit control the secondary actuators improves automation of the cutting device compared to an operator having to control the secondary actuators.
Applicant’s argument at paragraph E. on pages 9-10 of the Remarks is not persuasive. Chiocchetti does teach that secondary actuators 61 provide a constant, uninterrupted thrust, yet the Applicant does not address this thrust in the arguments. Moreover, the ‘dynamic’ thrust of Chiocchetti results from movement of the primary carriage between sharpening operations in at least one embodiment of Chiocchetti, rather than being dynamic during the sharpening operation. Applicant’s assertion against ‘routine optimization’ is a red herring, so no routine optimization assertion is being made in the rejection at issue. Thus, the arguments of paragraph E. are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claim 2 are not persuasive because the arguments fail to contemplate the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Claim 2 merely requires that the cutting edge detection sensor “is constrained to the primary carriage”. In Chiocchetti, the sensor is constrained to the primary carriage because the sensor always moves with the primary carriage and is stationary when the primary carriage is stationary. The phrase “constrained to” is broader than a phrase such as ‘directly mounted on’, and therefore the sensor of Chiocchetti is “constrained to the primary carriage” since all movement of the primary carriage results in corresponding movement of the sensor. The Applicant’s argument is against some ‘fixed geometric relationship between the sensor and the grinding wheels’ that is not recited in the claims. The examiner suggests the Applicant more particularly define the position of the sensor to overcome this rejection.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of claim 3 are not persuasive because the arguments fail to appreciate the breadth of the claim. The claim encompasses the carriage being “made by two independent units”, but the units need not be the same as the independent units disclosed in the present application. The claim merely requires two ‘independent units’ being encompassed by the primary carriage without structurally describing any features of the two independent units. The units need not be, for example, driven by separate motors, even if the independent units disclosed in the present application are driven by separate motors. Nothing in claim 3 requires “extra motors, guides, and control complexity” that the Applicant argues are required. Chiocchetti teaches two ‘independent units’, even if the independent units of Chiocchetti different from the two independent units disclosed in the present specification. Once again, the examiner suggests the Applicant amend the claim language to further describe the two ‘independent units’ to distinguish over Chiocchetti’s two independent units. The examiner agrees that the two independent units of the primary carriage having all the features disclosed in the present specification are not disclosed by Chiocchetti, but claim 3 does not require the two independent units to have all the features of the two independent units disclosed in the present specification. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it relies on an overly narrow interpretation of claim 3.
Applicant’s arguments against claim 4 are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that features of the present specification are required, but this is not the case. That is, the Applicant asserts that the system increases the thrust as the diameter of the blade decreases. However, this argument is not commensurate with the claim language. The claim language merely describes a manner of operating the device because no structure of the cutting-off machine that performs the recited function is specified in the claim. The examiner would not make this rejection if the claim read – wherein the control unit is programmed to increase the thrust for a subsequent sharpening operation – or otherwise specify that the control unit is the structure that increases the thrust. However, the claim makes no such requirement. The claim encompasses an operator electing to increase the thrust during a subsequent sharpening operation. The Applicant’s argument assumes that claim 4 is satisfied only if the cutting-machine automatically, on its own, increases the thrust as the diameter of the blade decreases, but the claim makes no such requirement. Claim 4 can be amended to overcome this rejection by amending the claim to be commensurate with what the Applicant asserts the claim already requires, such as by amending the claim to recite that the control unit is programmed to increase the thrust for a subsequent sharpening operation in response to receiving information that the diameter of the blade has decreased.
Applicant’s argument against claim 5 is not persuasive for similar reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 4. That is, the language of claim 5 is merely describing a manner of operating the motors because the claim does not recite that the control unit controls the motors to provide the constant torque. The Applicant’s argument assumes a too narrow interpretation of the claim where some structure of the claimed cutting-off machine is required to control the motors at a constant torque, but this argument is not commensurate with the language used in the claim. The examiner suggests amending claim 5 to recite that the control unit actively controls the motors in the manner described in Applicant’s argument. (Although, the examiner notes that Chiocchetti discloses the desirability of providing a constant thrust from the secondary actuators ‘61’, which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a motor with a constant torque when the secondary actuators of Chiocchetti are provided as motors as explained in the rejection of claim 5 above. Put another way, the Applicant’s argument is further not persuasive because the argument fails to address the modification of Chiocchetti as applied to claim 5.)
Regarding claim 6, once again, the Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the language in the claim. The Applicant’s argument assumes an interpretation of the claim requiring that the control unit or another structure of the cutting-off machine must be programmed to control the motors in the recited manner. However, the claim itself makes no such requirement. The examiner suggests amending claim 6 to recite that the control unit is programmed to control the electric motors to increase the torque as the actual diameter of the blade decreases. The examiner acknowledges that if claim 6 were to recite that the control unit were programmed to control the motors in the manner recited in claim 6, it would not be permissible to interpret claim 6 as merely reciting a manner in which the cutting-off machine is operated.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 are likewise not persuasive because the arguments are premised on an overly narrow reading of the claim. The arguments would be persuasive if the claim required the control unit to be programmed to control the speed of the blade in the manner recited in claim 7, where the control unit is programmed to include the predetermined nominal value and set the speed of the blade with respect to the nominal value. However, claim 7 is much broader than the interpretation against which the Applicant argues.
Applicant’s arguments against claim 8 are not persuasive because the arguments are against a host of features not recited in the claim. The Applicant does not argue specifically against the Application of the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the prior art contemplates the use of blade speed as explained above. The Applicant fails to argue against the specifics of the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments against claim 12 are not persuasive for similar reasons as discussed above – in particular, that the language of claim 12 is broader than contemplated by the Applicant’s arguments. Claim 12 does not require any part of the claimed structure to detect the stop of the motors, and thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 encompasses a manner of operating the device. If the Applicant were to amend claim 12 to require that the control unit is programmed to determine that contact between the grinding wheels and the blade has occurred in response to a stop of the electric motors, the examiner would not make the rejection. However, claim 12 fails to specify any structure that detects the contact, such that claim 12 encompasses an operator determining that contact has occurred.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 amount to a mere allegation of patentability since the arguments fail to point out any particular errors in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding all claims that are interpreted as reciting a manner of using the claimed cutting machine, the examiner suggests amending such claims to recite, for example, that the control unit of the cutting-off machine is programmed to carry out the recited operations. As one example, in claim 12, the claim fails to specify any structure that detects the contract between the grinding wheels and the blade. If the claim were amended to recite that the control unit determines that contact between the grinding wheels and the blade occurs in response to a signal from the electric motors indicating a stoppage of the electric motors, such an amendment would overcome the art of record. (The examiner also recommends the Applicant ensure there is support under 35 USC 112(a) for all such amendments; the examiner has not confirmed support under 35 USC 112(a) each such amendment and the examiner’s recommendation is not an acknowledgement of support under 35 USC 112(a).)
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
1 In the present application, the torque applied by the motors M2 and M3 is kept constant, such that the force applied to the grinding wheels 3 by the motors M2 and M3 is constant. However, the force between the grinding wheels 3 and the blade 2 is subject to vary as disclosed in the present application, such as when the blade vibrations or if the blade has any geometric imperfections. As such, claim 1 cannot be interpreted as requiring that force between the grinding wheels 3 and the blade 2 is always constant, regardless of any vibrations of the blade 2 or imperfections in the blade 2.
Prosecution Insights