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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Claims 19-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/26/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of the complete application would be an undue burden. Applicant argues the examiner has failed to establish that a search of the entire application constitutes an undue burden.
This is not found persuasive because the examiner did establish that a search of the entire application constitutes undue burden. See Page 3 of the restriction, wherein the subject matter has been included below for detail.
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search strategies or search queries in each of the respective classification areas).
As noted in the restriction requirement, the template of invention I is classified in B24B17/00,02,028 while the blade of invention II is classified in A63C1/32. Search of the entire application creates undue burden due to the requirement of searching the different classification areas (B24B and A63C). For example, the different classification areas would have to be searched for specific features which are present now or in future prosecution. The different classification areas would require search through different search strategies such as text searches drawn towards specific features of the blade or the template in the respective classification area. Overall, due to the template being classified in B24B and the blade being classified in A63C, an undue search burden is present if required to search all features of the application, the features being present now or in future rounds of prosecution.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 10-28 have been examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023, 3/21/2024, 9/19/2024, 4/8/2025, 9/18/2025 and 2/26/2026 were 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.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 10, 12-13, 17-19, 22-23 and 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 6-7, “the profile of the at least a portion” should read “the profile of the at least [[a]] the portion” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 12, two instances of “a portion” should read “[[a]] the portion” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 13, two instances of “a portion” should read “[[a]] the portion” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 17, “relative to blade” should read “relative to the blade” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 18, “relative to blade” should read “relative to the blade” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 19, line 6-7, “the profile of the at least a portion” should read “the profile of the at least [[a]] the portion” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 22, two instances of “a portion” should read “[[a]] the portion” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 23, two instances of “a portion” should read “[[a]] the portion” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 27, “relative to blade” should read “relative to the blade” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 28, “relative to blade” should read “relative to the blade” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-14, 16-24 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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
681
666
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 at least a portion of the underside surface comprises a profile corresponding to a portion of a shape of an ellipse (see annotated fig. 1C above, the template comprises at least “a portion of the underside surface comprises a profile corresponding to a portion of a shape of an ellipse”. Overall, the language is very broad. The language is only requiring “a portion of a shape of an ellipse”. Additionally, the language is only requiring “corresponds to”, which is not the same as “which is the shape of a portion of an ellipse”.), the profile of the at least a 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]).
Regarding claim 11, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the template has a length defined between the first end and the second end (fig. 1C, the template has “a length” defined between the first end and the second end).
Regarding claim 12, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the at least a portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to a majority of the length of the template (The length as claimed in claim 11 does not require the length to extend in any specific amount but only between the first and second end. Therefore, the entire length is interpreted to extend such that it corresponds to the at least the portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade, thereby the portion of the template corresponds to a majority of the length).
Regarding claim 13, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the at least a portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to 50% to 75% of the length of the template (The length as claimed in claim 11 does not require the length to extend in any specific amount but only between the first and second end. Therefore, the entire length is interpreted to extend such that it corresponds to the at least the portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade, thereby the portion of the template corresponds to 50% to 75% of the length).
Regarding claim 14, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the length of the template is longer than a length of the blade (The length as claimed in claim 11 does not require the length to extend in any specific amount but only between the first and second end. Similarly, the language does not specify what is required by “a length of the blade”. Therefore, the length of the template is interpreted such that it is longer than a length of the blade).
Regarding claim 16, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Tatomir 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 teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to 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 teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to 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
681
666
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 at least a portion of the underside surface comprises a profile corresponding to a portion of a shape of a conic section (see annotated fig. 1C above, the template comprises at least a portion of the underside surface comprises a profile corresponding to a portion of a shape of an ellipse, which is a conic section. Overall, the language is very broad. The language is only requiring “a portion of a shape of a conic section”. Additionally, the language is only requiring “corresponds to”, which is not the same as “which is the shape of a conic section”.), the profile of the at least a 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]).
Regarding claim 20, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the shape of the conic section corresponds to a shape of an ellipse (see annotated fig. 1C above and the rejection of claim 19 for more details).
Regarding claim 21, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the template has a length defined between the first end and the second end (fig. 1C, the template has “a length” defined between the first end and the second end).
Regarding claim 22, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the at least a portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to a majority of the length of the template (The length as claimed in claim 21 does not require the length to extend in any specific amount but only between the first and second end. Therefore, the entire length is interpreted to extend such that it corresponds to the at least the portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade, thereby the portion of the template corresponds to a majority of the length).
Regarding claim 23, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the at least a portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least a portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade corresponds to 50% to 75% of the length of the template (The length as claimed in claim 21 does not require the length to extend in any specific amount but only between the first and second end. Therefore, the entire length is interpreted to extend such that it corresponds to the at least the portion of the underside surface of the template to be copied onto the at least the portion of the ice-contacting surface of the blade, thereby the portion of the template corresponds to 50% to 75% of the length).
Regarding claim 24, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the length of the template is longer than a length of the blade. (The length as claimed in claim 21 does not require the length to extend in any specific amount but only between the first and second end. Similarly, the language does not specify what is required by “a length of the blade”. Therefore, the length of the template is interpreted such that it is longer than a length of the blade)
Regarding claim 26, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 19. Additionally, Tatomir 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 teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 26. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be centered longitudinally relative to 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 teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 26. Additionally, Tatomir teaches wherein the template is positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to blade (the template is capable of being positionable relative to the blade so as to be off-centered longitudinally relative to the blade).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatomir (US PGPUB 20170320184).
Regarding claim 15, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11.
As such, Tatomir and the instant claimed invention both provide a template for profiling a blade wherein the only difference between Tatomir and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Tatomir 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 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 25, Tatomir teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 21.
As such, Tatomir and the instant claimed invention both provide a template for profiling a blade wherein the only difference between Tatomir and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Tatomir 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 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.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moon (US Patent 8430723) teaches a contour guide for ice skate sharpener which includes a guide 22 similar to the claimed invention
Sakcriska (US Patent 5897428) teaches a device for contouring and sharpening ice skate blades with a template 28 similar to the claimed invention
Norris et al. (US Patent 3789551) teaches a skate sharpening device with a template 16 similar to the claimed invention
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/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723