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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Chinese Application CN2023208584335 dated 04/17/2023 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this Chinese application on 06/25/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8 and 10-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 2, “the oblong long cutout” should read --the oblong shape long cutout--.
Claims 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 line 4, “the nuts” should read --the matching nuts--.(see “matching nuts” in claims 2 and 10).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 10 and 14-15 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 6 recites the limitation “the notch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “the notch” is earlier introduced in claims 3 and 5 and not claims 1 and 2. For the purpose of this examination claim 6 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 3.
Claims 7 and 14-15 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 6.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the two baffles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “baffles” are earlier recited and not “two baffles”. Examiner suggests amending “baffles” to --two baffles-- in all claims to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Dechert (US 1594246 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dechert teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) an edge sharpening tool for an acrylic wax scraper (col. 2, lines 9-12), comprising a base plate (support 2) wherein baffles (jaws 6) are symmetrically installed on a top surface of the base plate, a file (file 10) is placed between the baffles, the baffles each are provided with a bottom surface (flange 5) in an L-shaped configuration with the baffle, a side of the bottom surface away from an end of the baffle in a length direction (L) is provided with a protruding section (protruding section 1 extends downwardly away from a lower end of the baffle 6) serving as a limit block, and the limit block limits a movement of the file (movement of the file is limited inside the two protruding sections 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
920
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Dechert teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top surface of the base plate is provided with a plurality of screws (bolts 14) and matching nuts (wings nuts 11), the bottom surface is fixed on the top surface of the base plate (via 1 and 3) through the screws and the nuts (as shown in figures above, nuts 11 and bolts 14 force clamps 9 on the file 10; the file 10 and the two scraper guide pieces (6, 5, 1, 3) are clamped on the base 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dechert in view of Frommer et al. (WO 2010069082 A1) hereinafter Frommer.
Regarding claim 3, jaws/baffles 6 of Dechert do not have the claimed notches.
Frommer teaches a scrape blade sharpener with baffles (14) each are provided with a notch (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add notches of blade sharpener of Frommer to the blade sharpener of Dechert for the purpose of blade orienting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-9 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-7, 10 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723