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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not wholly persuasive.
Examiner thanks the Applicant for cancelling claim 2, which was objected to in the previous Office Action dated April 30, 2026, as being a substantial duplicate of claim 9, if claim 9 were found allowable. The Examiner respectfully withdrawals this objection.
Applicant has respectfully disagreed with the Examiner’s claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and has amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 to address these rejections, further defining each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity, and one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity. The Applicant states that the cited references fail to render obvious independent claims 1, 9, and 17, as amended, specifically stating that the “cited references fail to disclose that each of the one or more sliding mechanisms define a cavity and that the sharpening mechanism includes one or more projection members configured to translate within the cavity” (see Page 2, Response), and further remarks that “the cavity is defined by the sliding mechanism and the projection member(s) of the sharpening mechanism translate within that cavity” (Page 2, Response). The Examiner thanks the Applicant for their amendments to the claims, but has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner asserts that the updated grounds of rejection of Alexander in view of Beechinor teaches wherein each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity, and one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity. Please refer to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections below (see Pages 10, 13-14, 20, and 26 of this Office Action).
Applicant has also argued that, “assuming arguendo (and without admitting) that Beechinor discloses sliding mechanisms, Applicant respectfully submits that the structure disclosed in Beechinor is reversed from the structure disclosed in independent claims 1, 9, and 17, as amended”. However, Applicant did not point out the structures or disclosure of Beechinor which are allegedly “reversed” from the claimed invention, and thus Examiner is unable to determine what “structure” taught by Beechinor is allegedly reversed with respect to the claimed invention.
However, as previously pointed out in the Office Action dated April 30th, 2026 (see Page 8, Non-Final Rejection), Beechinor teaches one or more sliding mechanisms (Beechinor: Paragraph [0045], “adjustable sharpener assembly 130” comprising “sharpener slider top 140 removably mounted on a sharpener slider bottom 150”) configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones (Beechinor: Paragraph [0045], sharpener slider top (140) comprises a U-shaped block portion (160), which has sharpening stone support (180) integrally attached “for receiving at least two abrasive stones”). Furthermore, with respect to the amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17, each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity are disclosed by sharpener slider top (140), which defines a cavity upon which “sharpener slider top 140 to be guided by second rails 230a and 230b as sharpener slider top 140 is upwardly biased into engagement with knife blade 20” (Beechinor, Paragraph [0046]). Here, the one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity include the second rails (230a, 230b), which, as previously disclosed, guide the sharpener slider top (140) as it is biased upwardly. Please see Pages 10, 13-14, 20, and 26 of this Office Action pertaining to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
As the amended independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are rendered obvious pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, as discussed above and expanded upon below, the independent claims are not in condition for allowance. Claims 3-8, 10-16, and 18-20 depend from a respective independent claim identified above and are also rejected herein. Thus, for the above stated reasons, Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive; this action is made final herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US 2475937 A), herein referred to as "Alexander", in view of Beechinor et al (US 20150031274 A1 ), herein referred to as "Beechinor".
Regarding Claim 1, Alexander discloses a blade sharpening device (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 7-9 and 13-17, wherein “the invention proposes a knife holder which is characterized by a hollow body” and “it is also proposed to provide said hollow body with a knife sharpener mounted therein”; see also Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander) and Annotated Figure 5 for the embodiment disclosed by Alexander to be discussed) comprising:
a block configured to receive one or more blades within one or more slots of the block (Alexander: See Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander) in view of Col. 1, lines 7-13, wherein “the invention proposes a knife holder which is characterized by a hollow body having a top wall with a slot through which the blade of a knife may be inserted; see also Annotated Figure 3 for an alternative embodiment perspective that provides a helpful view of most of the components to be discussed, but is for a single knife holder without the small spring 39 structure of Annotated Figure 5);
and a sharpening mechanism positioned and located within the one or more slots (Alexander: See Col. 2, lines 9-14 and 25-30, wherein the knife holder “includes a hollow body 10 having a top wall 11 provided with a slot 12 through which the blade 13 of a knife 14 may be inserted and removed at will” and “the knife sharpener 20 is mounted within said hollow body 10”), the sharpening mechanism comprising:
one or more sharpening stones (Alexander: See Col. 2, lines 30-34, wherein “the sharpener 20 comprises a leaf spring 21” and “this leaf spring 21 extends upwards and supports several groups of sharpener discs 23");
and one or more springs (Alexander: See Annotated Figure 3, wherein leaf spring 21 is disclosed; see also Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander), wherein two leaf springs are disclosed);
wherein when the one or more blades are inserted into the block (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 7-10 and 13-17, wherein a knife holder “characterized by a hollow body having a top wall with a slot through which the blade of a knife may be inserted” is also disclosed to “provide said hollow body with a knife sharpener mounted therein and so arranged as to automatically sharpen the knife each time it is placed into, or removed from, the slot in said hollow body”), the one or more springs provide upward tension to the sliding mechanisms (Alexander: Col. 1, lines 18-22, the leaf spring 21 “will urge the sharpener resiliently against the edge of the knife blade as it is inserted and removed from the holder”), and the one or more sharpening stones engage with the one or more blades (Alexander: Col. 1, lines 23-26, wherein “the invention also proposes to so construct the knife holder that the blade is guided against the knife sharpener while it is being inserted and removed from said top slot”).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
605
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
582
835
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Alexander does not explicitly teach or disclose one or more sliding mechanisms configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones, each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity;
one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Beechinor teaches one or more sliding mechanisms (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045], wherein an adjustable knife holder has “an adjustable sharpener assembly 130” which comprises a “sharpener slider top 140 removably mounted on a sharpener slider bottom 150”; see also Annotated Figure 6) configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones (Beechinor: See Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraph [0045], wherein the “sharpener slider top 140 comprises a U-shaped block portion 160” and “integrally attached to rear side 162 of block portion 160 is a sharpening stone support 180 defining a generally V-shaped notch 190 therein for receiving at least two abrasive stones”), each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity (Beechinor: see Paragraphs [0045-0046] in view of Annotated Figures 6 and 7, wherein the first rail (170b) and the beveled opening (165) section of the block portion (160) define a gap for the second rail (230b)); one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity (Beechinor: Paragraph [0046] in view of Annotated Figures 6 and 7, second rails (230a, 230b), which guide the sharpener slider top (140) “as sharpener slider top 140 is upwardly biased into engagement with knife blade 20”).
PNG
media_image4.png
928
779
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Alexander and Beechinor disclose variations of knife holders with the capability of sharpening bladed implements upon insertion and removal from the knife holders (see Alexander, Col. 1, lines 7-17, and Beechinor, Abstract). Here, Alexander discloses the limitations of Claim 1 with the exception of one or more sliding mechanisms configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones. Instead, Alexander discloses strips of material 36 with bent portions 37 which form sockets to receive the back edges of knife blades 13 (see Annotated Figure 5 in view of Col. 3, lines 18-34). Small springs 39 urge the strips forward against the front wall of the hollow body, resulting in the bladed edge of the knife 13 contacting the sharpening discs 23 that, upon insertion and removal from the knife holder, sharpen a blade 13 (see Annotated Figure 5). Beechinor describes a similar structure in which a knife holder is designed with a sharpener included within the knife holder, and the blade is sharpened upon insertion and removal from the knife holder.
PNG
media_image5.png
874
933
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Beechinor discloses a structure wherein a resilient spring member 250 is affixed to the sharpener slider bottom 150, and a sharpener slider top 140 is removably mountable on the sharpener slider bottom 150 (see Paragraph [0045]). Sharpener slider top 140 has first guide rails 170a and 170b which create a gap 175 for receiving a blade, and sharpener slider bottom 160 has second rails 230a and 230b for guiding sharpener slider top 140 (see Paragraph [0046]). Here, resilient spring 250 has a low spring constant as to provide a low force onto the blade edge of a knife as it makes contact with abrasive stones 200a and 200b within a sharpening stone support 180 (see Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraphs [0045] and [0049]). The sharpening stone support 180 is made to contact a blade by being affixed to the sharpening slider top 140 as it is biased upwards.
Notably, the sharpener slider top (140) disclosed by Beechinor defines a cavity such that, as exemplified by Annotated Figure 7, the first rail (170b) and the beveled opening (165) of the block portion (160) comprise a gap. Within this gap, the sharpener slider top (140) is guided by the second rail (230b) as the sharpener slider top (140) is biased upwardly into engagement with a knife blade (20) (Beechinor, Paragraph [0046]).
PNG
media_image6.png
742
849
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alexander such that a sharpener slider top and a sharpener slider bottom, and their associated guiding rails and sharpening stones, are included to the leaf spring assembly taught by Alexander. Specifically, the sliding mechanisms associated with having a first and second set of rails to guide the leaf spring 21 are sought after. Under the modified embodiment, a structure similar to the sharpener slider bottom would be affixed against the back flange 15 of the knife holder, as disclosed by Alexander, and a structure similar to the sharpener slider top would be affixed to the leaf spring 21, which will replace the sharpening discs 23 disclosed by Alexander with the integrated sharpening stone support 180 and associated sharpening stones assembly disclosed by Beechinor (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045] pertaining to sharpening stones 200a and 200b; see also Annotated Figure 8). Here, the first rails 170a and 170b, according to Beechinor, would be included with the sharpener slider top structure, with the sharpener slider top structure removably attached to the leaf spring 21. The second rails 230a and 230b, according to Beechinor, are included with the sharpener slider bottom structure. Upon insertion of a blade, the first rails 170a and 170b would engage with the second rails 230a and 230b to control the leaf spring compressing against the back flange 15 of the knife holder.
Beechinor notes that the inclusion of a second set of rails to guide a first set of rails helps align the sharpener slider top to bias into engagement with a knife blade (see Beechinor, Paragraph [0046]). Furthermore, the sharpener slider top 140 is regarded as an easily interchangeable piece that houses the sharpening stone support 180 in the embodiment directly disclosed by Beechinor (see Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraph [0046]). Someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the structure disclosed by Alexander with the structure disclosed by Beechinor to incorporate such features for these reasons listed above.
With respect to Claim 3, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 1, wherein the upward tension provided by the one or more springs to the sliding mechanisms provides an upward force onto the one or more blades inserted into the block (see Alexander, Col. 2, lines 30-34, wherein the sharpener comprises a leaf spring 21 which supports the sharpening discs, or sharpening stones in Modified Alexander; see also Beechinor, Paragraph [0046], wherein the “sharpener slider top is upwardly biased into engagement with knife blade 20”).
With respect to Claim 4, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more springs are at least one of: a plastic spring; a leaf spring; and a molded spring (Alexander: See Annotated Figure 3 and 4, wherein leaf spring 21 is disclosed).
With respect to Claim 5, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more springs provides at least one of: linear spring force; and variable spring force (see Beechinor, Paragraph [0049], wherein the spring 250 “inherently possesses a spring constant” and the spring 250; see Annotated Figure 3 and 5, wherein leaf spring 21 and small springs 39 with a spring constant provide a linear spring force).
With respect to Claim 8, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more sharpening stones are made of at least one of: ceramic; carbide; diamond; natural; and water (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045], wherein each “first stone 200a and second stone 200b comprise an abrasive material selected from the group consisting essentially of natural whetstone, corundum, diamond, metal, metal alloy, ceramic, leather, sandpaper, and combinations thereof”).
Regarding Claim 9, Alexander discloses a blade sharpening device (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 7-9 and 13-17, wherein “the invention proposes a knife holder which is characterized by a hollow body” and “it is also proposed to provide said hollow body with a knife sharpener mounted therein”; see also Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander) and Annotated Figure 5 for the embodiment disclosed by Alexander to be discussed) comprising:
a block configured to receive one or more blades within one or more slots of the block (Alexander: See Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander) in view of Col. 1, lines 7-13, wherein “the invention proposes a knife holder which is characterized by a hollow body having a top wall with a slot through which the blade of a knife may be inserted; see also Annotated Figure 3 for an alternative embodiment perspective that provides a helpful view of most of the components to be discussed, but is for a single knife holder without the small spring 39 structure of Annotated Figure 5);
and a sharpening mechanism positioned and located within the one or more slots (Alexander: See Col. 2, lines 9-14 and 25-30, wherein the knife holder “includes a hollow body 10 having a top wall 11 provided with a slot 12 through which the blade 13 of a knife 14 may be inserted and removed at will” and “the knife sharpener 20 is mounted within said hollow body 10”), the sharpening mechanism comprising:
one or more sharpening stones (Alexander: See Col. 2, lines 30-34, wherein “the sharpener 20 comprises a leaf spring 21” and “this leaf spring 21 extends upwards and supports several groups of sharpener discs 23");
and one or more springs (Alexander: See Annotated Figure 3, wherein leaf spring 21 is disclosed; see also Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander), wherein two leaf springs are disclosed);
wherein when the one or more blades are inserted into the block (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 7-10 and 13-17, wherein a knife holder “characterized by a hollow body having a top wall with a slot through which the blade of a knife may be inserted” is also disclosed to “provide said hollow body with a knife sharpener mounted therein and so arranged as to automatically sharpen the knife each time it is placed into, or removed from, the slot in said hollow body”), the one or more springs provide upward tension to the sliding mechanisms (Alexander: Col. 1, lines 18-22, the leaf spring 21 “will urge the sharpener resiliently against the edge of the knife blade as it is inserted and removed from the holder”), and the one or more sharpening stones engage with the one or more blades (Alexander: Col. 1, lines 23-26, wherein “the invention also proposes to so construct the knife holder that the blade is guided against the knife sharpener while it is being inserted and removed from said top slot”).
However, Alexander does not explicitly teach or disclose one or more sliding mechanisms configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones, each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity;
one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity;
and does not disclose one or more gibs configured to receive the one or more sliding mechanisms.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Beechinor teaches one or more sliding mechanisms (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045], wherein an adjustable knife holder has “an adjustable sharpener assembly 130” which comprises a “sharpener slider top 140 removably mounted on a sharpener slider bottom 150”; see also Annotated Figure 6) configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones (Beechinor: See Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraph [0045], wherein the “sharpener slider top 140 comprises a U-shaped block portion 160” and “integrally attached to rear side 162 of block portion 160 is a sharpening stone support 180 defining a generally V-shaped notch 190 therein for receiving at least two abrasive stones”), each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity (Beechinor: see Paragraphs [0045-0046] in view of Annotated Figures 6 and 7, wherein the first rail (170b) and the beveled opening (165) section of the block portion (160) define a gap for the second rail (230b));
one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity (Beechinor: Paragraph [0046] in view of Annotated Figures 6 and 7, second rails (230a, 230b), which guide the sharpener slider top (140) “as sharpener slider top 140 is upwardly biased into engagement with knife blade 20”). Beechinor also discloses one or more gibs configured to receive the one or more sliding mechanisms (Beechinor: See Annotated Figure 6 and Paragraph [0046], wherein a gib is the sharpener slider bottom 150 which, in the embodiment disclosed by Modified Alexander, is affixed to the back flange 15 of the knife holder, and receives the sliding mechanisms of the sharpener slider top to promote a guided descent and ascent of a leaf spring compressing and relaxing, respectively).
