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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 6/22/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 10-28 and 40-46 are pending. Accordingly, claims 10-28 and 40-46 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 10-28 and 40-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatomir (US PGPUB 20170320184).
Regarding claim 10, Tatomir teaches a template (fig. 1C, template runner 70T, [0024]) for profiling a blade for a skate for skating on ice (fig. 1C, runner 70R, [0024]), the blade having an ice-contacting surface for contacting the ice (fig. 1c), the template comprising:
a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see annotated fig. 1C below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
718
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an underside surface extending longitudinally between the first end and the second end (see annotated fig. 1C above, wherein the template has an underside surface extending longitudinally between the first end and the second end), wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc (see annotated fig. 1C above, the template comprises a central portion of the underside surface which comprises a profile in a shape of an arc), the profile of the central portion of the underside surface of the template being configured to be copied onto at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade to profile the blade (the profile of the template is configured to be copied onto the ice-contacting surface of the blade to profile the blade [0030]).
Tatomir does not explicitly teach wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of a non-circular ellipse.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatomir to provide wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of a non-circular ellipse, since a change in shape of an element involves only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04) absent persuasive evidence of the claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Additionally, no criticality has been provided, wherein the specification merely states that Fig. 15 shows a template where the curvature of the underside profile is equivalent to the shape of an ellipse or conical section so that the shape of the underside of the ellipse is the same as the shape of the profile.
Regarding claim 11, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template has a length extending from the first end to the second end of the template (fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 12, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the central portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to a majority of the length of the template (fig. 1c, the central portion of the template corresponds to a majority of the length of the template).
Regarding claim 13, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the central portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to 50% to 75% of the length of the template (fig. 1c, wherein the central portion is interpreted as corresponding to 50% to 75% the length of the blade)
Regarding claim 14, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the length of the template is longer than a length of the blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade (Because the preamble of the claim is drawn towards a template, the template is only required to have a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The template of Tatomir, as modified, has a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The examiner recommends utilizing a system claim format to require the feature of the blade).
Regarding claim 15, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11.
As such, Tatomir, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a template for profiling a blade wherein the only difference between Tatomir, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the template is about 450 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tatomir, as modified, to include wherein the length of the template is about 450 millimeters since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Tatomir, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed length since the template would continue to be capable of providing a template for profiling a blade. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 16, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches further comprising at least one recess (see annotated fig. 1C below)
PNG
media_image2.png
632
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
configured for receiving a positioning element of a positioning mechanism of a profiling apparatus to adjust a position of the template relative to the blade to profile the blade (the indicated recess is capable of receiving a positioning element of a positioning mechanism of a profiling apparatus to adjust a position of the template relative to the blade to profile the blade. Because the claim is directed towards a template, the prior art structure must only be capable of performing the intended use recitations).
Regarding claim 17, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to the blade (the template is capable of being positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to the blade).
Regarding claim 18, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to the blade (the template is capable of being positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to the blade).
Regarding claim 19, Tatomir teaches a template (fig. 1C, template runner 70T, [0024]) for profiling a blade for a skate for skating on ice (fig. 1C, runner 70R, [0024]), the blade having an ice-contacting surface for contacting the ice (fig. 1c), the template comprising:
a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see annotated fig. 1C below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
718
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an underside surface extending longitudinally between the first end and the second end (see annotated fig. 1C above, wherein the template has an underside surface extending longitudinally between the first end and the second end), wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc (see annotated fig. 1C above, the template comprises a central portion of the underside surface which comprises a profile in a shape of an arc), the profile of the central portion of the underside surface of the template being configured to be copied onto at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade to profile the blade (the profile of the template is configured to be copied onto the ice-contacting surface of the blade to profile the blade [0030]).
Tatomir does not explicitly teach wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of a non-circular conic section.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatomir to provide wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of a non-circular ellipse (which is a non-circular conic section), since a change in shape of an element involves only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04) absent persuasive evidence of the claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Additionally, no criticality has been provided, wherein the specification merely states that Fig. 15 shows a template where the curvature of the underside profile is equivalent to the shape of an ellipse or conical section so that the shape of the underside of the ellipse is the same as the shape of the profile.
Regarding claim 20, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the non-circular conic section is an ellipse (see above rejection of claim 19 for more details).
Regarding claim 21, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template has a length extending from the first end to the second end of the template (fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 22, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the central portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to a majority of the length of the template (fig. 1c, the central portion of the template corresponds to a majority of the length of the template).
Regarding claim 23, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the central portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to 50% to 75% of the length of the template (fig. 1c, wherein the central portion is interpreted as corresponding to 50% to 75% the length of the blade)
Regarding claim 24, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the length of the template is longer than a length of the blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade (Because the preamble of the claim is drawn towards a template, the template is only required to have a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The template of Tatomir, as modified, has a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The examiner recommends utilizing a system claim format to require the feature of the blade).
Regarding claim 25, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21.
As such, Tatomir, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a template for profiling a blade wherein the only difference between Tatomir, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the template is about 450 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tatomir, as modified, to include wherein the length of the template is about 450 millimeters since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Tatomir, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed length since the template would continue to be capable of providing a template for profiling a blade. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 26, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches further comprising at least one recess (see annotated fig. 1C below)
PNG
media_image2.png
632
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
configured for receiving a positioning element of a positioning mechanism of a profiling apparatus to adjust a position of the template relative to the blade to profile the blade (the indicated recess is capable of receiving a positioning element of a positioning mechanism of a profiling apparatus to adjust a position of the template relative to the blade to profile the blade. Because the claim is directed towards a template, the prior art structure must only be capable of performing the intended use recitations).
Regarding claim 27, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 26. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to the blade (the template is capable of being positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to the blade).
Regarding claim 28, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 26. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to the blade (the template is capable of being positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to the blade).
Regarding claim 40, Tatomir teaches a template (fig. 1C, template runner 70T, [0024]) for profiling a blade for a skate for skating on ice (fig. 1C, runner 70R, [0024]), the blade having an ice-contacting surface for contacting the ice (fig. 1c), the template comprising:
a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see annotated fig. 1C below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
718
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an underside surface extending longitudinally between the first end and the second end (see annotated fig. 1C above, wherein the template has an underside surface extending longitudinally between the first end and the second end), wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc (see annotated fig. 1C above, the template comprises a central portion of the underside surface which comprises a profile in a shape of an arc), the profile of the central portion being configured to be copied onto at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade to profile the blade (the profile of the template is configured to be copied onto the ice-contacting surface of the blade to profile the blade [0030]);
a length of the template being longer than a length of the blade, the length of the template extending from the first end to the second end of the template and the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade (Because the preamble of the claim is drawn towards a template, the template is only required to have a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The template of Tatomir, as modified, has a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The examiner recommends utilizing a system claim format to require the feature of the blade).
Tatomir does not explicitly teach wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of an ellipse.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatomir to provide wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of an ellipse, since a change in shape of an element involves only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04) absent persuasive evidence of the claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Additionally, no criticality has been provided, wherein the specification merely states that Fig. 15 shows a template where the curvature of the underside profile is equivalent to the shape of an ellipse or conical section so that the shape of the underside of the ellipse is the same as the shape of the profile.
Regarding claim 41, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 40. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the central portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to a majority of the length of the template (fig. 1c, the central portion of the template corresponds to a majority of the length of the template).
Regarding claim 42, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 40. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the central portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to 50% to 75% of the length of the template (fig. 1c, wherein the central portion is interpreted as corresponding to 50% to 75% the length of the blade)
Regarding claim 43, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 40.
As such, Tatomir, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a template for profiling a blade wherein the only difference between Tatomir, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Tatomir, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the template is about 450 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tatomir, as modified, to include wherein the length of the template is about 450 millimeters since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Tatomir, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed length since the template would continue to be capable of providing a template for profiling a blade. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 44, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 40. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches further comprising at least one recess (see annotated fig. 1C below)
PNG
media_image2.png
632
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
configured for receiving a positioning element of a positioning mechanism of a profiling apparatus to adjust a position of the template relative to the blade to profile the blade (the indicated recess is capable of receiving a positioning element of a positioning mechanism of a profiling apparatus to adjust a position of the template relative to the blade to profile the blade. Because the claim is directed towards a template, the prior art structure must only be capable of performing the intended use recitations).
Regarding claim 45, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 44. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to the blade (the template is capable of being positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to the blade).
Regarding claim 46, Tatomir, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 44. Additionally, Tatomir, as modified, teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to the blade (the template is capable of being positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to the blade).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Tatomir fails to teach the amended language of the central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of a non-circular ellipse. Applicant argues Tatomir is limited to circular profiles (pages 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks). Applicant argues the depending claims are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner recognizes Tatomir does not explicitly teach wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of a non-circular ellipse.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tatomir to provide wherein a central portion of the underside surface comprises a profile in a shape of an arc of a non-circular ellipse, since a change in shape of an element involves only ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04) absent persuasive evidence of the claimed configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Additionally, no criticality has been provided, wherein the specification merely states that Fig. 15 shows a template where the curvature of the underside profile is equivalent to the shape of an ellipse or conical section so that the shape of the underside of the ellipse is the same as the shape of the profile.
The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See cited MPEP sections and above rejection for more details.
Claims 19-28 have been rejected similarly. See above response to arguments and above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Tatomir fails to teach the template having a length greater than that of the blade and therefore fails to teach claim 40. Applicant argues claims depending therefrom are allowable by virtue of dependency. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tatomir teaches a length of the template being longer than a length of the blade, the length of the template extending from the first end to the second end of the template and the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade (Because the preamble of the claim is drawn towards a template, the template is only required to have a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The template of Tatomir, as modified, has a length that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, the length of the blade extending from a first end to a second end of the blade. The examiner recommends utilizing a system claim format to require the feature of the blade).
Overall, the prior art is only required to provide a length of the template that is capable of being longer than a length of a blade, wherein the blade is not required to be taught. The length of the template of Tatomir is capable of being longer than a length of a non-included blade. See above rejection for more details. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly.
See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
4. 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