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 accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 29 December 2025 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 Final Office Action mailed 29 September 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 29 December 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the EP 3194128 A1 reference published 26 July 2027 to Graziano Mazzacherini et al. has not been considered. The Applicant did not provide a copy of EP 3194128 A1, but instead provided a copy of WO 2016/030125 A1 published 3 March 2016 also to Graziano Mazzacherini et al. The examiner has annotated the IDS to indicate that the examiner has considered WO 2016/030125 A1 published 3 March 2016 to Graziano Mazzacherini et al., but has not considered EP 3194128 A1 reference published 26 July 2027 to Graziano Mazzacherini et al.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 36 recites, “the control unit , so”. The space between “control unit” and the comma in this recitation should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at lines 28-30 recites that the one or more primary actuators are “controlled by a cutting edge detection sensor which detects the cutting edge of the blade and interrupts a run of the primary carriage along the primary direction”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what is required of the cutting edge detection sensor in view of claim 1 at lines 25-26 and in view of the present specification. First, the recitation at lines 28-30 explicitly requires that the sensor ‘controls’ the one or more primary actuators and ‘interrupts a run of the primary carriage’. The plain language of the claim requires the sensor to perform a controlling operation. Claim 1 at lines 25-26 further introduces, “a control unit that is programmed to control the one or more primary actuators”. Thus, claim 1 explicitly requires that two structures – i.e., the sensor and the control unit – are each able to control the one or more primary actuators. However, despite the plain language of claim 1, it is unclear whether the Applicant actually intends claim 1 to require that the sensor controls the one or more primary actuators. Conventionally, a sensor outputs a signal indicative of some sensed parameter, then another structure (such as a control unit) receives and processes the signal provided by the sensor. In this conventional mode of operation, the control unit performs a controlling function by outputting a control signal. Conventionally the sensor itself does not perform any controlling function, and instead the sensor merely outputs the signal indicative of the sensor parameter. The present specification is not clear as to whether or not the sensor is configured to control the one or more primary actuators. On the one hand, the present specification explicitly states, “the movement of the primary carriage (4) is controlled by means of the sensor (100) which detects the radius of the blade (2) and controls the interruption of the stroke of the primary carriage” (see page 7 at lines 17-19). This passage suggests that the sensor is required to control the primary actuator. On the other hand, Fig. 13 illustrates sensor 100 being connected to control unit MC, and the specification states, “In the diagram shown by way of example in FIG. 13 the electric motors (M2, M3) are controlled by a programmable control unit (MC) to which the motors (M0) and (M1), the sensor (100), the motor (20) and the rotary actuator (A1) are also connected” (see page 8 at lines 11-13). This passage suggests that the control unit is the structure that controls the primary actuator, where the control unit is able to receive a signal from the sensor. Thus, the present specification includes support for interpreting claim 1 as requiring either of (i) the sensor actually performing a controlling function and (ii) the sensor performing a conventional sensing function, with the sensor outputting a signal to a control unit, where the control unit performs the controlling function. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the requirement in claim 1 that the primary carriage is “controlled by a cutting edge detection sensor which … interrupts a run of the primary carriage” as being satisfied even if the sensor merely outputs a signal indicative of detection of the cutting edge, without the sensor actually controlling the primary carriage. That is, the examiner interprets claim 1 as permitting the control unit to control the primary carriage and as permitting the control unit to interrupt the run of the primary carriage, where the sensor is merely required to output a signal indicative of cutting edge detection.
Claim 1 at lines 39-40 recites, “the second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheel extends throughout a completion of the sharpening operation”. This recitation is indefinite due to the phrase “extending throughout a completion”. The definition of “throughout” is all the way from one end to the other of; during the whole course or period of per merriam-webster.com. Thus, “extending throughout a completion” appears to require that the second phase extends from one end of a completion of the sharpening cycle (e.g., a beginning of a completion portion of the entire sharpening cycle, as opposed to a beginning of the entire sharpening cycle) to another end of the completion of the sharpening cycle (e.g., an end of the completion portion of the entire sharpening cycle). The problem with this interpretation is that it does not appear supported by the present specification. The present specification does not mention any “completion” of the sharpening operation. However, the present specification does use the term “throughout” twice, each time in the phrase “throughout the sharpening phase”. Thus, interpreting lines 39-40 in view of the present specification suggests the Applicant may intend the phrase “extending through a competition of the sharpening operation” to require that the second phase extends through the entire sharpening operation. Is the Applicant intending to require that the second phase only has to extend throughout a completion portion of the sharpening operation, or is the Applicant intending to require that the second phase extends throughout the entire sharpening operation? Does the Applicant intend the phrase “extending through a completion of the sharpening operation” to require that the second phase extends from a beginning of the sharpening operation through a completion of the sharpening operation? The lack of clarity stems from the fact that “a completion” of the sharpening operation can be interpreted as an end point of the second phase. However, if “a completion” is an end point, then the starting point of the second phase is not specified. Thus, if “extending through a completion” is interpreted as ending at the completion of the sharpening operation, no beginning is specified. Is the beginning when the grinding wheels begin to approach the blade in an axial direction of the blade? Is the beginning when the grinding wheels begin to make contact with the blade? Is the beginning when the thrust between the grinding wheels and the blade reaches some predetermined value? The examiner suggests clarifying the meaning of the phrase “extending throughout a completion of the sharpening operation”, such as by reciting that the second phase extends from some beginning point to some end point.
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) 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 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 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 paragraph 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), 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 having a predetermined value (see paragraphs 13 and 51, the latter of which discloses the predetermined value of the thrust as the ‘fixed’ value), the thrust being constant and not interrupted during the second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47 (see paragraph 51, where the thrust is ‘constant and not interrupted’ because the value of the thrust is “fixed”), the second phase of operative positioning of the grinding wheels 47 extending through a completion of the sharpening operation provided by the sharpening unit 29 (the second phase extends through a completion of sharpening because the pre-load thrust provided by the secondary actuators 61 is maintained at a fixed value per paragraph 55 and continues to be applied during grinding per paragraph 57; that is, since the thrust provided by the secondary actuators 61 pre-loads the secondary carriages 55 in order to detect forces produced by contact between the blade 17 and grinding wheels 47, the force is provided until the completion of the sharpening operation).
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 as required by claim 1.
Karavelioglu teaches a control unit that controls 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 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 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 being the operator 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. Karavelioglu, 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, in 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 the 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 indicated that contact is occurring between the grinding wheels and the blade, but if the one or more sensors that detect force do not indicate 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.
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 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, in 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”, 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.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 9 and 10 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. However, no determination of allowability can be made for these claims in view of the issues raised above under 35 USC 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant at page 8 of the Remarks states that both Chiocchetti and Karavelioglu are “silent about secondary actuators controlled such that the abrasive side of the grinding wheels is pushed against the blade with a thrust that is constant and uninterrupted throughout a completion of the sharpening phase”. This argument is not persuasive because Chiocchetti at paragraph 55 states that the secondary actuators 61 can have a thrust that is a fixed value. A fixed value is a value that is constant. As such, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the argument fails to address the particulars of the disclosure of Chiocchetti. The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rely on this same shortcoming, and are therefore also not persuasive.
Conclusion
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