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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 3 (Figures 26-30B in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 04/06/2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending. The examiner acknowledges the amendments of claim 14-18. Claims 14- Claims 1-21 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2024 and 05/14/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9-10 recites the limitation “the abrasive block comprising one or more alignment features and a magnet for selectively aligning and securing an abrasive member to the abrasive block” and in claim 5, line 1 “the sharpener of claim 1, further comprising one or more abrasive members”. The examiner notes that the abrasive member of claim 1 has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention (i.e. sharpener), but rather as intended use of the abrasive block having the one or more alignment features and the magnet for selectively aligning and securing the abrasive member. Furthermore, claim 5 positively recites the abrasive member (i.e. further comprising one or more abrasive members) as part of the claimed invention (i.e. sharpener). Therefore, the examiner suggests amending claim 1 to positively recite the abrasive member as part of the claimed invention for consistency purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“one or more alignment features” “for selectively aligning and securing an abrasive member to the abrasive block” in claim 1, claim 14, and claim 19 and corresponding to the structural elements 742A and 742B which are pins projecting from the frame as disclosed in paragraph 00160. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof of performing the claimed function;
“limit features to limit the independent rotation therebetween” in claim 13, and corresponding to the structural elements 760/760 which are a pair of limit stops that are formed in the frame as disclosed in paragraph 00167. This limitation shall be constructed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof of performing the claimed function;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-8 and 12 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.
The term “wherein the magnet is disposed at or near a middle of the abrasive block” in claim 4, lines 1-2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be “wherein the magnet is disposed at or [[near]] proximate to a middle of the abrasive block
Claim 5 recites the limitation "one or more abrasive members" in line 1. It is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim multiple/different abrasive members or if the applicant is referring back to the abrasive member as introduced in claim 1, line 9-10, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret wherein the abrasive member of claim 1 further comprises one or more abrasive members.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the handle” and “the frame" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-8 depends on claim 5 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alsch (US Patent No. 5,431,068) in view of Harry (US Patent No. 2,662,353).
Regarding claim 1, Alsch discloses: a sharpener (Figures 1-5 and see also col. 3, ll. 3-5) for sharpening a cutting edge (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) of a cutting tool (element K), the sharpener comprising:
a blade fixture (element 20) configured to secure a blade (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) of the cutting tool;
a base assembly (elements 1/2/3/5/6/7/8) configured to position the blade fixture at an orientation to the base assembly (see figures 2-3 and see also col. 4, ll. 48-68 and col. 5, ll. 1-2); and
an abrasive assembly (elements 30/31/40) comprising:
a rod (element 31) connectable to the base assembly (see figures 2-3); and
an abrasive block (element 30) mountable on the rod (see figures 1-2 and 5), and an abrasive member (element 40 and see also col. 4, ll. 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Alsch appears to be silent wherein the abrasive block comprises one or more alignment features and a magnet for selectively aligning and securing an abrasive member to the abrasive block.
Harry teaches it was known in the art to have a hand-held abrasive tool (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 1, ll. 1-6) comprising an abrasive assembly (elements 10/29/30/31/32/33) comprising an abrasive block (element 10), an abrasive member (elements 29/32/33 and see also col. 2, ll. 35 where the prior art discloses a portion (element 33) of the abrasive member being “an abrasive material”) wherein the abrasive block comprises one or more alignment features (elements 30/31 and see also col. 2, ll. 21-23 where the prior art discloses elements 30/31 as “dowel pins”) and a magnet (element 26 and see also col. 2, ll. 10-14 where the prior art discloses element 26 as being “magnets”) for selectively aligning and securing an abrasive member to the abrasive block (see figures 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alsch to incorporate the teachings of Harry to provide wherein the abrasive block comprises one or more alignment features and a magnet for selectively aligning and securing an abrasive member to the abrasive block. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known connection means including alignment features in the form of pins and a magnet in order to align/secure the abrasive member to the abrasive block would necessarily provide the predictable result of preventing a torsional or twisting displacement between the components as disclosed by Harry (see col. 2, ll. 28-30), thus preventing the tool from disassembling and being damaged during operations.
Regarding claim 2, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the one or more alignment features comprise first and second alignment pins (As described above in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 8-10), the prior art of Harry discloses elements 30/31 (one or more alignment features) comprising first (element 30) and second (element 31) alignment pins (see col. 2, ll. 21-23)).
Regarding claim 3, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 2, wherein the first and second alignment pins are disposed adjacent opposing ends of the abrasive block (see figure 2 of prior art Harry, showing the first and second alignment pins (elements 30/31) being disposed adjacent opposing ends of the abrasive block (element 10)).
Regarding claim 4, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the magnet is disposed at or [[near]] proximate a middle of the abrasive block (see figure 1 of prior art Harry, showing portions (middle portion) of the magnet (element 26) being disposed at and proximate a middle of the abrasive block (element 10)).
Regarding claim 5, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 1, further comprising one or more abrasive members (element 40 and see also figure 4 showing at least one abrasive member).
However, Alsch modified appears to be silent wherein each of the one or more abrasive member comprising one or more alignment features that correspond to the one or more alignment features on the abrasive block.
Harry teaches it was known in the art to have a hand-held abrasive tool (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 1, ll. 1-6) comprising an abrasive assembly (elements 10/29/30/31/32/33) comprising an abrasive block (element 10), one or more abrasive member (elements 29/32/33 and see also col. 2, ll. 35 where the prior art discloses a portion (element 33) of the abrasive member being “an abrasive material”) wherein the abrasive block comprises one or more alignment features (elements 30/31 and see also col. 2, ll. 21-23 where the prior art discloses elements 30/31 as “dowel pins”), and wherein each of the one or more abrasive member comprising one or more alignment features (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) that correspond to the one or more alignment features on the abrasive block (see figure 2 annotated below showing the one or more abrasive members (elements 29/32/33) one or more alignment features (Detail A) corresponding to the one or more alignment features (elements 30/31) on the abrasive block (element 10)).
PNG
media_image2.png
533
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alsch to incorporate the teachings of Harry to provide wherein each of the one or more abrasive member comprising one or more alignment features that correspond to the one or more alignment features on the abrasive block. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known connection means including alignment features of the abrasive member corresponding to the alignment features of the abrasive block would necessarily provide the predictable result of preventing a torsional or twisting displacement between the components as disclosed by Harry (see col. 2, ll. 28-30), thus preventing the tool from disassembling and being damaged during operations.
Regarding claim 6, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 5, wherein the one or more alignment features on the abrasive block and the one or more alignment features on each of the one or more abrasive members comprising mating features (see annotated figure 2 above (page 12) of prior art Harry showing the one or more alignment features (elements 30/31) on the abrasive block (element 10) being a male connection and the one or more alignment features (see figure 2 annotated above Detail A) on each of the one or more abrasive members (elements 29/32/33) being a female connection, thus comprising mating features).
Regarding claim 7, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 6, wherein the one or more alignment features on the abrasive block comprise one or more pins (As described above in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 8-10), the prior art combination discloses elements 30/31 (one or more alignment features) comprising one or more pins (elements 30/31 and see col. 2, ll. 21-23) and the one or more alignment features on each of the abrasive members comprises one or more holes in each of the abrasive members (see annotated figure 2 above (page 12) of prior art Harry showing the one or more alignment features (see figure 2 annotated above Detail A) as one or more holes).
Regarding claim 8, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 5, wherein each of the one or more abrasive members comprises a material that is attracted by the magnet (see figure 3, col. 2, ll. 19, and col. 3, ll. 25-32 of prior art Harry, where the prior art discloses a portion (element 29) of the one or more abrasive members is “a metallic plate” (material) which magnetically connects to the magnets (see col. 3, ll. 25-32)).
Regarding claim 9, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the abrasive block is rotatable at least partially around the rod (see col. 5, ll. 27-30).
Regarding claim 10, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the abrasive block is mountable at a fixed position along the length of the rod (see figure 5 via elements 32/39).
Regarding claim 11, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the abrasive block comprises a frame (element 33) and a handle (element 34) disposed at the end of the frame opposite to the base assembly (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 1, wherein the handle and the frame are configured for independent rotation (see figure 1 and col. 4, ll. 26-28 where the prior art discloses element 34 as “second threaded handle” that is threadly received into a hole (element 36), see also col. 5, ll. 28-30 where the prior art discloses element 33 (frame) is “rotated” (via the combination of the thread connection of elements 32/36), thus the handle is configured for independent rotation (via threads of element 34 and element 36) and the frame is configured for independent rotation (via threads of element 36 and element 32)).
Regarding claim 13, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 12, wherein the handle and the frame have corresponding limit features to limit the independent rotation therebetween (see figure 1 and col. 4, ll. 26-28 where the prior art discloses element 34 as “second threaded handle” that is threadly received into a hole (element 36), see also col. 5, ll. 28-30 where the prior art discloses element 33 (frame) is “rotated” (via the combination of the thread connection of elements 32/36) and utilizing element 32 to hold element 33 in place (see col. 4, ll. 28-30), thus the handle and the frame have corresponding limit features (threads) to limit the independent rotation therebetween).
Regarding claim 14, Alsch discloses: a sharpener (Figures 1-5 and see also col. 3, ll. 3-5) for sharpening a cutting edge (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) of a cutting tool (element K), the sharpener comprising:
a blade fixture (element 20) configured to secure a blade (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) of the cutting tool;
a base assembly (elements 1/2/3/5/6/7/8) configured to position the blade fixture at an orientation to the base assembly (see figures 2-3 and see also col. 4, ll. 48-68 and col. 5, ll. 1-2); and
an abrasive assembly (elements 31/32/40) comprising:
an abrasive member (element 40 and see also col. 4, ll. 25);
a rod (element 31) connectable to the base assembly (see figures 2-3);
a frame or abrasive cartridge (element 33) mountable on the rod (see figures 1-2),
the frame or abrasive cartridge having a support surface (see figure 4 annotated below Detail C).
PNG
media_image3.png
671
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
498
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Alsch appears to be silent wherein the abrasive member having one or more apertures, the frame or abrasive cartridge comprising one or more alignment features and a magnet for selectively aligning and securing the abrasive member to the frame or abrasive cartridge on the support surface, wherein the one or more alignment features are configured to be received in the one or more apertures of the abrasive member to mechanically interlock the abrasive member with the frame or abrasive cartridge, and the magnet is configured to retain the abrasive member in engagement with the support surface.
Harry teaches it was known in the art to have a hand-held abrasive tool (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 1, ll. 1-6) comprising an abrasive assembly (elements 10/29/30/31/32/33), wherein the abrasive assembly comprises an abrasive member (elements 29/32/33 and see also col. 2, ll. 35 where the prior art discloses a portion (element 33) of the abrasive member being “an abrasive material”), a frame or abrasive cartridge (element 10) having a support surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A), wherein the abrasive member having one or more apertures (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B), the frame or abrasive cartridge comprising one or more alignment features (elements 30/31 and see also col. 2, ll. 21-23 where the prior art discloses elements 30/31 as “dowel pins”) and a magnet (element 26 and see also col. 2, ll. 10-14 where the prior art discloses element 26 as being “magnets”) for selectively aligning and securing the abrasive member to the frame or abrasive cartridge on the support surface (see figure 2 annotated below), wherein the one or more alignment features are configured to be received in the one or more apertures of the abrasive member to mechanically interlock the abrasive member with the frame or abrasive cartridge, and the magnet is configured to retain the abrasive member in engagement with the support surface (see figure 2 annotated below showing portions of the alignment features (elements 30/31) received in the one or more apertures (Detail B) mechanically interlock the abrasive member (elements 29/32/33) with the frame or abrasive cartridge (element 10) and see col. 3, ll. 25-32 where the prior art discloses utilizing element 26 (magnet) to retain the abrasive member in engagement with the support surface as best shown in figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
533
934
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alsch to incorporate the teachings of Harry to provide wherein the abrasive member having one or more apertures, the frame or abrasive cartridge comprising one or more alignment features and a magnet for selectively aligning and securing the abrasive member to the frame or abrasive cartridge on the support surface, wherein the one or more alignment features are configured to be received in the one or more apertures of the abrasive member to mechanically interlock the abrasive member with the frame or abrasive cartridge, and the magnet is configured to retain the abrasive member in engagement with the support surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known connection means including alignment features in the form of pins and a magnet in order to align/secure the abrasive member to the abrasive block would necessarily provide the predictable result of preventing a torsional or twisting displacement between the components as disclosed by Harry (see col. 2, ll. 28-30), thus preventing the tool from disassembling and being damaged during operations.
Regarding claim 15, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 14, wherein the abrasive member comprises a plate with the one or more apertures extending therethrough (As described above in the rejection of claim 14 (see pages 15-20), the prior art of Harry discloses a plate (element 29) having the with the one or more apertures (Detail B) extending therethrough).
Regarding claim 16, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 14, wherein the one or more alignment features comprise one or more alignment pins extending from the support surface and configured to be received in the one or more apertures of the abrasive member (As described above in the rejection of claim 14 (see pages 15-20), the prior art of Harry discloses elements 30/31 (one or more alignment features) comprising one or more (elements 30/31) alignment pins (see col. 2, ll. 21-23) and see also figure 2 annotated above (see page ) extending from the support surface (Detail A) and received in the one or more apertures (Detail B) of the abrasive member).
Regarding claim 17, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 14, wherein the support surface comprises one or more ribs (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A) configured to support the abrasive member in a flush arrangement against the frame or abrasive cartridge (see figure 4 annotated below showing portions of the abrasive member (element 40) being supported in a flush arrangement against the frame or abrasive cartridge (element 33) via portions of the rib (Detail A) .
PNG
media_image6.png
533
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 14, wherein the abrasive member comprises a magnetically permeable material, and the magnet is configured to magnetically retain the abrasive member against the support surface (See figure 3, col. 2, ll. 19, and col. 3, ll. 25-32 of prior art Harry, where the prior art discloses a portion (element 29) of the one or more abrasive members is “a metallic plate” (a magnetically permeable material) which magnetically connects to the magnets (see col. 3, ll. 25-32), thus the magnet is capable to magnetically retain the abrasive member against the support surface, as recited,).
Regarding claim 19, Alsch discloses: a sharpener (Figures 1-5 and see also col. 3, ll. 3-5) for sharpening a cutting edge (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A)of a cutting tool (element K), the sharpener comprising:
a blade fixture (element 20) configured to secure a blade (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) of the cutting tool;
a base assembly (elements 1/2/3/5/6/7/8) configured to position the blade fixture at an orientation to the base assembly (see figures 2-3 and see also col. 4, ll. 48-68 and col. 5, ll. 1-2); and
an abrasive assembly (element 40) comprising:
a rod (element 31) connectable to the base assembly (see figures 2-3); and
a frame or an abrasive cartridge (element 33) connectable to the rod (see figures 1-2), the frame or the abrasive cartridge having at least one face (see figure 4 annotated below Detail C) configured to have an abrasive member (element 40 and see also col. 4, ll. 25) attached thereto (see figure 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
671
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
498
726
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Alsch appears to be silent wherein the at least one face comprising one or more alignment features and a magnet for selectively aligning and securing the abrasive member to the frame or the abrasive cartridge on the at least one face.
Harry teaches it was known in the art to have a hand-held abrasive tool (Figures 1-3 and see also col. 1, ll. 1-6) comprising an abrasive assembly (elements 10/29/30/31/32/33), wherein the abrasive assembly comprises an abrasive member (elements 29/32/33 and see also col. 2, ll. 35 where the prior art discloses a portion (element 33) of the abrasive member being “an abrasive material”), a frame or abrasive cartridge (element 10) having at least one face (see figure 3 annotated below Detail A), wherein the at least one face comprising one or more alignment features (elements 30/31 and see also col. 2, ll. 21-23 where the prior art discloses elements 30/31 as “dowel pins”) and a magnet (element 26 and see also col. 2, ll. 10-14 where the prior art discloses element 26 as being “magnets”) for selectively aligning and securing the abrasive member to the frame or the abrasive cartridge on the at least one face (see figure 3 annotated below) .
PNG
media_image8.png
486
720
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alsch to incorporate the teachings of Harry to provide wherein the at least one face comprising one or more alignment features and a magnet for selectively aligning and securing the abrasive member to the frame or the abrasive cartridge on the at least one face. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known connection means including alignment features in the form of pins and a magnet in order to align/secure the abrasive member to the abrasive block would necessarily provide the predictable result of preventing a torsional or twisting displacement between the components as disclosed by Harry (see col. 2, ll. 28-30), thus preventing the tool from disassembling and being damaged during operations.
Regarding claim 20, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 19, wherein the one or more alignment features on the at least one face comprise one or more pins configured to be inserted into one or more corresponding holes in the abrasive member (As described above in the rejection of claim 19 (see pages 22-25), the prior art of Harry discloses elements 30/31 (one or more alignment features) comprising first (element 30) and second (element 31) alignment pins (see col. 2, ll. 21-23) and see also figure 3 showing the pins inserted into corresponding holes in the abrasive member).
Regarding claim 21, Alsch modified discloses: the sharpener of claim 19, wherein the frame or the abrasive member is mountable at a fixed position along the length of the rod and rotatable at least partially about rod (see figure 2 and also col. 5, ll. 28-30 where the prior art discloses element 33 (frame) is “rotated” and is held into place via element 32 in a fixed position along the length of the rod (threaded portion of element 31)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights