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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and provide an user with the” and should be “and provide a user with the” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites: “connection of the device to an external network” and it is unclear if this is referring to the “external network” introduced in claim 1 or another external network. For examination purposes, the external network of claim 2 has been construed as the same introduced in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites: “the knife durability parameters” and lack antecedent basis since they have not been introduced in neither claim 1 nor claim 9. Claim 9 recites: “the knife sharpening device, according to Claim 1”. As claimed, it is unclear whether claim 9 is supposed to depend on another claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROULX (US 20140179201 A1) and Knudson (US 20200030938 A1).
Referring to claim 1: PROULX teaches a knife sharpening device (30 Figs. 1-4; “blade sharpening system” abstract; capable of operating on knife blades), comprising:
a sharpening device body (body of 30 shown in Figs. 1-4);
a motor (36 Fig. 3 ; “grinding wheel drive system 36” [0059]) attached to the sharpening device body (body of 30 shown in Figs. 1-4);
a grinding wheel (32 Figs. 1, 2 and 4) associated with the motor (36 Fig. 3 ; “grinding wheel drive system 36” [0059]);
sharpening guides (66 Fig. 3; “Guiding members 66” [0073]) attached to (via 40 shown in Figs. 3 and 4) the sharpening device body (body of 30 shown in Figs. 1-4) and positioned alongside the grinding wheel (32 Figs. 1, 2 and 4);
a control board (50; “a controller 50 operatively coupled to said blade sharpening device and said blade holding apparatus to control sharpening of said blade” [0059]; [0076]) connected to the motor (36 Fig. 3 ; “grinding wheel drive system 36” [0059]); and
wherein the control board (50; [0059]; [0076]) is configured to connect an external network (“computer network” [0040, 0094]: Britannica defines a computer network is defined as: “computer network, two or more computers that are connected to each other to communicate data electronically. Besides physically connecting computer and communication devices, a network system serves the important function of establishing a cohesive architecture that allows a variety of equipment types to transfer information in a near-seamless fashion.”) to the sharpening device (30 Figs. 1-4), wherein the control board (50; [0059]; [0076]) is configured to obtain device use information (“The controller 50 may be further operable to receive and store a blade sharpening parameter set. For example, the blade sharpening parameter set may be stored in the memory of the controller 50. The blade sharpening parameter set may include numerous parameters, non-limiting examples of which include:”[0081]; “Acceleration time” [0086] ) through the activation of the motor (36 Fig. 3 ; “grinding wheel drive system 36” [0059]) and knife use information (“blade sharpening parameter sets.” [0094]), wherein the control board (50; [0059]; [0076]) is configured to send the obtained knife use information to an external server (“may be further operable to be accessible from a computer network” [0094]) if the control board (50; [0059]; [0076]) is connected to the external network, wherein the control board (50; [0059]; [0076]) is configured to store (For example, the blade sharpening parameter set may be stored in the memory of the controller 50. [0081]) the obtained knife use information if the control board (50; [0059]; [0076]) is not connected (“may be further operable to be accessible from a computer network” [0094]) to the external network, and wherein the knife use information comprises at least one of: the knife use duration (“The controller may be further operable to receive and store a blade sharpening parameter set.” [0038]) and number of knife sharpening operations (“The controller 50 may be further operable to receive and store a blade sharpening parameter set.” [0081]).
But is silent on a communication antenna comprised in and in communication with the control board.
Kolchin in an analogous sharpening device (“abrading tools” Abstract) teaches communication antenna (“the first communication unit and the second communication unit having separate antennas.” [0025]) comprised in and in communication with the similar configuration control board (“communication unit” [0025]).
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 PROULX with the antenna as taught by Kolchin for the purpose of having the necessary components for establishing a wireless communication.
Referring to claim 2: PROULX as modified teaches the knife sharpening device (30 Figs. 1-4), according to Claim 1, further comprising a signaling element (signaling element which connects the antenna to the communication unit of Kolchin) connected to the control board (“communication unit” [0025] of Kolchin), wherein the signaling element (signaling element which connects the antenna to the communication unit of Kolchin) is configured to receive the device use information from the control board (50; [0059]; [0076]) and provide an user with the device use information (“comprise suitable connections to allow a user to input external data, such as new blade sharpening parameter sets.” [0094]), wherein the device use information comprises at least one from among: connection of the device to an energy source, connection of the device to an external network (“the blade sharpening system 10 may be further operable to be accessible from a computer network” [0094]), internal problem with device components, collecting the use information, sending the knife use information to the server and activation of the device by the user through the external server.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROULX (US 20140179201 A1) and Knudson (US 20200030938 A1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of PARK (US 20070030479 A1)
Referring to claim 3: PROULX as modified teaches the knife sharpening device, according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control board is configured to store usage limits offline and halt the operations of the knife sharpening device should offline usage limit situations occur, wherein the offline usage limit situations occur when the knife sharpening device remains unconnected from the external network for a period of time longer than that defined in the offline usage limits or as from a number of sharpening operations higher than that defined in the offline usage limits.
PARK teaches wherein the similar configuration control board is configured to store usage limits offline and halt the operations of the knife sharpening device should offline usage limit situations occur, wherein the offline usage limit situations occur when the knife sharpening device remains unconnected from the external network for a period of time longer than that defined in the offline usage limits (“Here, if the stored information about the defects exceeds the storage limit of the inspecting device, the operation of the inspecting device may stop.” [0009] once the local memory has exceeded its limits, the operation ceases.)
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 PROULX with the limits which dictate the operation of the device as taught by PARK for the purpose of having the operation function within the limits of its supplied hardware.
Referring to claim 4: PROULX as modified teaches the knife sharpening device, according to Claim 3, wherein the offline usage limit situations occur when the knife sharpening device remains unconnected from the external network for a period of time longer than 30 (thirty) days, or when the knife sharpening device remains unconnected from the external network for more 4,000 (four thousand) sharpening operations (PARK’s memory storage size can be chosen to last up to 30 days or accumulate data which is equivalent to 4,000 hours).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROULX (US 20140179201 A1) and Layton (US 9114498 B1).
Referring to claim 5: PROULX teaches a knife replacement method, comprising the steps of:
obtaining knife durability parameters (“a predetermined shape of a blade”; “the number of sharpening cycles” [0039]; “according to the type and/or the make of the blade.” [0082]), wherein the knife durability parameters comprise at least one of: useful knife life duration and maximum number of knife sharpening operations (“the number of sharpening cycles” [0039]);
obtain knife use information (“blade sharpening parameter sets.” [0094]) using the knife sharpening device according to Claim 1,
and replacing the knife with a replacement knife, should the knife use information present values not compliant with the knife durability parameter values (the knife is inherently replaced by the user once the usage limit of blade is no longer usable or unsafe; “the number of sharpening cycles” [0039]).
But is silent on wherein the knife use information comprises at least one of: knife use duration and number of knife sharpening operations;
defining compliance check data, wherein defining the compliance check data comprises comparing the knife use information with the knife durability parameters in order to define whether the knife use information is compliant with the knife durability parameters, or whether the knife use information is non-compliant with the knife durability parameters.
Layton teaches wherein the knife use information comprises at least one of: knife use duration and number of knife sharpening operations;
defining compliance check data, wherein defining the compliance check data comprises comparing the knife use information with the knife durability parameters in order to define whether the knife use information is compliant with the knife durability parameters, or whether the knife use information is non-compliant with the knife durability parameters (“the system 10 reads a current usage tracking value from the usage location and selectively enables and disables sharpening depending on whether a usage limit has been reached, as indicated by a relationship between the current usage tracking value and a predetermined usage limit value. When a decreasing or decremented usage value is used to indicate an amount of usage remaining, then the predetermined usage limit value can be used as the starting usage value, and the usage limit is reached when the usage value is decremented to zero.” Col. 14, lines 32-41; Col. 14, lines 22-31).
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 method of PROULX with the durability parameters as taught by Layton for the purpose of keeping track of the blade’s remaining amount of material to increase the efficiency and safety of the operation.
Referring to claim 6: PROULX as modified teaches the knife replacement method, according to Claim 5, wherein the step of defining the knife durability parameters takes place on a daily basis (“the system 10 tracks usage of the grinding wheel 36 for sharpening operations” Col. 14, lines 22-31 of Layton; the tracking operates during the usage of the operation and therefore takes place on “a daily basis”).
Referring to claim 7: PROULX as modified teaches the knife replacement method, according to Claim 5, wherein the knife durability parameters are adjusted by a parameter adjustment information, wherein the parameter adjustment information is generated through the difference between the knife use information on previous sharpening operations, and the knife durability parameters (“the system 10 reads a current usage tracking value from the usage location and selectively enables and disables sharpening depending on whether a usage limit has been reached, as indicated by a relationship between the current usage tracking value and a predetermined usage limit value. When a decreasing or decremented usage value is used to indicate an amount of usage remaining, then the predetermined usage limit value can be used as the starting usage value, and the usage limit is reached when the usage value is decremented to zero.” Col. 14, lines 32-41).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROULX (US 20140179201 A1) and Layton (US 9114498 B1), as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of Woods (US-20070097566-A1)
Referring to claim 8: PROULX as modified teaches the knife replacement method, according to Claim 5, but is silent on further comprising a step specifically of notifying a user about replacing the knife with a replacement knife (the method of PROULX as modified inherently replaces the knife by the user once the usage limit of blade is no longer usable or unsafe).
Woods teaches a step of notifying a user once a limit has been reached (“a warning mechanism in the tool 10 may warn the operator that the operator is approaching an impending operating limit that may automatically shutdown the power tool 10. The warning mechanism could be audible (with a horn or buzzer) or visible using a desired illumination scheme such as LEDs, for example.” [0106]).
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 method of PROULX as modified with the notification warning as taught by Woods for the purpose of having a notification signaling where user intervention is required and therefore, increasing the overall efficiency of the operation.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PROULX (US 20140179201 A1) and Layton (US 9114498 B1), and HU (CN 104002195 A).
Referring to claim 9: PROULX teaches a knife replacement system (10 Figs. 1-4), comprising: the knife sharpening device (30 Figs. 1-4; “blade sharpening system” abstract; capable of operating on knife blades), according to Claim 1, obtain knife use information (“The controller 50 may be further operable to receive and store a blade sharpening parameter set. For example, the blade sharpening parameter set may be stored in the memory of the controller 50. The blade sharpening parameter set may include numerous parameters, non-limiting examples of which include:”[0081]; “Acceleration time” [0086] from the knife sharpening device, wherein the knife use information comprises at least one of: knife use duration (“The controller may be further operable to receive and store a blade sharpening parameter set.” [0038]) and number of knife sharpening operations;
suggest the knife replacement with a replacement knife, should the knife use information present values not compliant with the knife durability parameter values (the knife is inherently replaced by the user once the usage limit of blade is no longer usable or unsafe; “the number of sharpening cycles” [0039]).
But is silent on:
a server, wherein the server is configured to:
obtain the knife durability parameters, wherein the knife durability parameters are defined periodically according to the knife model, and wherein the knife durability parameters comprise at least one of: useful knife life duration and maximum number of knife sharpening operations;
compare the knife use information with the knife durability parameters
Layton teaches wherein the knife durability parameters, wherein the knife durability parameters are defined periodically according to the knife model, and wherein the knife durability parameters comprise at least one of: useful knife life duration and maximum number of knife sharpening operations; compare the knife use information with the knife durability parameters (“the system 10 reads a current usage tracking value from the usage location and selectively enables and disables sharpening depending on whether a usage limit has been reached, as indicated by a relationship between the current usage tracking value and a predetermined usage limit value. When a decreasing or decremented usage value is used to indicate an amount of usage remaining, then the predetermined usage limit value can be used as the starting usage value, and the usage limit is reached when the usage value is decremented to zero.” Col. 14, lines 32-41; Col. 14, lines 22-31).
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 system of PROULX with the durability parameters as taught by Layton for the purpose of keeping track of the blade’s remaining amount of material to increase the efficiency and safety of the operation.
HU teaches a server (“server” [0018]), wherein the server is configured to: obtain the similar configuration knife durability parameters [0018].
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 system of PROULX with the server as taught by HU for the purpose of having backup data or a way of updating the system with new parameters.
Referring to claim 10: PROULX as modified teaches the knife replacement system (10 Figs. 1-4), according to Claim 9, wherein the definition of the knife durability parameters takes place on a daily basis (“the system 10 tracks usage of the grinding wheel 36 for sharpening operations” Col. 14, lines 22-31 of Layton; the tracking operates during the usage of the operation and therefore takes place on “a daily basis”).
Referring to claim 11: PROULX as modified teaches the knife replacement system (100), according to Claim 9, wherein the knife durability parameters are adjusted by the parameter adjustment information, wherein the parameter adjustment information is generated through the difference between the knife use information and the knife durability parameters from previous sharpening operations (“the system 10 reads a current usage tracking value from the usage location and selectively enables and disables sharpening depending on whether a usage limit has been reached, as indicated by a relationship between the current usage tracking value and a predetermined usage limit value. When a decreasing or decremented usage value is used to indicate an amount of usage remaining, then the predetermined usage limit value can be used as the starting usage value, and the usage limit is reached when the usage value is decremented to zero.” Col. 14, lines 32-41 of Layton).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723