Both Alexander and Beechinor disclose variations of knife holders with the capability of sharpening bladed implements upon insertion and removal from said knife holders (see Alexander, Col. 1, lines 7-17, and Beechinor, Abstract). Here, Alexander discloses the limitations of Claim 9 with the exception of one or more sliding mechanisms configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones, and one or more gibs configured to receive one or more sliding mechanisms. Instead, Alexander discloses strips of material 36 with bent portions 37 which form sockets to receive the back edges of knife blades 13 (Col. 3, lines 18-34). Small springs 39, which are user adjustable at shank 40 and heads 41, urge the strips forward against the front wall of the hollow body, resulting in the bladed edge of the knife 13 contacting the sharpening discs 23 that, upon insertion and removal from the knife holder, sharpen a blade 13 (see Annotated Figure 5). Beechinor describes a similar structure in which a knife holder is designed with a sharpener included within the knife holder, and the blade is sharpened upon insertion and removal from the knife holder.
However, Beechinor discloses a structure wherein a resilient spring member 250 is affixed to the sharpener slider bottom 150, and a sharpener slider top 140 is removably mountable on the sharpener slider bottom 150 (see Paragraph [0045]). Sharpener slider top 140 has first guide rails 170a and 170b which create a gap 175 for receiving a blade, and sharpener slider bottom 160 has second rails 230a and 230b for guiding sharpener slider top 140 (see Paragraph [0046]). Here, resilient spring 250 has a low spring constant as to provide a low force onto the blade edge of a knife as it makes contact with abrasive stones 200a and 200b within a sharpening stone support 180 (see Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraphs [0045] and [0049]). The sharpening stone support 180 is made to contact a blade by being affixed to the sharpening slider top 140 as it is biased upwards.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alexander such that a sharpener slider top and a sharpener slider bottom, and their associated guiding rails and sharpening stones, are included to the leaf spring assembly taught by Alexander. Specifically, the sliding mechanisms and gibs associated with having a first and second set of rails to guide the leaf spring 21 are sought after. Under the modified embodiment, a structure similar to the sharpener slider bottom, as disclosed by Beechinor, would be affixed against the back flange 15 of the knife holder, as disclosed by Alexander, and a structure similar to the sharpener slider top would be affixed to the leaf spring 21. This will replace the sharpening discs 23 disclosed by Alexander with the integrated sharpening stone support 180 and associated sharpening stones assembly disclosed by Beechinor (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045] pertaining to sharpening stones 200a and 200b; see also Annotated Figure 8). Here, the first rails 170a and 170b, according to Beechinor, would be included with the sharpener slider top structure, with the sharpener slider top structure removably attached to the leaf spring 21. The second rails 230a and 230b, according to Beechinor, are included with the sharpener slider bottom structure. Each sharpener slider bottom structure here, being affixed to the back flange 15 of the knife holder, is a gib for which the sharpening slider top which is the sliding mechanism. Upon insertion of a blade, the first rails 170a and 170b would engage with the second rails 230a and 230b to control the leaf spring compressing against the back flange 15 of the knife holder.
Beechinor notes that the inclusion of a second set of rails to guide a first set of rails helps align the sharpener slider top to bias into engagement with a knife blade (see Beechinor, Paragraph [0046]). Furthermore, the sharpener slider top 140 is regarded as an easily interchangeable piece that houses the sharpening stone support 180 in the embodiment directly disclosed by Beechinor (see Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraph [0046]). As the sharpener slider top (sliding mechanism) is functionally-dependent on the sharpener slider bottom (gib), this would also be included in Modified Alexander. Someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the structure disclosed by Alexander with the structure disclosed by Beechinor to incorporate such features for these reasons listed above.
With respect to Claim 10, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 9, wherein the upward tension provided by the one or more springs to the sliding mechanisms provides an upward force onto the one or more blades inserted into the block (see Alexander, Col. 2, lines 30-34, wherein the sharpener comprises a leaf spring 21 which supports the sharpening discs, or sharpening stones in Modified Alexander; see also Beechinor, Paragraph [0046], wherein the “sharpener slider top is upwardly biased into engagement with knife blade 20”).
With respect to Claim 11, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 9, wherein when the one or more sharpening stones engage with the one or more blades, the one or more sharpening stones sharpen the one or more blades (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 18-26, wherein the knife sharpener, comprises the sharpening discs 23 (or sharpening stones 200a and 200b in the Modified Alexander embodiment) and being supported by the leaf spring 21, is biased towards the edge of a knife blade as it is inserted and removed from the knife holder, thus sharpening it; see also Annotated Figure 3 where the leaf spring 21 biases the sharpener 20 and the associated sharpening discs 23 towards the blade edge).
With respect to Claim 12, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 9, wherein each of the one or more springs are at least one of: a plastic spring; a leaf spring; and a molded spring (see Annotated Figure 3, 4, and 5, where leaf spring 21 is disclosed in all embodiments by Alexander, and also incorporated in Modified Alexander).
With respect to Claim 13, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 9, wherein each of the one or more springs provides at least one of: linear spring force; and variable spring force (see Beechinor, Paragraph [0049], wherein the spring 250 “inherently possesses a spring constant” and the spring 250; see Annotated Figure 3 and 5, wherein leaf spring 21 and small springs 39 with a spring constant provide a linear spring force).
With respect to Claim 16, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the blade sharpening device of claim 9, wherein each of the one or more sharpening stones are made of at least one of: ceramic; carbide; diamond; natural; and water (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045], wherein each “first stone 200a and second stone 200b comprise an abrasive material selected from the group consisting essentially of natural whetstone, corundum, diamond, metal, metal alloy, ceramic, leather, sandpaper, and combinations thereof”).
Regarding Claim 17, Alexander discloses a cutlery block comprising:
one or more slots configured to receive one or more blades (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 7-13, wherein “the invention proposes a knife holder which is characterized by a hollow body having a top wall with a slot through which the blade of a knife may be inserted”; see also Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander) of a knife holder configured to receive one or more blades);
and a sharpening mechanism positioned and located within the one or more slots (Alexander: See Col. 2, lines 9-14 and 25-30, wherein the knife holder “includes a hollow body 10 having a top wall 11 provided with a slot 12 through which the blade 13 of a knife 14 may be inserted and removed at will” and “the knife sharpener 20 is mounted within said hollow body 10”), the sharpening mechanism comprising:
one or more sharpening stones (Alexander: See Col. 2, lines 30-34, wherein “the sharpener 20 comprises a leaf spring 21” and “this leaf spring 21 extends upwards and supports several groups of sharpener discs 23");
and one or more springs (Alexander: See Annotated Figure 3, wherein leaf spring 21 is disclosed; see also Annotated Figure 4 (Alexander), wherein two leaf springs are disclosed);
wherein when the one or more blades are inserted into the block (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 7-10 and 13-17, wherein a knife holder “characterized by a hollow body having a top wall with a slot through which the blade of a knife may be inserted” is also disclosed to “provide said hollow body with a knife sharpener mounted therein and so arranged as to automatically sharpen the knife each time it is placed into, or removed from, the slot in said hollow body”), the one or more springs provide upward tension to the sliding mechanisms (Alexander: Col. 1, lines 18-22, the leaf spring 21 “will urge the sharpener resiliently against the edge of the knife blade as it is inserted and removed from the holder”), and the one or more sharpening stones engage with the one or more blades (Alexander: Col. 1, lines 23-26, wherein “the invention also proposes to so construct the knife holder that the blade is guided against the knife sharpener while it is being inserted and removed from said top slot”).
However, Alexander does not explicitly teach or disclose one or more sliding mechanisms configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones, each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity;
one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity;
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Beechinor teaches one or more sliding mechanisms (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045], wherein an adjustable knife holder has “an adjustable sharpener assembly 130” which comprises a “sharpener slider top 140 removably mounted on a sharpener slider bottom 150”; see also Annotated Figure 6) configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones (Beechinor: See Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraph [0045], wherein the “sharpener slider top 140 comprises a U-shaped block portion 160” and “integrally attached to rear side 162 of block portion 160 is a sharpening stone support 180 defining a generally V-shaped notch 190 therein for receiving at least two abrasive stones”) each of the one or more sliding mechanisms defining a cavity (Beechinor: see Paragraphs [0045-0046] in view of Annotated Figures 6 and 7, wherein the first rail (170b) and the beveled opening (165) section of the block portion (160) define a gap for the second rail (230b));
one or more projection members which are configured to translate within the cavity (Beechinor: Paragraph [0046] in view of Annotated Figures 6 and 7, second rails (230a, 230b), which guide the sharpener slider top (140) “as sharpener slider top 140 is upwardly biased into engagement with knife blade 20”).
Both Alexander and Beechinor disclose variations of knife holders with the capability of sharpening bladed implements upon insertion and removal from said knife holders (see Alexander, Col. 1, lines 7-17, and Beechinor, Abstract). Here, Alexander discloses the limitations of Claim 1 with the exception of one or more sliding mechanisms configured to receive the one or more sharpening stones. Instead, Alexander discloses strips of material 36 with bent portions 37 which form sockets to receive the back edges of knife blades 13 (Col. 3, lines 18-34). Small springs 39 urge the strips forward against the front wall of the hollow body, resulting in the bladed edge of the knife 13 contacting the sharpening discs 23 that, upon insertion and removal from the knife holder, sharpen a blade 13 (see Annotated Figure 5). Beechinor describes a similar structure in which a knife holder is designed with a sharpener included within the knife holder, and the blade is sharpened upon insertion and removal from the knife holder.
However, Beechinor discloses a structure wherein a resilient spring member 250 is affixed to the sharpener slider bottom 150, and a sharpener slider top 140 is removably mountable on the sharpener slider bottom 150 (see Paragraph [0045]). Sharpener slider top 140 has first guide rails 170a and 170b which create a gap 175 for receiving a blade, and sharpener slider bottom 160 has second rails 230a and 230b for guiding sharpener slider top 140 (see Paragraph [0046]). Here, resilient spring 250 has a low spring constant as to provide a low force onto the blade edge of a knife as it makes contact with abrasive stones 200a and 200b within a sharpening stone support 180 (see Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraphs [0045] and [0049]). The sharpening stone support 180 is made to contact a blade by being affixed to the sharpening slider top 140 as it is biased upwards.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alexander such that a sharpener slider top and a sharpener slider bottom, and their associated guiding rails and sharpening stones, are included to the leaf spring assembly taught by Alexander. Specifically, the sliding mechanisms associated with having a first and second set of rails to guide the leaf spring 21 are sought after. Under the modified embodiment, a structure similar to the sharpener slider bottom would be affixed against the back flange 15 of the knife holder, as disclosed by Alexander, and a structure similar to the sharpener slider top would be affixed to the leaf spring 21 which will replace the sharpening discs 23 disclosed by Alexander with the integrated sharpening stone support 180 and associated sharpening stones assembly disclosed by Beechinor (Beechinor: See Paragraph [0045] pertaining to sharpening stones 200a and 200b; see also Annotated Figure 8). Here, the first rails 170a and 170b, according to Beechinor, would be included with the sharpener slider top structure, with the sharpener slider top structure removably attached to the leaf spring 21. The second rails 230a and 230b, according to Beechinor, are included with the sharpener slider bottom structure. Upon insertion of a blade, the first rails 170a and 170b would engage with the second rails 230a and 230b to control the leaf spring compressing against the back flange 15 of the knife holder.
Beechinor notes that the inclusion of a second set of rails to guide a first set of rails helps align the sharpener slider top to bias into engagement with a knife blade (see Beechinor, Paragraph [0046]). Furthermore, the sharpener slider top 140 is regarded as an easily interchangeable piece that houses the sharpening stone support 180 in the embodiment directly disclosed by Beechinor (see Annotated Figure 8 in view of Paragraph [0046]). Someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the structure disclosed by Alexander with the structure disclosed by Beechinor to incorporate such features for these reasons listed above.
With respect to Claim 18, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the cutlery block of claim 17, further comprising one or more gibs configured to receive the one or more sliding mechanisms (Beechinor: See Annotated Figure 6 and Paragraph [0046], wherein a gib is the sharpener slider bottom 150 which, in the embodiment disclosed by Modified Alexander, is affixed to the back flange 15 of the knife holder, and receives the sliding mechanisms of the sharpener slider top to promote a guided descent and ascent of a leaf spring compressing and relaxing, respectively).
With respect to Claim 19, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Alexander further discloses the cutlery block of claim 17, wherein the upward tension provided by the one or more springs to the sliding mechanisms provides an upward force onto the one or more blades inserted into the block (see Alexander, Col. 2, lines 30-34, wherein the sharpener comprises a leaf spring 21 which supports the sharpening discs, or sharpening stones in Modified Alexander; see also Beechinor, Paragraph [0046], wherein the “sharpener slider top is upwardly biased into engagement with knife blade 20”).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US 2475937 A), herein referred to as "Alexander", in view of Beechinor et al (US 20150031274 A1 ), herein referred to as "Beechinor", and further in view of Howell et al (US 5245756 A), herein referred to as "Howell".
With respect to Claim 6, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, including the blade sharpening device of claim 1. Modified Alexander does not disclose each of the one or more springs are made of at least one of: steel; rubber; plastic; and metal alloys.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Howell teaches each of the one or more springs are made of at least one of: steel; rubber; plastic; and metal alloys (Howell: Col. 4, lines 9-12, wherein angle spring 60 should be made of a flexible metal or metal alloy or an appropriate substitute material to allow for the desired flexibility and elasticity).
Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses a knife holder with a sharpener contained within the knife holder. However, the material of the leaf spring 21 or the small springs 39 are never explicitly disclosed. Of note, Alexander discloses that the leaf spring 21 may be replaced with another resilient element if it continues to urge the sharpener 20 towards the edge of the knife blade as it is inserted or removed (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 18-22).
Howell also teaches a knife holder with a sharpener contained within the knife holder. Specifically, Howell discloses a lockable knife and block assembly, wherein a knife block has a plurality of slots for housing a plurality of knife blades (Howell: See Abstract). Furthermore, the lockable knife block also provides a sharpening means in each slot of the knife block which sharpens a given knife blade each time the knife blade is inserted or removed from the slot (Howell: See Col. 1, lines 62-64). In view of Annotated Figure 4 (Howell), discloses a cutaway perspective of the lockable knife block, wherein an angle spring 50 is seen interacting with the sharpener housing 48 to sharpen a blade, and a locking latch 54 and releasing means 30 can be seen. Howell further details the components in Annotated Figures 5A and 6A. Of note, Annotated Figure 6A comprises an angle spring 60 which Howell describes, inter alia, “should be made of a flexible metal or metal alloy or an appropriate substitute material to allow for the desired flexibility and elasticity” (Col. 4, lines 9-12).
PNG
media_image7.png
562
918
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
462
493
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
462
410
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the disclosed embodiment of Alexander in view of Beechinor with the embodiment disclosed by Howell, specifically their disclosed angle spring 60 material. As Modified Alexander already supports using alternative resilient members to urge a sharpener towards a knife blade upon insertion and removal (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 18-22), it would require little effort to ensure the material selected for a leaf spring 21, as disclosed by Modified Alexander, is a metal alloy or another flexible metal in support of flexible operation, as disclosed by Howell (Howell: Col. 4, lines 9-12).
Regarding Claim 14, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, including the blade sharpening device of claim 9. Modified Alexander does not disclose each of the one or more springs are made of at least one of: steel; rubber; plastic; and metal alloys.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Howell teaches each of the one or more springs are made of at least one of: steel; rubber; plastic; and metal alloys (Howell: Col. 4, lines 9-12, wherein angle spring 60 should be made of a flexible metal or metal alloy or an appropriate substitute material to allow for the desired flexibility and elasticity).
Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses a knife holder with a sharpener contained within the knife holder. However, the material of the leaf spring 21 or the small springs 39 are never explicitly disclosed. Of note, Alexander discloses that the leaf spring 21 may be replaced with another resilient element if it continues to urge the sharpener 20 towards the edge of the knife blade as it is inserted or removed (Alexander: See Col. 1, lines 18-22).
Howell also teaches a knife holder with a sharpener contained within the knife holder. Specifically, Howell discloses a lockable knife and block assembly having a knife block having a plurality of slots for housing a plurality of knife blades (Howell: See Abstract). Furthermore, the lockable knife block also provides a sharpening means in each slot of the knife block which sharpens a given knife blade each time the knife blade is inserted or removed from the slot (Howell: See Col. 1, lines 62-64). In view of Annotated Figure 4 (Howell), discloses a cutaway perspective of the lockable knife block, wherein an angle spring 50 is seen interacting with the sharpener housing 48 to sharpen a blade, and a locking latch 54 and releasing means 30 can be seen. Howell further details the components in Annotated Figures 5A and 6A. Of note, Annotated Figure 6A comprises an angle spring 60 which Howell describes, inter alia, “should be made of a flexible metal or metal alloy or an appropriate substitute material to allow for the desired flexibility and elasticity” (Col. 4, lines 9-12).
Claim(s) 7, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US 2475937 A), herein referred to as "Alexander", in view of Beechinor et al (US 20150031274 A1 ), herein referred to as "Beechinor", and further in view of Elek et al (US 20150258651 A1), herein referred to as "Elek".
Regarding Claim 7, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, including the blade sharpening device of claim 1. Modified Alexander does not explicitly teach or disclose each of the one or more springs provides a force of at least 0.1 pounds of force.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Elek teaches each of the one or more springs provides a force of at least 0.1 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0032], wherein “the spring force against the discs in stage 1 is preferably 0.2-1.5 pounds”).
Modified Alexander teaches a blade sharpening device, but both Alexander and Beechinor are silent on the force a spring must provide in their disclosed structures. Elek teaches an electric sharpener for ceramic and metal blades, and notes the sharpener has different “stages” for progressive sharpening of a blade (Elek: See Paragraph [0031]). Here, a “Stage” is a dedicated section of the electric sharpener with a specific grit applied to an abrasive disc for sharpening a blade. Starting from “Stage 1”, moving onto “Stage 2”, and continuing this trend onwards in increments of one result in successively smaller abrasive grit sizes for sharpening (Elek: See Paragraph [0003], [0032], [0035], and [0037], wherein the successively smaller grit sizes at each stage are discussed). Here, each stage is provided a pair of rotatable discs for abrading and polishing a blade, further comprising a guide structure 20 and a spring 22 between the discs for properly aligning the blade, and for holding the blade into contact with the rotating disc by means of a shaft providing a spring force against the disc (Elek: See Paragraph [0031]; see also Annotated Figure 1). At Stage 1, shown as reference character 14, the shaft providing a spring force against the disc, thus pushing a blade into contact with the abrasive disc, has between 0.2 to 1.5 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Alexander in view of Beechinor with the disclosed invention by Elek, specifically pertaining to a spring having a force of at least 0.1 pounds. Elek notes that Stage 1 of the sharpening process is “particularly designed for pre-sharpening metal blades” (Elek: See Paragraph [0032]). While Stage 2 has approximately the same force applied, the grit size decreases (Elek: See Paragraph [0035]). Stage 3, however, has the spring force in a range of approximately 0.2 to 2.0 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0037]). Thus, someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure the spring force remains above at least 0.1 pounds of force in support of sharpening operations as it is evident that forces greater than 0.1 pounds are necessary for sharpening in this embodiment.
