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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “oblong hole” (claim 1, line 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes reference character “16” identifies “oblong hole,” but it is not clearly evident what feature of the knife sharpening device corresponds to “oblong hole.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5 and 7 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, lines 3-4 recite, “a slot for receiving a blade of a circular knife, the slot extending eccentrically in to the holder transversely to a longitudinal axis of the holder.” As currently written, the claim does not appear to specifically define “a longitudinal axis of the holder.” Therefore, it is unclear what features of the holder define the longitudinal axis of the knife sharpening device. Claim 1, lines 5-9 recite, “the at least one sharpening rod being movably guided transversely to the longitudinal axis of the housing between a rest position and a working position” [emphasis added]. This limitation defines a first direction in which the at least one sharpening rod is moved relative to the housing. However, claim 1, lines 13-15 recite, “a spring mounted on the holder and acting on the sharpening rod, wherein the spring is configured to push the at least one sharpening rod with the attached sharpening insert in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the housing and in the slot of the housing to the rest position…” [emphasis added]. As currently written, claim 1, lines 13-15 define a second direction in which the sharpening rod moves relative to the housing which is distinct from the first direction defined in claim 1, lines 5-9. First, the at least one sharpening rod is movably guided transversely to [i.e., perpendicular or orthogonal to] the longitudinal axis of the housing. Subsequently, the spring pushes the at least one sharpening rod in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the housing. This can be interpreted as being a direction that is parallel to or in the same direction as the longitudinal axis of the housing. Therefore, it is unclear what can or cannot be included within the scope of claim 1 for the aforementioned issues.
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.
As best understood, claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US Patent 1,041,631) in view of Spreitz et al (DE 10052439), herein referred to as Spreitz, and further in view of Lee (US Patent 5,163,251). Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a knife sharpening device (fig. 1) comprising: a holder (1, 6), comprising a housing (1, 6), the holder has: a slot (2, 3) for receiving a blade (2) of a knife (i.e., capable of receiving a circular knife), the slot extending eccentrically into the holder (fig. 1, i.e., offset from the center thereof) transversely to a longitudinal axis (annotated fig. 3) of the holder (1, 6), and at least one sharpening rod (holding member 10), the at least one sharpening rod (10) having a proximal end (with extension 12 that receives pin 13) and a distal end (lower end thereof), the proximal end being pivotally mounted (upon pin 13) on the holder (page 1, lines 61-67), the at least one sharpening rod (10) being movably guided transversely to the longitudinal axis of the housing between a rest position (annotated fig. 1 – dashed line identifies higher point of intersection between inserts 15 when compared to position depicted in fig. 2, indicating inserts 15 are closer to one another) and a working position (annotated fig. 2 – dashed line identifies lower point of intersection, indicating inserts 15 are pivoted away from one another by knife received in slot 2, 3), at least one first sharpening insert (e.g., insert 15 on right-hand side of fig. 2) is arranged on the sharpening rod (10), a spring (16) mounted on the holder (fig. 2) and acting on the sharpening rod (10), wherein the spring is configured to push the at least one sharpening rod (10) with the attached sharpening insert (15) in a direction of the longitudinal axis of the housing (each sharpening rod 10 is pushed toward the other) and into the slot (2, 3) of the housing to the rest position (page 1, lines 72-77), wherein the at least one sharpening rod (10) is pivoted against the force of the spring into the working position (the downward force of knife into slot 2, 3 between sharpening inserts 15 forces sharpening rods 10 away from one another), and at least one additional sharpening insert (e.g., insert 15 on left-hand side of fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
• Johnson fails to disclose the at least one sharpening rod (10) being movably guided transversely to the longitudinal axis of the housing between the rest position (fig. 1) and the working position (fig. 2) via a pin disposed in an oblong hole at or adjacent to the distal end of the at least one sharpening rod. However, Spreitz (DE 100 52 439) teaches it is known in the art of knife sharpening devices at least one sharpening rod (4, 5) being movably guided (indicated by arrows 16, 17) transversely to the longitudinal axis of the housing (parallel to longitudinal axis of knife blade 21; fig. 1) between the rest position (translation, lines 1-6 of the Description) and the working position (i.e., position depicted in fig. 1) via a pin (reduced diameter portion 27 of pins 25, 26) disposed in an oblong hole (12, 13) at or adjacent to the distal end of the at least one sharpening rod. Spreitz teaches the aforementioned guiding structure is used in combination with respective pivots (14, 15) at opposite ends of sharpening rods (4, 5). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the at least one sharpening rod of Johnson such that the at least one sharpening rod (10) includes a pin disposed in an oblong hole at or adjacent to the distal end of the at least one sharpening rod for movably guiding the sharpening rod transversely to the longitudinal axis of the housing between the rest position and the working position in order to provide additional guidance for the sharpening rod in the housing and moreover, to provide additional stopping features provided by ends of the oblong slots. Additionally, the aforementioned modification would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results. •The modified knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the at least one additional sharpening insert is positioned on an outer side of the holder. However, Lee (US Patent 5,163,251) teaches it is known in the art of knife sharpening devices to provide at least one additional sharpening insert (2) positioned on an outer side (i.e., in notch 15, 15’) of a holder (formed by frames 1, 1’). Lee teaches the at least one additional sharpening insert (2) is provided in addition to at least one sharpening insert (abrasive rod(s) 2) mounted in holder (1, 1’) for sharpening a blade inserted into a beveled slot (12) for the purpose of “removing the burr from the sharp edge of the knife having been sharpened” (col. 3, lines 15-17).
