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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/06/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
In claim 4, consider -- wherein the sharpening member includes a distal end portion and has spaced-apart first and second distal edges between which the distal end portion extends, wherein the sharpening member is configured to abut one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly adjacent the first distal edge thereof when the sharpening member is positioned adjacent first ends of the one or more blades, and wherein the sharpening member is configured to abut the one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly adjacent the second distal edge thereof when the sharpening member is positioned adjacent one or more second ends of the one or more blades.
In claim 6, consider --ii) [[the]] an angle at which the guide member is positioned and extends relative to the cutterhead assembly.--. Also consider using –or-- or --and/or-- with respect to limitations in the alterative, instead of “and”.
In claim 8, while it is understandable that the semicolon delimitates the limitations in the alterative consider the following formatting of the limitations for further clarity:
--
i) the spacer is tapered at least in part;
ii) the spacer is wedge-shaped or substantially a triangular prism in shape;
iii) the spacer has a first planar surface and a second planar surface that is angled relative to the first planar surface thereof, with [[the]] an extent to which the second planar surface of the spacer is angled relative to the first planar surface of the spacer being a function of or determined by [[the]] a height of the sharpening member and/or [[the]] a length of one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly; and/or
iv) the height of the sharpening member determines [[the]] an extent to which a second end portion of the spacer is thicker than a first end portion of the spacer.--
In claim 14, consider --positioning the sharpening member so as to promote substantially even wearing of [[the]] one or more distal end portions of the sharpening member as the cutterhead assembly is sharpened--.
In claim 16, consider --wherein the ratchet mechanism includes a ratchet gear coupled to a first portion of the sharpening member and the guide member, and wherein the ratchet mechanism includes a pawl pivotally coupled to a second portion of the sharpening member and the guide member, with the pawl being configured to incrementally rotate the ratchet gear per one or more cycles of reciprocation of the sharpening member—
In claim 18, consider --whereby actuation of the second said actuator is a function of or proportional to actuation of the first said actuator.
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:
“adjustment mechanism” in claim 7, corresponding to adjustment mechanism 69
“sharpening member” in claim 14, corresponding to sharpening member 58 (described as a sharpening stone)
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.
The terms “sharpening member” and as recited in claims other than claim 14 does not invoke a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation as there is not sufficient functionality associated with the term other than how it moves (claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20) and/or because there is sufficient structure described with respect to the sharpening member (claim 4).
The term “ratchet mechanism” in claims 15 and 16, provided with sufficient structure, in the form of a “ratchet” such that 35 U.S.C 112(f) is not invoked, despite the nonce term “mechanism”. The term “guide member” recited throughout the claim set, is provided with sufficient structure, in the form of a “guide” despite the nonce term “member”, and does not invoke a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. The term “cutterhead assembly”, is not part of the claimed invention, and is interpreted to be an external device the apparatus is configured to interact with.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joray (US 3831325 A).
With respect to claim 1, Joray discloses A sharpening apparatus for a cutterhead assembly (abstract, for sharpening rotary cutter [cutterhead]), the apparatus comprising: a sharpening member (sharpening member 32, fig. 2; col 4 lines 14-34); and a guide member via which the sharpening member is moveable: longitudinally and tangentially relative to the cutterhead assembly (guide member 40, fig. 2, col 5 lines 20-35, it moves longitudinally across a cutterhead assembly 20 with knives 22 [that is not an explicitly part of the invention], col 3 lines 54-65, the sharpening member 32 moves on the guide member 40 col 4 lines 14-34, which crosses the cutterhead assembly, and also moves tangentially to it to follow the helical curve).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2 (1) (Joray)
With respect to claim 4, Joray discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the sharpening member includes a distal end portion (a bottom portion of the tool 32 between the two distal edges as in ann. fig. 2(1) above) and has spaced-apart first and second distal edges between which the distal end portion extends (ann. fig. 2(1) above has two spaced apart edges of guard 87 and grindstone 36), wherein the sharpening member is configured to abut one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly adjacent the first distal edge thereof when the sharpening member is positioned adjacent first ends of the one or more blades (the distal edges abut the blade, 22, ann. fig. 2(1) above when at one end of the multiple blades [which spin as in col 7 lines 28-37), and wherein the sharpening member is configured to abut the one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly adjacent the second distal edge thereof when the sharpening member is positioned adjacent one or more second ends of the one or more blades (the sharpening member follows the blade profile on the guide member as in the rejection of claim 1, above, so both the first and second distal edges of the sharpening member will abut the blades).
