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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 8, and 9, and those claims depending therefrom, 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “the guide cover is mounted on the base and is covered on the grinding assembly” is considered indefinite. Applicant identifies the guide cover as numeral 4, the base as numeral 1, and the grinding assembly as numeral 5. The claim seems to imply that the grinding assembly is covering the guide cover (“the guide cover…is covered on the grinding assembly”), which does not appear correct. As best understood from the Figures, Applicant means “the guide cover is mounted on the base and covers the grinding assembly” and, for the purpose of examination, the claim language will be considered as much.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “a driving pin is convexly arranged on the rotating shaft” is indefinite. The term “convex” means curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or a circle. The term “convexly arranged” would then mean something akin to “roundedly arranged” or “curvely arranged.” As best understood, Applicant means to state that the driving pin is arranged on the rounded exterior of the rotating shaft as opposed to, for example, the end faces of a rotation shaft, which is shown in the Figures. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “a driving pin is [radially] arranged on the rotating shaft.”
Regarding claim 8, the claimed “decorative sheet” is indefinite. The term “decorative” is a relative term and holds various indefinite meanings. In other words, what may be decorative to some may not be decorative to others. As such, any statement that the Applicant’s sheet or the sheets of the prior art are “decorative” could be a point of contention as to whether they are decorative or not. Without a definite and objective definition of decorative in terms of the structure of the sheet, one would not be able to ascertain whether a sheet was or wasn’t “decorative” as claimed. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “
Regarding claim 9, the claimed “wherein the central axis of the extending direction of the grinding groove and the central axis of the rotating shaft are distributed at an included angle, as projected in the height direction” is indefinite, particularly regarding “as projected in the height direction.” First, “the height direction” lacks antecedent basis. Second, it’s unclear what is being projected in the height direction (the central axis, the extending direction, the grinding groove, the rotating shaft, the included angle, or a combination thereof). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider not consider this part of limitation to invoke anything extra, but merely consider this to be “wherein the central axis of the extending direction of the grinding groove and the central axis of the rotating shaft are distributed at an included angle,
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200370469Y1 (hereinafter ‘469) in view of Friel (US-2008/0261494) and Rieser (EP2712707A1).
Regarding claim 1, KR200370469Y1 (hereinafter ‘469) discloses an electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges, comprising
a base (case 20),
an electric motor (drive motor 10),
a rotating shaft (rotating shaft 11),
a guide cover (cover 20a) and a grinding assembly (abrasive member 40), wherein the electric motor (drive motor 10) is mounted on the base (case 20) (Figs. 4a, 4b), the rotating shaft (rotating shaft 11) is mounted on the electric motor (motor 10),
the grinding assembly (abrasive member 40) comprises two grinding discs (Fig. 1);
a compression spring (elastic spring 50), and
the guide cover (cover 20a) is mounted on the base (case 20) and covers (see 35 USC 112(b) above for explanation of interpretation) the grinding assembly (abrasive assembly), the guide cover (cover 20a) is provided with a grinding groove (groove 21) at a position corresponding to the grinding assembly (abrasive member 40) (Figs. 4a, 4b), the extending axis of the grinding groove (groove 21) is arranged with respect to the central axis of the rotating shaft (rotating shaft 11) (Figs. 4a, 4b), and
the grinding surface of one of the grinding discs (grinding discs of grinding assembly 40) is exposed at one end of the grinding groove (21) (Figs. 4a, 4b), and the grinding surface of the other grinding disc (grinding discs of grinding assembly 40) is exposed at the other end of the grinding groove (21) (Figs. 4a, 4b).
‘469 fails to disclose (1) a driving pin is radially arranged on the rotating shaft, (2) the grinding surfaces of the two grinding discs are arc-shaped, and (3) one side of the grinding discs facing away from the grinding surfaces thereof is provided with a sliding shaft sleeve, the sliding shaft sleeve is sleeved on the rotating shaft, and the sliding shaft sleeve is provided with a sliding groove extending along the length direction of the rotating shaft, (4) the compression spring (elastic spring 50) is further sleeved on the sliding shaft sleeve, and the compression spring is connected to the driving pin, and (5) the extending axis of the grinding groove (groove 21) is obliquely arranged with respect to the central axis.
As to the driving pin and the sliding shaft sleeve, Friel (US-2008/0261494) teaches a driving pin (pin 11) is radially (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above for explanation of interpretation) arranged on a rotating shaft (shaft 4) (“abrasive disk mounted on shaft 4 is motor driven”) [Friel; paragraph 0015], one side of a grinding disc (3) is provided with a sliding shaft sleeve (see annotated Fig. 1 below), the sliding shaft sleeve is sleeved on the rotating shaft (shaft 4) (Fig. 1), and the sliding shaft sleeve is provided with a sliding groove (see annotated Fig. 1 below) extending along the length direction of the rotating shaft (shaft 4) (Fig. 1), wherein the driving pin (pin 11) is slidably mounted in the sliding groove (see annotated Fig. 1). Since Friel is pertinent to sharpener disks on a rotating shaft for sharpening blades, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the rotating disks of ‘469 using a pin, groove, and shaft sleeve as taught by Friel in order to easily install and maintain abrasive disks [Friel; paragraph 0016]. While Friel teaches the spring between the disks, ‘469 does not include a space for the spring therebetween. However, Friel teaches, as shown in Figure 3, that the forces from the springs 50 of ‘469 push the discs of abrasive member 40 in the same direction as the springs of Friel (see Figs. 2 and 3 of ‘469). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pin, sleeve, and groove taught by Friel on the one side of the grinding discs facing away from the grinding surfaces of ‘469 so as to maintain no space between discs of abrasive member 40 as desired by ‘469.
PNG
media_image1.png
316
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the sliding shaft sleeve is sleeved on the rotating shaft, the compression spring (elastic spring 50) is further sleeved on the sliding shaft sleeve, and the compression spring is connected to the driving pin, the modification in view of Friel, shown below, would result in a modification of the shaft 11 of ‘469, specifically the portion in which the compression spring 50 is sleeved on. This would result in both “the compression spring 50 of ‘469 [being] connected to the driving pin 11 of Friel and the compression spring 50 of ‘469 sleeved over/on the sliding shaft sleeve of Friel, as modified.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for the extending axis of the grinding groove (groove 21) being obliquely arranged with respect to the central axis of the rotating shaft. However, Rieser (EP2712707A1) teaches arranging the grinding groove (24) to be obliquely arranged with respect to the central axis of a rotating shaft (8) (Fig. 3). Rieser teaches that making the angle of the grinding groove oblique to the central axis of the rotating shaft changes the grinding angle to a desirable degree (“Since the sharpening slot widens radially outward from the slot base, the grinding angle is smallest in relation to a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation in the slot base. That is, the deeper a knife blade projects into the sharpening slot, the smaller or sharper the grinding angle.”) [Rieser Translation; Page 2, 5th paragraph]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the grinding groove of ‘469 to be oblique relative to the central axis of the rotating shaft in order to modify the sharpening angle to a desired angle, as taught by Rieser (“Since the sharpening slot widens radially outward from the slot base, the grinding angle is smallest in relation to a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation in the slot base. That is, the deeper a knife blade projects into the sharpening slot, the smaller or sharper the grinding angle.”) [Rieser Translation; Page 2, 5th paragraph].
As to the grinding surfaces of the two grinding discs being arc-shaped, Riser teaches wherein two grinding discs are arc shaped (Figs. 1 and 2). Rieser teaches that this arc-shape is meant to sharpen a variety of different knives with various gradations (“With such a knife sharpener can be ground optimally because of the possible fine gradations largely all standard knife blades”) [Rieser Translation; Page 3, 2nd paragraph] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two grinding discs of ‘469 with arc-shapes in order to handle different blade gradations as taught by Rieser (“With such a knife sharpener can be ground optimally because of the possible fine gradations largely all standard knife blades.”) [Rieser Translation; Page 3, 2nd paragraph].
Regarding claim 2, ‘469 discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 1, wherein the guide cover (cover 20a) is further provided with a guide opening (opening formed by groove 21) in communication with the grinding groove (groove 21).
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200370469Y1 (hereinafter ‘469) in view of Friel (US-2008/0261494) and Rieser (EP2712707A1) and further in view of Jensen (US-2013/0165021).
Regarding claim 3, ‘469 discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a number of grinding assemblies is multiple and a number of grinding grooves is equal to the number of grinding assemblies.
However, Jensen (US-2013/0165021) teaches wherein the number of grinding assemblies (disks 3 and 4) is multiple (Figs. 1-3) and the number of grinding grooves (formed by the respective guides 18) is equal to the number of grinding assemblies (Figs. 1-3). Jensen teaches adding multiple stages in order to complete a quality edge on a blade [Jensen; paragraphs 0037-0039] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious, in view of the teaching of Jensen, to modify sharpeners like that of ‘469to include a number of grinding assemblies with a corresponding number of grooves to incorporate multiple sharpening stages to achieve a higher quality edge, as taught by Jensen [Jensen; paragraph 0039].
Regarding claim 4, ‘469 discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the grinding surfaces of the grinding discs are made of diamond abrasive.
However, Jensen teaches that diamond is a common abrasive for sharpening blades (“The surface of the first two sets of these disks 3 and 4 in the pre-sharpening stages are coated with appropriate super hard abrasive-like particles such as diamonds, alumina, or silicon carbide that can efficiently remove the ceramic materials from the blade and create relatively quickly a reasonably good ceramic knife edge.”) [Jensen; paragraph 0038]. Since Jense in in the same field of endeavor, which is sharpening knife blades, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a commonly used abrasive for sharpening, such as the diamond particles taught by Jensen, in order to effectively sharpen the blade (“The surface of the first two sets of these disks 3 and 4 in the pre-sharpening stages are coated with appropriate super hard abrasive-like particles such as diamonds, alumina, or silicon carbide that can efficiently remove the ceramic materials from the blade and create relatively quickly a reasonably good ceramic knife edge.”) [Jensen; paragraph 0038].
Regarding claim 5, ‘469, as modified by Jensen, discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the grinding surfaces of the grinding discs of at least one set of the grinding assemblies have a mesh number of 360 mesh (about 29.5 micrometers, or about 800 grit).
However, Jensen teaches the “[s]ize of the diamond crystals during these tests of Stages 1 and 2 varied from 600 to 2000 grit” [Jensen; paragraph 0040]. Since the claimed range falls within the range taught by Jensen, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify one set of the grinding assemblies to have a mesh/grit within the claimed range as it falls within a desirable range for abrading depending on both the preference to “remove promptly any large chips that may exist along [the blade] edge” with a larger abrasive or to “create a sharper edge” with a smaller abrasive (“Pre-sharpening the ceramic blade in Stage 1 requires a relatively larger grit in order to remove promptly any large chips that may exist along its edge. Stage 2 contains a finer grit to create a sharper edge.”) [Jensen; paragraph 0041].
Regarding claim 6, ‘469, in view of Jensen, discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the grinding surfaces of the grinding discs of at least one set of the grinding assemblies have a mesh number of 600 mesh (16 micrometer particles, or about 1100 grit).
However, Jensen teaches the “[s]ize of the diamond crystals during these tests of Stages 1 and 2 varied from 600 to 2000 grit” [Jensen; paragraph 0040]. Since the claimed range falls within the range taught by Jensen, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify one set of the grinding assemblies to have a mesh/grit within the claimed range as it falls within a desirable range for abrading depending on both the preference to “remove promptly any large chips that may exist along [the blade] edge” with a larger abrasive or to “create a sharper edge” with a smaller abrasive (“Pre-sharpening the ceramic blade in Stage 1 requires a relatively larger grit in order to remove promptly any large chips that may exist along its edge. Stage 2 contains a finer grit to create a sharper edge.”) [Jensen; paragraph 0041].
Regarding claim 7, ‘469, in view of Jensen, discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the grinding surfaces of the grinding discs of at least one set of the grinding assemblies have a mesh number of 1000 mesh (9 micrometer particles, or about 2200 grit).
However, Jensen teaches the “[s]ize of the diamond crystals during these tests of Stages 1 and 2 varied from 600 to 2000 grit” [Jensen; paragraph 0040]. Since Jensen teaches that larger abrasive particles “remove promptly any large chips that may exist along [the blade] edge” and smaller abrasives “create a sharper edge” (“Pre-sharpening the ceramic blade in Stage 1 requires a relatively larger grit in order to remove promptly any large chips that may exist along its edge. Stage 2 contains a finer grit to create a sharper edge.”) [Jensen; paragraph 0041], it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the abrasive particles of ‘469 to 1000 mesh (9 micrometer particles, or about 2200 grit) as this is near the range used by Jensen [Jensen; paragraph 0040] and, also, Jensen states that, while this range was used, it is reasonable to change the particle size for the desired edge condition (“Pre-sharpening the ceramic blade in Stage 1 requires a relatively larger grit in order to remove promptly any large chips that may exist along its edge. Stage 2 contains a finer grit to create a sharper edge.”) [Jensen; paragraph 0041].
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200370469Y1 (hereinafter ‘469) in view of Friel (US-2008/0261494) and Rieser (EP2712707A1) and further in view of Linden (US-4,723,375).
Regarding claim 8, ‘469 discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a
However, Linden (US-4,723,375) teaches a
Regarding claim 9, ‘469 discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 1, wherein the central axis of the extending direction of the grinding groove and the central axis of the rotating shaft are distributed at an included angle, .
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR200370469Y1 (hereinafter ‘469) in view of Friel (US-2008/0261494) and Rieser (EP2712707A1) and further in view of Elek (US-2011/0034111).
Regarding claim 10, ‘469 discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the included angle is in degrees of 75°.
However, Elek (US-2011/0034111) teaches an angle, alpha, of between 10 to 20 degrees (“Thus the line of motion of the knife is set about 10-20 degrees from the normal (perpendicular) to the axis of rotation of the disks.”) [Elek; paragraph 0025], which would amount to an included angle of 70 to 80 degrees (Fig. 4). Elek states that the purpose of this is to create a line of motion that causes the abrasive disks to rotate with a linear back and forth motion of the knife (“Thus the line of motion of the knife is set about 10-20 degrees from the normal (perpendicular) to the axis of rotation of the disks.”) [Elek; paragraph 0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the included angle of ‘469 to be between 70 and 80 degrees, or about 75 degrees which is somewhere in the middle, in order to effect a rotation of the abrasive disks for abrading the knife during a back and forth sharpening motion, as is performed in the sharpener of ‘469 (“Thus the line of motion of the knife is set about 10-20 degrees from the normal (perpendicular) to the axis of rotation of the disks.”) [Elek; paragraph 0025].
Regarding claim 11, ‘469 discloses the electric knife sharpener for elastically grinding double edges of claim 1, wherein the inner side of the guide cover (cover 20a) is formed with an arc-shaped space (Fig. 1) at a position corresponding to the grinding groove (groove 21) (Fig. 1), but fails to disclose wherein the volume ratio of the two grinding discs 41 in the arc-shaped space is 65% to 75%.
However, as to the “volume ratio of the two grinding discs 41 in the arc-shaped space is 65% to 75%,” the prior art ‘469’s “space” is meant only to contain the working parts of the sharpener therein, and it would’ve been an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the volume ratio of the disks in the space (as understood to mean the volume of space the grinding discs take up compared to the volume of space there is in the arc-shaped space) large enough to contain the disks and allow for movement, but not too large so as to unnecessarily increase material costs and/or make the sharpener more cumbersome, as is a well-known problem with making something larger than it must be. Applicant also does not mention that there is any improved functional utility to making this a volume of between 65% and 75%, so it is understood that this is merely a design choice made obvious by the design constraints that are well-known in manufactured and listed herein this rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6012971, US-20090233530, and US-20070077872 are pertinent to the “driving pin” of claim 1. US-2114106, US-20220274221, and US-20130295824 are pertinent to the grinding assemblies of claim 1. US-6435951, US-20030077990, and US-10850361 are pertinent to the oblique angle of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723