PNG
media_image10.png
614
1040
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, including the blade sharpening device of claim 9. Modified Alexander does not explicitly teach or disclose each of the one or more springs provides a force of at least 0.1 pounds of force.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Elek teaches each of the one or more springs provides a force of at least 0.1 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0032], wherein “the spring force against the discs in stage 1 is preferably 0.2-1.5 pounds”).
Modified Alexander teaches a blade sharpening device, but both Alexander and Beechinor are silent on the force a spring must provide in their disclosed structures. Elek teaches an electric sharpener for ceramic and metal blades, and notes the sharpener has different “stages” for progressive sharpening of a blade (Elek: See Paragraph [0031]). Here, a “Stage” is a dedicated section of the electric sharpener with a specific grit applied to an abrasive disc for sharpening a blade. Starting from “Stage 1”, moving onto “Stage 2”, and continuing this trend onwards in increments of one result in successively smaller abrasive grit sizes for sharpening (Elek: See Paragraph [0003], [0032], [0035], and [0037], wherein the successively smaller grit sizes at each stage are discussed). Here, each stage is provided a pair of rotatable discs for abrading and polishing a blade, further comprising a guide structure 20 and a spring 22 between the discs for properly aligning the blade, and for holding the blade into contact with the rotating disc by means of a shaft providing a spring force against the disc (Elek: See Paragraph [0031]; see also Annotated Figure 1). At Stage 1, shown as reference character 14, the shaft providing a spring force against the disc, thus pushing a blade into contact with the abrasive disc, has between 0.2 to 1.5 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Alexander in view of Beechinor with the disclosed invention by Elek, specifically pertaining to a spring having a force of at least 0.1 pounds. Elek notes that Stage 1 of the sharpening process is “particularly designed for pre-sharpening metal blades” (Elek: See Paragraph [0032]). While Stage 2 has approximately the same force applied, the grit size decreases (Elek: See Paragraph [0035]). Stage 3, however, has the spring force in a range of approximately 0.2 to 2.0 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0037]). Thus, someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure the spring force remains above at least 0.1 pounds of force in support of sharpening operations as it is evident that forces greater than 0.1 pounds are necessary for sharpening.
Regarding Claim 20, Alexander in view of Beechinor discloses the claimed invention as applied above, including the cutlery block of claim 17. Modified Alexander does not explicitly teach or disclose each of the one or more springs provides a force of at least 0.1 pounds of force.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Elek teaches each of the one or more springs provides a force of at least 0.1 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0032], wherein “the spring force against the discs in stage 1 is preferably 0.2-1.5 pounds”).
Modified Alexander teaches a blade sharpening device, but both Alexander and Beechinor are silent on the force a spring must provide in their disclosed structures. Elek teaches an electric sharpener for ceramic and metal blades, and notes the sharpener has different “stages” for progressive sharpening of a blade (Elek: See Paragraph [0031]). Here, a “Stage” is a dedicated section of the electric sharpener with a specific grit applied to an abrasive disc for sharpening a blade. Starting from “Stage 1”, moving onto “Stage 2”, and continuing this trend onwards in increments of one result in successively smaller abrasive grit sizes for sharpening (Elek: See Paragraph [0003], [0032], [0035], and [0037], wherein the successively smaller grit sizes at each stage are discussed). Here, each stage is provided a pair of rotatable discs for abrading and polishing a blade, further comprising a guide structure 20 and a spring 22 between the discs for properly aligning the blade, and for holding the blade into contact with the rotating disc by means of a shaft providing a spring force against the disc (Elek: See Paragraph [0031]; see also Annotated Figure 1). At Stage 1, shown as reference character 14, the shaft providing a spring force against the disc, thus pushing a blade into contact with the abrasive disc, has between 0.2 to 1.5 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Alexander in view of Beechinor with the disclosed invention by Elek, specifically pertaining to a spring having a force of at least 0.1 pounds. Elek notes that Stage 1 of the sharpening process is “particularly designed for pre-sharpening metal blades” (Elek: See Paragraph [0032]). While Stage 2 has approximately the same force applied, the grit size decreases (Elek: See Paragraph [0035]). Stage 3, however, has the spring force in a range of approximately 0.2 to 2.0 pounds of force (Elek: See Paragraph [0037]). Thus, someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure the spring force remains above at least 0.1 pounds of force in support of sharpening operations as it is evident that forces greater than 0.1 pounds are necessary for sharpening.
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 JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 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.
/JON M HEGEMIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