PNG
media_image3.png
314
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Lee such that at least one additional sharpening insert is positioned on an outer side of the holder in order to allow “for sharpening all kinds of knives and … for removing the burr from the sharp edge of the knife having been sharpened” (Lee, col. 3, lines 14-17). In other words, the aforementioned modification would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention in order to facilitate a final honing of the blade after the initial sharpening has been performed with the at least one sharpening insert provided in the slot. Regarding claim 2, the modified knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above includes the holder (1, 6) comprises a housing (1) that includes at least two housing halves (e.g., Johnson, outer housing portions 1). To the extent it can be argued the two outer housing portions (1) of Johnson do not correspond to “at least two housing halves,” Lee teaches it is known in the art of knife sharpening devices to form a holder (1, 1’) from two housing halves (1, 1’), wherein each housing half is provided with the requisite pairs of holding features (e.g., 101 and 102, 181 and 182, 191 and 192) for supporting abrasive rods (2) within the holder (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Hepworth such that the holder comprises a housing that includes at least two housing halves in order to facilitate manufacture of the device with fewer pieces (i.e., two pieces versus three pieces).
Regarding claim 3, the modified knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above includes the slot (Johnson 2, 3) has an open end (Johnson flared opening 3) and an opposite closed end (Johnson annotated fig. 1), the open end has a lead in taper (i.e., flared opening), one side of the slot has a portion with a straight profile adjacent to the closed end (Johnson annotated fig. 1), and a second side of the slot has a portion with a curved profile adjacent to closed end (Johnson annotated fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, the modified knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above includes the additional sharpening insert (i.e., abrasive rod 2 in notch 15, as taught by Lee) is a honing surface (the function of “removing the burr from the sharp edge of the knife having been sharpened,” described in col. 3, lines 15-17 of Lee is interpreted as providing a surface of honing). Regarding claim 7, the modified knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above includes wherein the pin is on the at least one sharpening rod (as taught by Spreitz).
As best understood, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US Patent 1,041,631), Spreitz (DE 10052439) and Lee (US Patent 5,163,251) in view of Meade et al (US Patent 2,249,218), herein referred to as Meade. Regarding claim 4, the modified knife cutting device of Johnson substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose wherein in [an] area of [a] side with [a] straight profile, at least one shoulder protrudes from the outer side of the housing half of the holder. However, the teaching of the following references is pertinent to this limitation: A. Meade teaches it is known in the art of knife sharpening devices to provide in the area of the side with the straight profile (i.e., from the edge of slot 21), at least one shoulder (guard flange(s) 23) protrudes from the outer side (e.g., see figs. 1, 9 and 10) of the housing (casing 20) of the holder (fig. 10). B. Lee teaches it is known in the art of knife sharpening devices for one side of the slot (12, 12’) to have a straight profile (annotated fig. 2) which extends farther than the other side of the slot (i.e., “curved profile” side, annotated fig. 2). At an end portion of the straight profile side of the slot, a cusp is formed between the straight profile portion and a curved surface portion (13, 13’) that defines a hand-gripping portion of holder (1, 1’), as shown in fig. 5. The cusp is similar to the claimed “shoulder” and is formed on each housing half (1, 1’) of the holder. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Meade and Lee such that the area of the slot with a straight profile includes at least one shoulder protrudes from the outer side of the housing half of the holder in order to “protect the thumb and fingers of the hand which holds the casing steady while the device is in use” (Meade, page 2, col. 1, lines 69-71).
As best understood, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US Patent 1,041,631), Spreitz (DE 10052439) and Lee (US Patent 5,163,251) in view of Schmidt (US Patent 2,448,629). Regarding claim 5, the modified knife cutting apparatus of Johnson substantially disclosed above includes the additional sharpening insert (as taught by Lee) is a honing surface (Lee, col. 3, lines 15-17). The cited portion of the Lee disclosure describes what may be interpreted as a honing function but does not explicitly state the additional sharpening insert is a honing surface. Thus, to the extent it can be argued the modified knife cutting apparatus of Johnson substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the additional sharpening insert is a honing surface, Schmidt teaches it is known in the art of knife sharpening devices to provide a main sharpening insert (3) with corresponding slots (8, 9) and at least one additional sharpening insert (17), wherein Schmidt states in col. 3, lines 59-64, “handle 2 may be readily employed as a means for mounting a cylindrical hone or sharpening stone which may be employed to complete the sharpening operation, the stone 17 being cemented in a semi-cylindrical depression formed in the handle 2” [emphasis added]. Schmidt teaches handle (2) is an extension of holder (1) in which main sharpening insert (3) and slots (8, 9) are formed.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the knife sharpening device of Johnson substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Schmidt such that the at least one additional sharpening insert is a honing surface in order to allow the user to complete the sharpening operation with a single knife sharpening device rather than searching for a separate honing device to finish a respective sharpening operation and/or to increase the utility of the knife sharpening device by providing both of a sharpening function and a honing function in one device, thereby eliminating the need to carry multiple tools configured to perform each function separately.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Millman (US Patent 5,040,435) discloses a knife sharpening device with sharpening sticks mounted on sliding pivot points. Wu (US Patent 7,172,500) discloses a knife sharpening device.
Chantry (GB 304,885) discloses a knife sharpening device. Inman (GB 2134020) discloses a knife sharpening device with pivotable sharpening members.
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 SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 March 5, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724