PNG
media_image2.png
575
911
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2 (2) (Joray)
With respect to claim 5, Joray discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the cutterhead assembly extends within a first longitudinal plane and a second longitudinal plane perpendicular to the first longitudinal plane thereof (while the cutterhead assembly is not an explicit part of the claimed invention, rather an object the sharpening apparatus interacts with, Joray provides for a cutterhead assembly that extends within at least 2 planes – the cutterhead assembly extends within any arbitrary plane because it is 3 dimensional) , wherein the guide member extends within a first longitudinal plane and a second longitudinal plane that is perpendicular to the first longitudinal plane thereof (see ann. fig. 2(2) above; however the guide member extends [at least partially] within any arbitrary plane because it is 3 dimensional), wherein the first longitudinal plane within which the guide member extends is angled by an acute angle relative to the first longitudinal plane within which the cutterhead assembly extends and wherein the second longitudinal plane within which the guide member extends is parallel to the second longitudinal plane within which the cutterhead assembly extends (ann. fig. 2(2) shows this, however as mentioned above, the cutterhead assembly and guide member can extend [at least partially] within any arbitrary plane as it is 3 dimensional).
With respect to claim 6, Joray discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the sharpening member is moveable along a pathway determined by one or more of i) the guide member (the sharpening member moves along guide member 40 as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) and ii) the angle at which the guide member is positioned and extends relative to the cutterhead assembly (the guide member 40, as in fig. 2 is angled, as the sharpening member travels along said angle).
With respect to claim 14, Joray discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses A method of sharpening a cutterhead assembly using the sharpening apparatus of claim 1 (addressed in rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising: providing a pathway that extends longitudinally and tangentially relative to the cutterhead assembly (guide member 40, fig. 2, addressed in rejection of claim 1 above provides for a pathway); reciprocating the sharpening member along said pathway so as to abut one or more distal end portions of one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly (the sharpening member, addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above, is moved as in col 7 lines 16-37, in a repeated [reciprocating] process to sharpen multiple knives, and is 112(f) equivalent as being a tool used to sharpen blades) ; and positioning the sharpening member so as to promote substantially even wearing of the distal end portion of the sharpening member as the cutterhead assembly is sharpened (such an arrangement, would consistent with how the instant disclosure functions, provide substantially even wearing of the distal end portion of the sharpening member [the portion that contacts the blade 22, fig. 2] as the sharpening member moves back and fourth in a manner that contacts the blade; col 4 lines 15-20 also provides for a motor 34, fig. 2 that also promotes even wearing of the sharpening member by rotating it [and therefore not only a single spot is in contact with the blade]; as provided in MPEP 2173.05(b), substantially is a broad term).
With respect to claim 17, Joray discloses A sharpening apparatus for a cutterhead assembly (abstract, for sharpening rotary cutter [cutterhead]), the apparatus comprising: a sharpening member (sharpening member 32, fig. 2; col 4 lines 14-34); and one or more actuators via which the sharpening member is moveable to sharpen one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly (actuator as slide handle 122, fig. 2, that is a manual actuator and causes movement of sharpening member 32 as in col 7 lines 15-25, it is used to sharpen blades in col 2 lines 25-45), the one or more actuators being configured to promote substantially uniform wear along a distal end portion of the sharpening member as the one or more blades are sharpened (such an arrangement, would consistent with how the instant disclosure functions, provide substantially even wearing of the distal end portion of the sharpening member [the portion that contacts the blade 22, fig. 2] as the sharpening member moves back and fourth in a manner that contacts the blade; col 4 lines 15-20 also provides for a motor 34, fig. 2 that also promotes even wearing of the sharpening member by rotating it [and therefore not only a single spot is in contact with the blade]; as provided in MPEP 2173.05(b), substantially is a broad term).
With respect to claim 19, Joray discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the one or more actuators are configured to move the sharpening member along and at an angle relative to the cutterhead assembly (the actuator as slide handle 122, fig. 2, that is a manual actuator and causes movement of sharpening member 32 as in col 7 lines 15-25, is arrangement to move the sharpening member along a track that is along and at an angle relative to the cutterhead assembly, track 40, fig. 2, col 5 lines 20-35, it moves longitudinally across a cutterhead assembly 20 with knives 22 [that is not an explicitly part of the invention], col 3 lines 54-65, the sharpening member 32 moves on the guide member 40 col 4 lines 14-34, which crosses the cutterhead assembly, and also moves tangentially to it to follow the helical curve).
With respect to claim 20, Joray discloses the limitations of claim 17 above, and further discloses wherein the cutterhead assembly has an axis of rotation (the cutterhead assembly is not an explicit part of the claimed invention, however it has an axis of rotation around shaft 26, fig. 2; col 7 lines 28-38) and wherein the one or more actuators are configured to move the sharpening member along a guide member that is angled relative to the axis of rotation of the cutterhead assembly (guide member 40, fig. 2, col 5 lines 20-35, it moves longitudinally across a cutterhead assembly 20 with knives 22 [that is not an explicitly part of the invention], col 3 lines 54,65, the sharpening member 32 moves on the guide member 40 col 4 lines 14-34, which crosses the cutterhead assembly, and also moves tangentially to it to follow the helical curve).
Claim(s) 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nieschulze (US 6450866 B1).
With respect to claim 15, Nieschulze discloses A sharpening apparatus for a cutterhead assembly (abstract, apparatus for sharpening cutter drum), the apparatus comprising: a sharpening member (42, fig. 2a, col 3 lines 15-25); a guide member via which the sharpening member reciprocates (guide member 44, fig. 2a; col 3 lines 15-25); and a ratchet mechanism via which the sharpening member is incrementally moved laterally relative to the guide member (ratchet mechanism as infeed in col 4 lines 55-62, fig. 3, with a ratchet wheel 64 and a pawl 68, it causes the sharpening member to move inward as the carriage moves to an end portion laterally along the guide member as in col 1 lines 55-end).
With respect to claim 16, Nieschulze discloses the limitations of claim 15 above, and further discloses wherein the ratchet mechanism includes a ratchet gear coupled to a first of the sharpening member and the guide member (ratchet gear as toothed wheel 64, fig. 3; col 4 lines 55-62, fig. 3, coupled directly or indirectly to a first of the sharpening member and guide member through overall assembly) , and wherein the ratchet mechanism includes a pawl pivotally coupled to a second of the sharpening member and the guide member, with the pawl being configured to incrementally rotate the ratchet gear per one or more cycles of reciprocation of the sharpening member (pawl 68, fig. 3, pivotally coupled directly or indirectly to a second of the sharpening member and the guide member through overall assembly, col 4 line 55 to col 5 line 5; incrementally increases the ratchet gear when it meets reversal position as in col 1 lines 55-end, therefore each cycle of reciprocation reaching the end reversal position would increment the ratchet and infeed the grinding stone).
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) 2, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joray (US 3831325 A) and further in view of Nieschulze (US 6450866 B1).
With respect to claim 2, Joray teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the sharpening member is configured to move incrementally towards the cutterhead assembly per one or more cycles of reciprocation back and forth thereof relative to the cutterhead assembly.
Nieschulze, in the same field of endeavor, related to sharpening, teaches of providing a sharpening member that is configured to move incrementally towards the cutterhead assembly per one or more cycles of reciprocation back and forth thereof relative to the cutterhead assembly (a portion of sharpening member as the grindstone 42, fig. 2a, would be driven towards a cutterhead/chopper drum when approaching a reversal position at the end of movement with an infeed mechanism 62, fig. 3; col 4 lines 53-64, col 2 line 60-col 3 line 15 describe in detail the cutterhead/chopper drum 22). Nieschulze teaches that this infeed mechanism promotes even finishing of the blades (col 3 lines 30-60) and better grinding as well as uniform wear of the grindstone (col 7 line 40-col 8 line 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the infeed mechanism of Nieschulze into Joray, so that the sharpening member is configured to move incrementally towards the cutterhead assembly per one or more cycles of reciprocation back and forth thereof relative to the cutterhead assembly (at the end of such movement, when reversing), for the purpose of even finishing and better grinding as well as uniform wear of the grindstone.
With respect to claim 18, Joray teaches the limitations of claim 17 above, and further teaches including a first said actuator configured to move the sharpening member longitudinally relative to the cutterhead assembly (the actuator as slide handle 122, fig. 2, that is a manual actuator and causes movement of sharpening member 32 as in col 7 lines 15-25, is arrangement to move the sharpening member along a track that is along and at an angle relative to the cutterhead assembly, track 40, fig. 2, col 5 lines 20-35, it moves longitudinally across a cutterhead assembly 20 with knives 22 [that is not an explicitly part of the invention], col 3 lines 54-65, the sharpening member 32 moves on the guide member 40 col 4 lines 14-34, which crosses the cutterhead assembly, and also moves tangentially to it to follow the helical curve) however does not explicitly teach a second said actuator configured to incrementally move the sharpening member radially-inwards at least in part relative to the cutterhead assembly, whereby actuation of the second actuator is a function of or proportional to actuation of the first actuator.
Nieschulze, in the same field of endeavor, related to sharpening, teaches of providing a second said actuator configured to incrementally move the sharpening member radially-inwards at least in part relative to the cutterhead assembly (infeed in col 4 lines 55-62, fig. 3, with a ratchet wheel 64 and a pawl 68, it causes the sharpening member to move inward as the carriage moves to an end portion laterally as in col 1 lines 55-end), whereby actuation of the second actuator is a function of or proportional to actuation of the first actuator (the function would engage when the first actuator moves the sharpening member to the end, laterally [which is a function of the first actuator, providing lateral/longitudinal movement across the cutter head). Nieschulze teaches that this infeed mechanism promotes even finishing of the blades (col 3 lines 30-60) and better grinding as well as uniform wear of the grindstone (col 7 line 40-col 8 line 5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the infeed mechanism of Nieschulze into Joray, such that a second said actuator [infeed mechanism] configured to incrementally move the sharpening member radially-inwards at least in part relative to the cutterhead assembly (when reaching the end at the reversing position), whereby actuation of the second actuator is a function of or proportional to actuation of the first actuator for the purpose of even finishing and better grinding as well as uniform wear of the grindstone.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joray (US 3831325 A)
With respect to claim 3, Joray teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the sharpening member has a height (up/down direction, sharpening member 32 has a physical height, given that it is a physical aspect) and is moveable tangentially to the cutterhead assembly (addressed in rejection of claim 1 above) a distance substantially equal to the height of the sharpening member when moving from a first end to a second end of the cutterhead assembly (as provided in MPEP 2173.05(b), substantially is a broad term, and while it is acknowledged in MPEP 2125 that the figures are not to scale, it appears that in fig. 2 of Joray, the amount of movement tangentially (left to right) is at least substantially equal to the height of the sharpening member (up/down); in view of how substantially is a broad term, even if the figures are not necessarily to scale in the prior art).
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion relative to the prior art is obvious absent evidence that the particular dimensions are significant. In the instant application, the applicant did not demonstrate how the relationship of the sharpening member height and it’s range tangential movement is significant. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made in Joray, the sharpening member to have a height and moveable tangentially to the cutterhead assembly a distance substantially equal to the height of the sharpening member when moving from a first end to a second end of the cutterhead assembly, as a change in relative dimensions, with such an arrangement predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joray (US 3831325 A) and further in view of Hoch (US 3331167 A).
With respect to claim 7, Joray teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach an adjustment mechanism via which angling of the guide member relative to the cutterhead assembly is selectively adjustable.
Hoch, in the same field of endeavor, related to sharpening, teaches of an arrangement with an adjustment mechanism via which angling of the guide member relative to the cutterhead assembly is selectively adjustable (using spacers 42, fig. 4; on each stem 39, at the ends of a guide member 36, figs. 1 and 2, that holds a sharpening member 60, fig. 1, col 5 lines 10-15; the angle of the rail/guide member can be adjusted; col 4 lines 24-46, see blades 22, fig. 7; col 3 lines 44-55; this mechanism is 112(f) equivalent as a means to angle the guide). Hoch teaches that such an arrangement maximizes uniformity of sharpening (col 2 lines 4-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Hoch in Joray, to provide for an adjustment mechanism via which angling of the guide member relative to the cutterhead assembly is selectively adjustable, with the provision of spacers, for more uniformity in sharpening.
With respect to claim 8, Joray teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach including a spacer that alters positioning of the guide member.
Hoch, in the same field of endeavor, related to sharpening, teaches of an arrangement in which angling [positioning] of the guide member relative to the cutterhead assembly is selectively adjustable using spacers (using spacers 42, fig. 4; on each stem 39, at the ends of a guide member 36, figs. 1 and 2, that holds a sharpening member 60, fig. 1; col 5 lines 10-15. the angle of the rail/guide member can be adjusted; col 4 lines 24-46, see blades 22, fig. 7; col 3 lines 44-55). Hoch teaches that such an arrangement maximizes uniformity of sharpening (col 2 lines 4-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the teachings of Hoch in Joray, to provide for spacer that alters positioning of the guide member for more uniformity in sharpening.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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 dies not disclose any of the spacer is tapered at least in part; the spacer is wedge-shaped or substantially a triangular prism in shape; the spacer has a first planar surface and a second planar surface that is angled relative to the first planar surface thereof, with the extent to which the second planar surface of the spacer is angled relative to the first planar surface of the spacer being a function of or determined by the height of the sharpening member and/or the length of one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly; and the height of the sharpening member dictates the extent to which a second end portion of the spacer is thicker than a first end portion of the spacer. These limitations in the alterative of “spacer is tapered at least in part; the spacer is wedge-shaped or substantially a triangular prism in shape require an angled spacer” which is not found in Hoch, which provides for disk shaped spacers, that can be stacked to change the relative heights of either ends of the guide member. The examiner finds, that while tapered or wedged shaped spacers are known and common (see YouTube video titled “Wedge Ramp”), such an arrangement would be contrary to the intent of Hoch, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand would not be conductive to stacking spacers. As for “the spacer has a first planar surface and a second planar surface that is angled relative to the first planar surface thereof, with the extent to which the second planar surface of the spacer is angled relative to the first planar surface of the spacer being a function of or determined by the height of the sharpening member and/or the length of one or more blades of the cutterhead assembly; and the height of the sharpening member dictates the extent to which a second end portion of the spacer is thicker than a first end portion of the spacer”, while broad, the prior art does not relate the any dimension of spacer and the height of the sharpening member, and in any case, the spacer in Hoch does not have any angle or variation in thickness, and as with above, it would not be obvious to make the spacer angled. Therefore claim 9 (requiring the limitation of claim 8 and 1) is allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights