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 spring of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Claim 4 states the arm is biased by a spring that allows the first sharpening stone to pivot. Paragraph 40 of the applicant’s specification states bracket 116 comprises a biasing mechanism, such as a spring, to bias the arm 118. Figures 2A-2D and 4 show the bracket 116 of the cartridge 114 having the arm 118, however the spring itself is not shown.
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 Objections
Claims 5, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, lines 2-3 recite “the device” which should be changed to “the knife sharpening device” to be consistent with line 1.
Claim 11, line 3 similarly recites “the device” and should be changed accordingly.
Claim 19, line 21 similarly recites “the device” and should be changed accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1 and 15 are identical except claim 1 introduces “a cartridge” and claim 15 introduces “a first cartridge”. The term “first” is not structural or functional, and does not change the scope covered by the “cartridge”. At most, it is a more specific identifier for the feature. Thus, the scope of the claims are the same even though the claim language is not identical.
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) 1-4, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,806,839 to Miller Jr et al in view of US 7,329,172 to Dieck.
In Reference to Claims 1, 15, and 19
Miller teaches:
A knife sharpening device (100), comprising:
a closed housing configured to receive a blade (110b) of a knife (110), the housing comprising a front panel (118), a base panel (116), and a side panel (114) (see column 6, lines 36-39 and Figures 3 and 6);
an opening (openings 152, 154 having knife slots 122a, 122b) in the front panel through which the blade can be inserted, wherein the opening is configured to prevent a handle (not numbered, see Figures 3 and 9) of the knife from being inserted (see Figure 6);
a first cartridge (carriage 124) comprising a first sharpening stone (128a) configured to sharpen the blade (column 7, lines 24-32); and
wherein the first cartridge follows an elliptical path (formed by first track 138 and return track 144) (column 8, lines 14-30), and
wherein the elliptical path causes the first sharpening stone to contact the blade (column 8, lines 11-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the elliptical path, the first sharpening stone moves along the first track (138) when a user pushes the handle (136). After reaching the end of the first track, the pawl (140) moves the sharpening stone to the return track (144). Upon reaching the second end of the return track, the sharpening stone returns to the “home position” (location of 126/128 in Figure 6, see column 8, line 16). The first track and return track are separated by a divider (shelf or protrusion 145) (column 8, lines 14-62).
The path along the first track and return track a parallel with each other, and the cartridge changes directions at the ends of each track. Accordingly, the path formed by the tracks is considered elliptical.
Miller fails to teach:
The cartridge is coupled to a belt in communication with a first pulley and a second pulley, wherein the first and second pullies are coupled to the side panel at positions spaced apart from one another to define the elliptical path for the belt to travel, and a motor for driving a rotation of at least one of the first pulley or the second pulley, wherein said rotation causes the belt to travel about the elliptical path.
Dieck teaches:
A blade sharpening device (100) comprising a cartridge (110) coupled to a belt (113) in communication with a first pulley (115) and a second pulley (114), wherein the first and second pullies are at positions spaced apart from one another (see Figure 1), and a motor (810, drives the second pulley 114, see column 5, lines 35-40 and Figure 8) for driving a rotation of at least one of the first pulley or the second pulley, wherein said rotation causes the belt to travel about a path (along shaft 112) (see column 3, line 62 through column 4, line 6 and Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the knife sharpening device of Miller by adding a belt, a first pulley, a second pulley, and a motor as taught by Dieck as both references are directed to devices having movable sharpening devices, and for the purpose of being able to automate the movement of the cartridge using the motor, belt and pulley system.
When modifying the knife sharpening device of Miller with the teachings of Dieck, the pulleys would be located at opposite ends of the track and thus be spaced apart, and the belt would extend around the pullies. The belt would form the first and return tracks and the elliptical path.
Regarding claim 19, the knife sharpening device of Miller as modified by Dieck would perform a method comprising: providing the claimed structure (as explained above), inserting the blade into the opening (column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 2 of Miller), activating the motor (column 5, lines 35-40 of Dieck) to drive the first sharpening stone around the elliptical path (column 4, lines 2-4 of Miller), and withdrawing the blade from the knife sharpening device (removed from housing by pressing release button 158 of Miller, see column 9, lines 32-37 of Miller).
In Reference to Claim 2#
Miller as modified by Dieck teaches:
The knife sharpening device of claim 1, wherein the cartridge further comprises an arm (130 of Miller), the arm comprising a first end (right side in Figure 6 of Miller) to which the first sharpening stone is attached.
In Reference to Claim 3#
Miller as modified by Dieck teaches:
The knife sharpening device of claim 2, wherein the cartridge further comprises a bracket (126 of Miller) that is coupled to the belt and coupled to a second end (left side in Figure 6 of Miller) of the arm.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Miller as modified by Dieck teaches:
The knife sharpening device of claim 3, wherein the arm is a pivotable arm (column 7, lines 43-45 of Miller) biased by a spring (132 of Miller) that allows the first sharpening stone to pivot between a first position (in contact with the knife blade) and a second position (spaced from the knife blade) (see column 7, lines 43-60 of Miller).
In Reference to Claim #9
Miller as modified by Dieck teaches:
The knife sharpening device of claim 1, further comprising a blade stabilizer (148a, 148b of Miller) in communication with the opening on the front panel, through which the blade can be inserted, wherein the blade stabilizer is configured to maintain the knife in a fixed position so the blade can be sharpened by the first sharpening stone (see column 9, lines 13-25 of Miller).
In Reference to Claim #10
Miller as modified by Dieck teaches:
The knife sharpening device of claim 9, wherein the blade stabilizer comprises a second sharpening stone (128b of Miller, see Figure 7 of Miller).
In Reference to Claim #14
Miller as modified by Dieck teaches:
The knife sharpening device of claim 1, wherein the first sharpening stone is comprised of diamond sharpening stones (column 7, lines 24-32 of Miller).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,806,839 to Miller as modified by US 7,329,172 to Dieck as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 3,844,067 to Guerra.
In Reference to Claim 20
Miller as modified by Dieck teaches:
The method of claim 19 comprising the motor.
Miller as modified by Dieck fails to teach:
Setting a timer for a sharpening period and deactivating the motor.
Guerra teaches:
A method of operating a knife sharpening device (10), the method comprising setting a timer (not numbered, column 11, line 15) for a sharpening period (“duration of the sharpener 10 operation”, column 11, lines 15-16), and deactivating a motor (92) (see column 11, lines 14-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Miller as modified by Dieck by setting a timer and deactivating the motor as taught by Guerra as both references are directed to knife sharpening devices, and for the purpose of being able to automatically terminate operation of the sharpening device after a desired period of time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11-13, and 16-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach a pedal coupled to the base panel as recited in claim 5. Miller fails to teach a pedal. Rather, Miller teaches jaws 148a and 148b which secure and support the blade upon being inserted into the housing (column 9, lines 13-25). The next nearest prior art is US 5,009,040 to Petroff teaches a knife sharpening device having two pins (34) arranged in a V shape which support the blade. While the pins of Petroff could be interpreted as “a pedal”, modifying the device of Miller to add the pedal may render the device inoperable. The examiner notes the sharpening device moves along the bottom edge of the blade, and adding a pedal which supports the bottom edge of the blade would impede the movement of the sharpening stone.
Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5 and contain its limitations and therefore are allowed for the same reason.
The prior art of record fails to teach the first and second sharpening stones are comprised of different materials as recited in claim 11. While Miller teaches first and second sharpening stones and states the stones could have different possible materials in general (ceramic or diamond, column 7, lines 30-32), Miller does not state the first and second sharpening stones would have different materials from each other. Comprising the first and second sharpening stones of different materials from each other, such as one being ceramic and the other being diamond, would require improper hindsight reasoning.
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11 and contain its limitations and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
The prior art of record fails to teach a second cartridge comprises the second sharpening stone as recited in claim 16. Miller fails to teach a second cartridge. At most, Miller teaches two sharpening stones in the first cartridge.
Claims 17 and 18 depend from claim 16 and contain its limitations and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,189,848 to Flaherty teaches a blade sharpening device comprising a belt, two pullies, and a motor. US 2,409,416 to Broberg teaches a blade sharpening device comprising a belt, two pullies, and a motor. US 2,228,385 to Burns teaches a blade sharpening device comprising a belt, two pullies, and a motor. US 11,376,713 to Miller teaches a blade sharpening device a sharpening stone which moves along the blade. EP 3,747,598 to Dangrel teaches a knife sharpening device comprising a sensor which detects the presence of the blade and sends a signal to activate or deactivate a motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745