DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/4/2026 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 5/4/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 10-30 are pending. Accordingly, claims 10-30 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn except for those detailed below. This action is Final.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 10 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 3, “of the profiling apparatus” should read “of [[the]] a profiling apparatus” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 15, “an amount of the material” should read “[[an]] the amount of the material” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 16, “wherein the first hub does not to roll along” should read “wherein the first hub does not [[to]] roll along” to provide increased clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 20 and 21 were amended to recite the first hub and the second hub are restricted to motion in the second transverse direction wherein the claims previously recited the first hub and the second hub were restricted along the second transverse direction. As seen in fig. 16 of the instant application, the first hub and second hub are not allowed to move in the second transverse direction. Therefore, the amended language of the first hub and the second hub are restricted to motion in the second transverse direction fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 22 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim. See below 35 USC 112(b) rejections for more details.
5. 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 20-22 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.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the amended language now restricts the motion of the first hub and the second hub to the second transverse direction. However, in view of fig. 16 of the instant application, as best understood by the examiner, the first hub and the second hub do not move in the second transverse direction. The previous language restricted motion of the first hub and the second hub along the second transverse direction, which is consistent with fig. 16. Overall, it is not precisely clear how the motion of the first hub and the second hub can be restricted to the second transverse direction. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as restricting the motion of the first hub and the second hub [[to]] along the second transverse direction, which is consistent with fig. 16, consistent with the previous language before amendments, and would avoid the 35 USC 112(a) rejection as detailed above.
Claim 22 is rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claims 10, 18-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatomir (US PGPUB 20170320184) in view of Hollingshead et al. (CA 2217783), hereinafter Hollingshead.
Regarding claim 10, Tatomir teaches a method of profiling one or more ice skate blades including an ice-contacting surface (fig. 1a), the one or more ice skate blades being held by a blade holder (fig. 1a, skate holder 60) of the profiling apparatus (fig. 1a), the method comprising:
- causing a first hub (see annotated fig. 1a below, guide bearing 50) of the profiling apparatus to move in a first direction transverse (horizontal direction via knob 38 [0020]) to a longitudinal direction of the one or more ice skate blades (direction into and out of the page in fig. 1a) to contact and to follow a profile of a template held by a template holder (upper clamp portion 64, fig. 1a) of the profiling apparatus (fig. 1a, [0024]);
PNG
media_image1.png
644
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- causing a second hub (grinding wheel 24 is interpreted as the second hub) of the profiling apparatus to move in conjunction with the first hub (as the blade 70R is sharpened, the second hub and the first hub move in conjunction relative to the blade [0025]), the second hub being in a spaced apart relationship relative to the first hub in a second direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the one or more ice skate blades (fig. 1a, wherein the vertical direction of fig. 1a is interpreted as the second direction transverse to the longitudinal direction); and
- causing the grinding wheel 24 to rotate to remove ice-contacting material from the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades [0016] to apply the profile of the template onto at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades as the one or more ice skate blades move in the longitudinal direction of the one or more ice skate blades [0037].
Tatomir does not explicitly teach causing an abrasive belt to rotate about the second hub to remove ice-contacting material.
However, Hollingshead teaches a belt type skate sharpening apparatus which includes an abrasive belt 18 (fig. 2) which rotates about a hub 24 via motor 26 (fig. 2). Overall, Hollingshead teaches an abrasive belt as the abrasive tool to remove material from the blade, wherein the abrasive belt rotates about a hub 24.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tatomir to incorporate the teachings of Hollingshead to provide an abrasive belt to rotate about the second hub to remove ice-contacting material. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Hollingshead’s abrasive belt assembly for the grinding wheel assembly of Tatomir. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known abrasive tool configuration for another known abrasive tool configuration in order to obtain the predictable results of abrading the surface of the blade.
Regarding claims 18-19, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises restricting motion of the blade holder to the longitudinal direction as the blade holder is reciprocated, wherein the motion of the blade holder is restricted by a guiding mechanism.
However, Hollingshead additionally teaches wherein the blade sharpener comprises restricting motion of the blade holder (figs. 1-2, skate mount 48) to the longitudinal direction (via belt 94 and motor 92) as the blade holder is reciprocated (via motor 92), wherein the motion of the blade holder is restricted by a guiding mechanism (fig. 2, the belt 94 and associated structures are interpreted as the guiding mechanism).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tatomir, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Hollingshead to provide wherein the method further comprises restricting motion of the blade holder to the longitudinal direction as the blade holder is reciprocated, wherein the motion of the blade holder is restricted by a guiding mechanism. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the guiding mechanism (belt 94, motor 92 and associated structures) of Hollingshead into the apparatus of Tatomir such that the blade and holder of Tatomir is restricted to the longitudinal direction as the blade holder is reciprocated via the guiding mechanism of Hollingshead. Doing so would decrease the burden on the operator by automating the reciprocating action. Additionally, doing so would promote increased quality of the workpiece by promoting repeatability of the sharpening process via the automated reciprocating.
Regarding claim 20, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises restricting motion of the first hub (50 of Tatomir) to the second transverse direction to the longitudinal direction (wherein the vertical direction of fig. 1a was interpreted as the second transverse direction, wherein the motion of the first hub is restricted along the vertical direction via knob 48 and is restricted to relative motion in the longitudinal direction with respect to the blade during sharpening operations) as the first hub contacts and follows the profile of the template [0037 of Tatomir]. (As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112 rejections, the prior art teaches the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 21, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 20. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises restricting motion of the second hub to the second transverse direction to the longitudinal direction (fig. 1a of Tatomir, wherein the second hub (as modified) is also restricted along the vertical direction and is restricted to relative motion in the longitudinal direction with respect to the blade during sharpening operations) as the second hub moves in conjunction with the first hub ([0037 of Tatomir], wherein the second hub and first hub move in conjunction relative to the workpiece).
Regarding claim 22, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the motion of the first hub and the second hub are restricted by a guiding mechanism (fig. 1a of Tatomir, wherein the knob 48 is interpreted as the guiding mechanism which directly or indirectly restricts the motion of the hub 50 and abrading tool (as modified)) (As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112 rejections, the prior art teaches the claim limitations).
Regarding claim 23, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises adjusting a position of the template (70T of Tatomir) in the template holder (fig. 1a) in at least one of the longitudinal direction and the second transverse direction with a positioning mechanism (fig. 1a-1c of Tatomir, [0033-0034], the couplers 72 and clamp portions 64/66 are used to adjust a position of the template in the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 24, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises adjusting a position of the template (70T of Tatomir) in the template holder (fig. 1a) in both the longitudinal direction and the second transverse direction with a positioning mechanism (fig. 1a-1c of Tatomir, [0033-0034], the couplers 72 and clamp portions 64/66 are used to adjust a position of the template in the longitudinal direction and the vertical direction).
Regarding claim 25, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises locking a position of the template in the template holder with a positioning mechanism (knob 68 of fig. 1a of Tatomir, [0027]).
Regarding claim 26, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises adjusting a position of the first hub relative to the profile of the template with an adjustment mechanism ([0036] of Tatomir, knob 38).
Regarding claim 27, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises adjusting a position of the profile of the template relative to the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades with an adjustment mechanism (fig. 1c of Tatomir, wherein the couplers 72 are interpreted as the adjustment mechanism, [0033]).
Regarding claim 30, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises clamping the one or more ice skate blades in the blade holder with a clamping mechanism (fig. 1a of Tatomir, clamping mechanism 68 of Tatomir).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatomir (US PGPUB 20170320184) in view of Hollingshead et al. (CA 2217783), hereinafter Hollingshead, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Norris et al. (US Patent 3789551), hereinafter Norris.
Regarding claim 11, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises causing the first hub to follow the profile of the template without rolling as the rotating abrasive belt removes the material from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades.
However, Norris teaches a skate sharpening device which includes guide wheels 44 (fig. 3), wherein for changing the effective distance between a clamped blade edge and a grinding path determined by the wheels 44, and hence the maximum depth of cut in a series of passes with respect to the wheel 12, an adjusting screw 60 is provided (col. 3, line 63- col. 4, line 5). Overall, Norris teaches setting a maximum depth of cut for a series of passes of the blade with respect to the abrading tool via the alignment of the guide wheels 44.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tatomir, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Norris to provide setting a maximum depth of cut for a series of passes of the blade with respect to the abrading tool via the alignment of the guide bearing 50 of Tatomir. Specifically, it would have been obvious to set a configuration such that the guide bearing 50 of Tatomir sets a maximum depth of cut for a series of passes of the blade with respect to the abrading tool (of Tatomir, as modified). Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by preventing under or over sharpening of the blade. Additionally, doing so would prevent damage of the workpiece by setting a maximum cut depth via the guide bearing 50.
In summary, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises causing the first hub to follow the profile of the template without rolling (during the initial passes when the blade is being sharpened and the depth of cut has not reached the maximum depth of cut, the bearing 50 of Tatomir follows the profiling surface of the template without rolling) as the rotating abrasive belt removes the material from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades (the rotating abrasive belt removes material from the blade until the maximum cut depth is reached).
Regarding claim 12, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises causing the first hub to roll along an entire profile of the template once the abrasive belt no longer removes the material from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades and the profile of the template has been copied onto the at least a portion of the one or more ice skate blades (see above rejection of claim 11 for more details. Once the maximum cut depth has been reached, the bearing 50 of Tatomir rolls along the profile surface of the template and the abrasive tool no longer removes material from the blade and the profile of the template has been copied onto the blade).
Regarding claim 13, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the method further comprises a preparation operation [0032 of Tatomir] preceding a profiling operation of the one or more ice skate blades to determine an amount of the material to be removed from the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades during the profiling operation (The action of the operator selecting the desired template from among a plurality of templates [0032 of Tatomir] determines an amount of the material to be removed from the blade during the profiling operation in order to copy the desired template).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatomir (US PGPUB 20170320184) in view of Hollingshead et al. (CA 2217783), hereinafter Hollingshead, and further in view of Norris et al. (US Patent 3789551), hereinafter Norris, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nishide (US PGPUB 20140148081), hereinafter Nishide.
Regarding claims 14-15, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein, during the preparation operation, a motor configured for driving the abrasive belt is deactivated such that the abrasive belt does not remove the material from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades, wherein the preparation operation comprises reciprocating the blade holder along the longitudinal direction to obtain a visual indication of an amount of the material to be removed from the ice- contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades during the profiling operation.
However, Nishide teaches a grinding machine and method, wherein at the time of switching workpiece settings, setting of a positional relationship between a grinding wheel and a workpiece may be performed. The workpiece is set on a spindle and then a teaching operation is performed in which an infeed shaft is manually operated to bring the grinding wheel provided on the infeed shaft into contact with the workpiece [0003]. Overall, Nishide teaches at the time of switching workpiece settings, conducting a manual teaching operation of bringing the grinding tool into contact with the workpiece to set the positional relationship between the grinding wheel and workpiece.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tatomir, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Nishide to provide conducting a manual teaching operation, at the time of switching workpiece settings, of bringing the grinding tool into contact with the workpiece to set the positional relationship between the grinding wheel and workpiece along the entire length of the workpiece. Specifically, it would have been obvious to conduct a test/teaching operation of the grinding process in order to set the workpiece processing settings along the entire length of the workpiece. Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by ensuring the desired parameters are appropriately set. Additionally, doing so would promote preventing damage of the workpiece due to incorrect parameters.
In summary, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the preparation operation comprises reciprocating the blade holder along the longitudinal direction (see above combination wherein a manual teaching operation was included which includes bringing the workpiece into contact with the abrading tool in order to set the processing parameters along the entire length of the workpiece) to obtain a visual indication of an amount of the material to be removed from the ice- contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades during the profiling operation (the incorporated manual teaching operation provides a visual indication of an amount of the material to be removed from the blade and allows the operator to confirm or adjust the parameters).
Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein, during the preparation operation, a motor configured for driving the abrasive belt is deactivated such that the abrasive belt does not remove the material from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades. That is, Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach if the abrading tool motor is on or off during the teaching mode.
However, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the abrading tool includes a motor for driving the abrasive belt (motor 26 of Hollingshead), wherein during the manual teaching operation, there are a finite number of states of the motor which includes a first state of being activated and a second state of being deactivated.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of attempting either state since both states perform the same function of providing a teaching operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to deactivate the abrasive belt motor during the teaching operation since it has been held that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that is was obvious under 103” (MPEP 2143 E).
Therefore, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein, during the preparation operation, a motor configured for driving the abrasive belt is deactivated (see immediately above) such that the abrasive belt does not remove the material from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades (with the motor deactivated, the belt does not remove material from the blade during the teaching operation).
Regarding claim 16, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the first hub does not to roll along the profile of the template to denote that material will be removed from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades during the profiling operation as the visual indication of the amount of the material to be removed from the ice- contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades during the profiling operation (see above rejection of claim 11 for more details, wherein setting a maximum cut depth for a series of passes was incorporated, wherein in the initial passes, the first hub does not roll along the template to denote that material will be removed which provides a visual indication during the teaching operation of an amount of material to be removed during profiling).
Regarding claim 17, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the first hub rolls along the profile of the template to denote that material will not be removed from the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades during the profiling operation as the visual indication of the amount of the material to be removed from the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades during the profiling operation (see above rejections of claims 11 and 15 for more details. The first hub rolls along the template to denote that material will not be removed and does not roll along the template to denote that material will be removed, thereby providing a visual indication of the amount of material to be removed).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatomir (US PGPUB 20170320184) in view of Hollingshead et al. (CA 2217783), hereinafter Hollingshead, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Blach et al. (US Patent 6422934), hereinafter Blach.
Regarding claims 28-29, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the method comprises pivoting the blade holder about the longitudinal direction between a first position for loading the one or more ice skate blades in the blade holder or unloading the one or more ice skate blades from the blade holder and a second position for profiling the one or more ice skate blades, wherein the method further comprises locking the blade holder in the second position.
However, Blach teaches a skate sharpener wherein a blade holder pivots in order to clamp. Specifically, Blach teaches pivoting the blade holder (fig. 7, pivot arms 76) about the longitudinal direction (the pivot arms pivot about the longitudinal direction) between a first position for loading the one or more ice skate blades in the blade holder or unloading the one or more ice skate blades from the blade holder (the open position is interpreted as the first position of the blade holder of Blach) and a second position for profiling the one or more ice skate blades (the closed position is interpreted as the second position of the blade holder of Blach), wherein the method further comprises locking the blade holder in the second position (fig. 7, wherein the position of the cam 108 and handle 112 during the closed position is interpreted as locking the blade holder in the second position).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tatomir, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Blach to provide wherein the method comprises pivoting the blade holder about the longitudinal direction between a first position for loading the one or more ice skate blades in the blade holder or unloading the one or more ice skate blades from the blade holder and a second position for profiling the one or more ice skate blades, wherein the method further comprises locking the blade holder in the second position. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the pivoting blade holder of Blach for the blade holder of Tatomir. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known blade holder for another known blade holder to obtain the predictable results of holding the blade in order to process the blade. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and securely hold the blade.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Tatomir in view of Hollingshead does not render obvious the amended language of claim 10. Specifically, Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the language of the first hub and the second hub moving due to Tatomir teaching the skateholder assembly moves past the grinding wheel. Applicant argues Hollingshead fails to remedy the deficiencies of Tatomir (pages 9-11 of Applicant’s remarks).
However, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), Tatomir teaches
- causing a first hub (see annotated fig. 1a below, guide bearing 50) of the profiling apparatus to move in a first direction transverse (horizontal direction via knob 38 [0020]) to a longitudinal direction of the one or more ice skate blades (direction into and out of the page in fig. 1a) to contact and to follow a profile of a template held by a template holder (upper clamp portion 64, fig. 1a) of the profiling apparatus (fig. 1a, [0024]);
PNG
media_image1.png
644
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- causing a second hub (grinding wheel 24 is interpreted as the second hub) of the profiling apparatus to move in conjunction with the first hub (as the blade 70R is sharpened, the second hub and the first hub move in conjunction relative to the blade [0025]), the second hub being in a spaced apart relationship relative to the first hub in a second direction transverse to the longitudinal direction of the one or more ice skate blades (fig. 1a, wherein the vertical direction of fig. 1a is interpreted as the second direction transverse to the longitudinal direction); and
- causing the grinding wheel 24 to rotate to remove ice-contacting material from the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades [0016] to apply the profile of the template onto at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the one or more ice skate blades as the one or more ice skate blades move in the longitudinal direction of the one or more ice skate blades [0037].
That is, Tatomir teaches the first hub moves in the first transverse direction via knob 38, wherein the first hub follows the profile due to the relative movement between the workpiece and the first hub. The second hub moves in conjunction with the first hub with respect to the relative movement of the workpiece.
This interpretation teaches all limitations of the claim under BRI.
Additionally, the instant application (fig. 16) works in a similar manner to the art. That is, the motion of the first hub is brought about by relative movement with respect to the workpiece. Specifically, the first and second hubs do not move themselves but movement of the workpiece and template holder bring about relative movement of the first and second hubs with respect to the template and workpieces. The claim language addresses this by reciting “as the one or more ice skate blades move in the longitudinal direction of the one or more ice skate blades” (claim 10).
Overall, the language of the claim is interpreted under BRI as the first and second hubs undergo relative movement with respect to the workpiece due to the workpiece being longitudinally moved along the grinding tool. Without this same BRI being applied to the instant claims, the instant claims would not be supported under 112(a) as the first and second hubs remain stationary and the relative movement is brought about via the workpiece moving longitudinally. See fig. 16 of instant application and page 24 of the specification for more details.
See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the additional prior art fails to cure the deficiencies of Tatomir and that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claim has been rejected above. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights