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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on May 26, 2026. Claim(s) 1-7 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-7 filed on May 26, 2026. The cancellation of the terms in question have been fully accepted, thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 2-6 have addressed the objections previously submitted, and as such the claim objections set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 2 have addressed the 112(b) rejection previously submitted, and as such the claim rejection set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1 and 7 add limitations such that the non-statutory double patenting rejection no longer applies.
The applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 7 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Wu (US Patent No. 7229344). However, the amendments are considered to overcome the applied in the rejection. As such, the rejection from the previous action will be updated to address the amended limitations as presented.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim objections: The examiner agrees that the claim objections have been addressed through amendment.
112(b) Rejection: The examiner agrees that the 112(b) rejection has been addressed through amendment.
102 Rejection in view of Wu: The examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the rejection, however does not agree that the Wu fails to disclose the newly claimed limitations. The amendments now require the tool disclose or make obvious an “enclosed aperture…defined between the support arms, the handle portion and housing that is configured to accommodate a blade or anvil of a tool…” The recess (25) of Wu fails to meet that, as it is located at a distal end of the tool. However, Wu also discloses an opening in recess (14) which is in the middle of the tool. Please see figure below that will be included in the action.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the applicant’s arguments are directed towards the examiner’s previous application of the art, and fail to address the present interpretation, they are found unpersuasive.
Further applicant argues against the recess of Wu accommodating an anvil or a blade of a tool, remarking that the anvil 1B shown in Wu would not fit in the recess. This is also unpersuasive, as the claim requires an anvil or blade (either one) be accommodated. As written, the claim would require that at least one of the two options be accounted for. However, in arguendo, an anvil or blade is a workpiece, and they come in different shapes and sizes. So while the anvil shown in an exemplary manner within Wu’s disclosure may not fit in the recess, an anvil of a different tool be maintained may. This argument is also not found persuasive.
Double-Patenting: The examiner agrees that the amended claim no longer constitutes a double patenting rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US Patent No. 7229344).
In regards to claim 1, Wu discloses
a device (blade sharpening tool, fig. 1-7) for sharpening bladed tools comprising
a body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) defining an elongate handle portion (grip portion 21, fig. 1-7) adapted to be gripped in one hand by a user,
the body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) having a forwardly projecting support member (arc-shaped mating surface 24, fig. 1-7) curved or angled downwardly with respect to the handle portion (grip portion 21, fig. 1-7) and having a support housing (see fig. 2 – ann. 1) at or near the end thereof fitted with a sharpening element (sharp edge of first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5),
wherein the support member (arc-shaped mating surface 24, fig. 1-7) comprises a pair of spaced support arms extending generally parallel to the longitudinal extent of the handle portion (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
PNG
media_image2.png
426
922
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the support arms being positioned to respective sides of the sharpening element whereby an enclosed aperture (recess 14, see fig. 2 – ann. 1/2) is defined between the support arms, the handle portion and the support housing (recess 14, see fig. 2 – ann. 1/2),
PNG
media_image1.png
477
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the handle portion and the support housing adapted to accommodate a blade or anvil of a tool during sharpening of a counterpart tool blade (see fig. 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
439
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 7, Wu discloses
a device (blade sharpening tool, fig. 1-7) for sharpening bladed tools comprising a body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) defining an elongate handle portion (grip portion 21, fig. 1-7) adapted to be gripped in one hand by a user,
the body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) having a forwardly projecting support member (arc-shaped mating surface 24, fig. 1-7) curved or angled downwardly with respect to the handle portion (grip portion 21, fig. 1-7),
the end of the support member (arc-shaped mating surface 24, fig. 1-7) provided with a sharpening element housing (see fig. 2 – ann. 4) configured to engage with a sharpening element cartridge (first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5) having a sharpening element (sharp edge of first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5) held therein,
PNG
media_image4.png
426
922
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the support member (arc-shaped mating surface 24, fig. 1-7) comprises a pair of spaced support arms extending generally parallel to the longitudinal extent of the handle portion (see fig. 2 – ann. 1),
the support arms being positioned to respective sides of the sharpening element of the engaged cartridge (first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5) and
wherein an enclosed aperture (recess 14, see fig. 2 – ann. 1/2) is defined between the support arms, the handle portion and the housing (recess 14, see fig. 2 – ann. 1/2)
PNG
media_image1.png
477
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that is configured to accommodate a blade or anvil of a tool during sharpening of a counterpart tool blade (see fig. ann. 2 and fig. 5).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Byers (US PG Pub No. 20070266828).
In regards to claim 2, Wu discloses
the device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the sharpening element (sharp edge of first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5) comprises one or more sharpening blades formed from tungsten carbide or ceramic.
However, Byers, which is a hand-held sharpening tool, discloses:
[0020] The sharpening/deburring/whetting inserts 16 may be rectangularly shaped flat members made of various known materials such as tungsten carbide, stone, ceramics or the like suitable for blade sharpening.
Wu and Byers are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hand-held grinding tools with replaceable sharpening elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to configure the body out of tungsten carbide since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07
In regards to claim 3, Wu as modified discloses
the device according to claim 1 wherein the sharpening element (sharp edge of first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5) is provided in a cartridge (first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5) that is removeably fitted to the end of the support (see fig. 2 – ann. 1).
In regards to claim 4, Wu as modified discloses
the device according to claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose that the device (blade sharpening tool, fig. 1-7) is provided with “two or more cartridges” carrying sharpening blades configured for sharpening respective types of tool blade edges.
However, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate parts, where in the instant case, to have a two more cartridges only a slight variation therefrom and would not produce an unexpected outcome and would have therefore constituted an obvious mechanical choice expedient at the time of applicants' invention, as a plurality of cartridges allows for greater variety and decreases the number of times cartridges may need to be restocked for storage, further increasing the tools versatility. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69. As such, while Wu doesn’t disclose sharpening different or “respective” tool blade edges, it discloses a body with an elongate handle portion, forwardly projecting member, sharpening element cartridges with sharpening elements, a storage area, and the cartridges have the structure to be interchanged with each other, it’s considered capable of being used for sharpening different tool blade edges. A skilled artisan may determine which element they desire to use with the workpiece as they see fit.
Further, the limitation is an intended use limitation. A skilled artisan would recognize the tool of Wu as modified would be capable of being used for sharpening tool edges.
In regards to claim 5, Wu as modified discloses
the device according to claim 4 wherein the device body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) includes a compartment (receiving chamber 22, fig. 1-7) therein capable of storing one or more cartridges (plurality of first grinding units 30, fig. 1-5).
In regards to claim 6, Wu as modified discloses
the device according to claim 5 further comprising a carriage member (see fig. 2 ann. 3) adapted to receive one or more cartridges (plurality of first grinding units 30, fig. 1-5) and to engage with the device body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) wherein to hold the one or more cartridges in the compartment (receiving chamber 22, fig. 1-7).
PNG
media_image5.png
501
916
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Friel (US Patent No. 5868611).
In regards to claim 8, Wu discloses
a device (blade sharpening tool, fig. 1-7) for sharpening bladed tools comprising a body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) defining an elongate handle portion (grip portion 21, fig. 1-7) adapted to be gripped in one hand by a user,
the body (main body 20, fig. 1-7) having a forwardly projecting support member (arc-shaped mating surface 24, fig. 1-7) curved or angled downwardly with respect to the handle portion (grip portion 21, fig. 1-7),
the end of the support member (arc-shaped mating surface 24, fig. 1-7) being configured to engage a first sharpening element cartridge (first grinding unit 30, see fig. 1-5) having a first sharpening element configuration for operative tool sharpening use (see fig. 4 and 5), the device further comprising a storage receptacle (receiving chamber 22, fig. 1-7) formed in the body (main body 20, fig. 1-7)
Wu fails to explicitly disclose that the storage receptable is “configured to engage a second sharpening element cartridge having a second sharpening element configuration for storage, and wherein the first and second sharpening element cartridges are selectively interchangeable by the user for operative sharpening use on different types of tool blades.”
Wu and Friel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hand tools with sharpening elements that can be placed in an operable position, as well as a storage portion. Friel teaches:
Col. 3 lines 45-50: Ideally the ultra honing pad 20 would be used following the primary honing process in Stage 2 (FIG. 1) where the interdigitating pads are commonly set at a total angle of 45.degree. to 50.degree.. The ultrahoning pad 20 would be removed from compartment 5 and would be inserted into recess 8, with coarse pad 12A being stored in compartment 5.
Col. 4 lines 9-14: The storage compartment 5 built into the sharpener is very convenient for the secure and clean storage of sharpening pads 12, 12A, 20 when not in use. Thus, compartment 5 can conveniently store various types of sharpening pads, such as a honing pad, an intermediate grid fishhook pad and a coarse pad.
Friel discloses using a storage compartment to house a plurality of different sharpening pads when not being used, and allowing for them to be exchanged with each other depending on the situation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu and incorporate the teachings of Friel, and use the receiving chamber (22) disclosed by Wu in order to store a plurality of a variety grinding elements, which would increase the tools versality.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights