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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 2, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, “the elevation” should read “[[the]] an elevation” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11, “a knife receptacle” should read “[[a]] the knife receptacle” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11, “the grinder assembly” should read “the [[grinder]] grinding assembly” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12, “a knife receptacle” should read “[[a]] the knife receptacle” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12, “the grinder assembly” should read “the [[grinder]] grinding assembly” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 13, line 7, “the grinder wheel” should read “the [[grinder]] at least a first grinding wheel” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 13, line 8, “the grinder wheel” should read “the [[grinder]] at least a first grinding wheel” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, line 3, “determing” should read “[[determing[]] determining” to provide proper spelling
Claim 17, line 5, “the grinder wheel” should read “the [[grinder]] at least a first grinding wheel” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, line 6, “the grinder wheel” should read “the [[grinder]] at least a first grinding wheel” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, line 7, “the grinder wheel” should read “the [[grinder]] at least a first grinding wheel” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 18, line 7, “the grinder wheel” should read “the [[grinder]] at least a first grinding wheel” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 18, line 8, “the grinder wheel” should read “the [[grinder]] at least a first grinding wheel” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, last line, the language recites “the receptacle”. However, the term “the receptacle” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a knife receptacle”.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 15, the language recites the terms “the knife grinder”, “a sorter assembly”, “a rotary frame”, “a plurality of sorter receptacles”, and “a drive system”. However, these terms lack proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “the [[knife grinder]] apparatus for grinding a knife”, “[[a]] the sorter assembly”, “[[a]] the rotary frame”, “[[a]] the plurality of sorter receptacles”, and “[[a]] the drive system”.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 18, line 3, the language recites the term “the sensor assembly”. However, the term “the sensor assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term has not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a sensor assembly”.
Regarding claim 18, second line from bottom, the language recites the term “the linear positioner”. However, the term “the linear positioner” lacks proper antecedent basis because it has not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a linear positioner”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it covers both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. More specifically, Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product that cover signals per se, which are non-statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
However, claim 19 is already directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium and amending claim 20 would therefore be redundant.
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 13-17 and 19-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 13 recites
determining an average width of the knife based on data received from the sensor assembly; determining a target width of the knife based on the average width and a desired reduction value; determine a target position for the grinder wheel based on the target width which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 13 recites a computer-implemented method of controlling the apparatus of claim 12, the method comprising:
determining an average width of the knife based on data received from the sensor assembly (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph fig. 14 of instant application where the determining is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.);
determining a target width of the knife based on the average width and a desired reduction value (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph fig. 14 of instant application where the determining is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.);
determine a target position for the grinder wheel based on the target width (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph fig. 14 of instant application where the determining is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.); and
send a control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of
send a control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position
is receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)II.i.). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
send a control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position
is receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)II.i.) and is therefore well understood, routine and conventional. Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 14, the analysis of Claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 14 additionally recites wherein determining the average width of the knife includes apply an offset value to the data received from the sensor assembly to obtain adjusted measurements, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 14 recites the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein determining the average width of the knife includes apply an offset value to the data received from the sensor assembly to obtain adjusted measurements (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph fig. 14 and [0082] of instant application where the determining is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 15
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 15, the analysis of Claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 15 additionally recites determining a target sorting position for the rotary frame based on the target width of the knife, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 15 recites the computer-implemented method of claim 13, wherein the knife grinder further includes a sorter assembly disposed downstream of the track, and the sorter assembly includes a rotary frame, a plurality of sorter receptacles, and a drive system selectively operable to rotate the rotary frame to thereby position a selected one of the sorter receptacles to receive the knife, and the method further includes:
determining a target sorting position for the rotary frame based on the target width of the knife (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See fig. 14 of the instant application where the determining is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.); and
sending a second control signal to the drive system to reposition the rotary frame to the target sorting position.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of
sending a second control signal to the drive system to reposition the rotary frame to the target sorting position
is receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)II.i.). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
sending a second control signal to the drive system to reposition the rotary frame to the target sorting position
is receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)II.i.) and is therefore well understood, routine and conventional. Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 16, the analysis of Claim 15 is incorporated. Claim 16 additionally recites wherein determining the target sorting position includes comparing the average width of the knife or the target width of the knife to the maximum knife widths or the ranges of knife widths, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 16 recites the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein each of the sorter receptacles corresponds to a sorting class, and each sorting class is associated with a corresponding maximum knife width or a range of knife widths, and wherein determining the target sorting position includes comparing the average width of the knife or the target width of the knife to the maximum knife widths or the ranges of knife widths (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph fig. 14 and [0090] of instant application where the determining is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 17
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 17, the analysis of Claim 16 is incorporated. Claim 17 additionally recites determing, based on the comparison, that the target sorting position is the position associated with the reject/scrap class, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 17 recites the computer-implemented method of claim 16, wherein one of the sorting classes is a reject/scrap class, and method further includes:
determing, based on the comparison, that the target sorting position is the position associated with the reject/scrap class (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See fig. 14 of the instant application and [0090] wherein the determining is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.); and
in response, sending the control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position, wherein the target position is a position in which the grinder wheel is above the flow path such that the grinder wheel does not contact the knife.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of
in response, sending the control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position, wherein the target position is a position in which the grinder wheel is above the flow path such that the grinder wheel does not contact the knife.
is receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)II.i.). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
in response, sending the control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position, wherein the target position is a position in which the grinder wheel is above the flow path such that the grinder wheel does not contact the knife.
is receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)II.i.) and is therefore well understood, routine and conventional. Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 19
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 19, the analysis of Claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 19 additionally recites perform the method of claim 13, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 19 recites an abstract idea. See above 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 13 for more details.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions
is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions
is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 20
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 20, the analysis of Claim 13 is incorporated. Claim 20 additionally recites carry out the method of claim 13, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 20 recites an abstract idea. See above 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 13 for more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an apparatus for grinding (figs. 1-4), the apparatus comprising:
a frame (fig. 1, indicated by element 13);
a guide track assembly (fig. 2) supported by the frame (the frame supports the structure of fig. 2, see fig. 1), wherein the guide track assembly includes a track (fig. 2, supporting plate assembly 12-1 and 12-4) and an endless loop (fig. 1, conveying chain 12), wherein the track has a pair of support surfaces disposed along opposite sides of the endless loop and configured to support the workpiece thereon (fig. 2, support surfaces of clamping plates 12-4 which are configured to support the workpiece 11), the support surfaces define a flow path (fig. 1, flow path towards the grinding wheel), and the endless loop is rotatable to move the workpiece in a first direction from a first location along the track to a second location along the track to thereby advance the workpiece on the track along the flow path from the first location to the second location (paragraph 0026 of the attached translation, wherein Liu teaches the operator presses the initiating key, and the servomotor drives the carrier chain 12 to drive the workpiece 11 at uniform velocity; see annotated fig. 1 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
528
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a grinding assembly having at least a first grinding wheel (grinding wheel 8-7) and a first motor configured to rotate the first grinding wheel (stepping motor 8-10), wherein the first grinding wheel is disposed downstream of the receptacle along the flow path (fig. 1, wherein the starting position of the workpiece is interpreted as the receptacle, wherein the grinding wheel is disposed downstream of the receptacle along the flow path of the conveying chain 12).
Liu does not explicitly teach an apparatus for grinding a knife, wherein the knife is an industrial woodworking knife for power-operated rotary cutter heads;
an endless loop with at least one lug;
the endless loop is rotatable to move the lug;
wherein the workpiece is a knife.
However, Tian teaches an automatic feeding system for knife grinding (page 1 of attached translation, third line), wherein the workpiece is a knife (fig. 3, knife 40), wherein the knife is an industrial woodworking knife for power-operated rotary cutter heads (fig. 3, the workpiece is capable of being an industrial woodworking knife for power-operated rotary cutter heads);
an endless loop (fig. 1, conveying chain 12) with at least one lug (fig. 3, lug for supporting workpiece);
the endless loop is rotatable to move the lug (fig. 3, page 5 of attached translation, second to last paragraph);
wherein the workpiece is a knife (fig. 1, knife 40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to incorporate the teachings of Tian to provide an apparatus for grinding a knife, wherein the knife is an industrial woodworking knife for power-operated rotary cutter heads; an endless loop with at least one lug; the endless loop is rotatable to move the lug; wherein the workpiece is a knife.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Liu to be a knife grinding apparatus, wherein the knife is capable of being an industrial woodworking knife for power-operated rotary cuter heads, wherein the endless loop of Liu has at least one lug that moves with the endless loop. Doing so would provide increased utility of the device of Liu by adapting the device of Liu to be capable of grinding knives. Additionally, doing so would promote securely moving the knife with the endless loop which prevents damage to the workpiece.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US PGPUB 20230106649), hereinafter Mori.
Regarding claims 2-3, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the grinding assembly further includes a linear positioner coupled to the motor and selectively operable to adjust the elevation of the first grinding wheel relative to the frame, wherein the linear positioner includes a ball screw, a ball nut, and a position detector configured to detect a position of the nut.
However, Mori teaches a grinding apparatus, wherein the grinding assembly (including grinding wheel 75) further includes a linear positioner (fig. 1, screw 62, nut 68, motor 64 and encoder 65) coupled to the motor (the linear positioner is coupled to spindle motor 73) and selectively operable to adjust the elevation of the first grinding wheel relative to the frame [0035], wherein the linear positioner includes a ball screw (screw 62), a ball nut (nut 68), and a position detector (encoder 65) configured to detect a position of the nut [0036].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mori to provide wherein the grinding assembly further includes a linear positioner coupled to the motor and selectively operable to adjust the elevation of the first grinding wheel relative to the frame, wherein the linear positioner includes a ball screw, a ball nut, and a position detector configured to detect a position of the nut.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the linear positioner of Mori into the device of Liu, as modified, wherein the linear positioner includes a ball screw, a ball nut, a motor and a position detector configured to detect a position of the nut. Doing so would allow the vertical position of the grinding wheel to be adjusted to in order to adjust the processing parameters which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 4, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Liu, as modified, teaches wherein the linear positioner includes a motor connected to the ball screw (incorporated motor 64 of Mori).
Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the incorporated motor 64 of Mori is a servo or stepper motor.
However, Liu additionally teaches servomotors are a known drive motor [0026].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Liu to provide wherein the incorporated motor 64 of Mori is a servomotor. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and provide a motor for adjusting the vertical position of the grinding assembly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), and further in view of Mori et al. (US PGPUB 20230106649), hereinafter Mori, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pan (CN 113477992).
Regarding claim 5, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach further including a hold-down assembly mounted to the frame, wherein the hold-down assembly is configured to apply downward force against an upwardly facing surface of the knife on the track.
However, Pan teaches an abrading device further including a hold-down assembly (pressing block 17) mounted to the frame (fig. 6), wherein the hold-down assembly is configured to apply downward force against an upwardly facing surface of the workpiece on the track (page 5 of the attached translation, second to last paragraph; Pan teaches the pressing block 17 just touches the plane of the work piece and transmits a safety signal to the system, and it can work normally).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Pan to provide further including a hold-down assembly mounted to the frame, wherein the hold-down assembly is configured to apply downward force against an upwardly facing surface of the knife on the track. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the pressing block of Pan, wherein the pressing block just touches the plane of the workpiece and transmits a safety signal to the system, and it can work normally. Doing so would promote increased quality of the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece and tool due to misalignment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aldridge et al. (US PGPUB 20220203541), hereinafter Aldridge.
Regarding claim 6, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach further including a sensor assembly configured to detect a width of the knife on the track between the first location and the second location.
However, Aldridge teaches a knife grinding apparatus, further including a sensor assembly (scanners 1801a and 1801b, fig. 18) configured to detect a width of the knife [0134].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Aldridge to provide further including a sensor assembly configured to detect a width of the knife on the track between the first location and the second location. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the thickness scanners of Aldridge to be located on the track between the first location and the second location. Doing so would provide measurements of the knife in order to adjust the grinding parameters before grinding, which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), and further in view of Aldridge et al. (US PGPUB 20220203541), hereinafter Aldridge, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wu (CN 115254632).
Regarding claim 7, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach further including a sorter assembly disposed downstream of the track, wherein the sorter assembly includes a rotary frame, a plurality of sorter receptacles, and a drive system selectively operable to rotate the rotary frame to thereby position a selected one of the sorter receptacles to receive the knife.
However, Wu teaches a conveying and sorting device for processing workpieces, further including a sorter assembly (fig. 8) disposed downstream of the track (fig. 7), wherein the sorter assembly includes a rotary frame (rotating disc 30, fig. 8), a plurality of sorter receptacles (fig. 8, receptacles defined by star shaped structure on rotating disc 30), and a drive system (rotating plate motor 40) selectively operable to rotate the rotary frame to thereby position a selected one of the sorter receptacles to receive the workpiece (page 9 of the attached translation, third paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide further including a sorter assembly disposed downstream of the track, wherein the sorter assembly includes a rotary frame, a plurality of sorter receptacles, and a drive system selectively operable to rotate the rotary frame to thereby position a selected one of the sorter receptacles to receive the knife. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include the sorter assembly of Wu, wherein the sorter assembly cooperates with the conveying chain of Liu, as modified, to sort the processed knives. Doing so would allow for continuous processing which promotes decreased downtime. Additionally, doing so would promote organization and time savings by sorting the processed workpieces as desired.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), and further in view of Aldridge et al. (US PGPUB 20220203541), hereinafter Aldridge, and further in view of Wu (CN 115254632), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US PGPUB 20230106649), hereinafter Mori.
Regarding claim 8, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Liu, as modified, teaches wherein the sorter assembly is supported by the frame (the incorporated sorter assembly is operationally supported by the frame of Liu).
Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach the rotary frame is mounted on a rotary bearing.
However, Mori teaches a grinding apparatus including a rotary work table 23 (fig. 1), wherein the rotary work table is mounted on a rotary bearing 46 [0026].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mori to provide the rotary frame is mounted on a rotary bearing.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to support the incorporated rotary frame via rotary bearing. Doing so would promote longevity of the rotation motor by providing a bearing to aid in supporting the rotary frame. Additionally, doing so would promote stability of the rotary frame.
Regarding claim 9, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 8. Additionally, Liu, as modified, teaches wherein the drive system includes a motor (incorporated motor 40 of Wu).
Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the incorporated motor 40 of Wu is a servo or stepper motor.
However, Liu additionally teaches servomotors are a known drive motor [0026].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Liu to provide wherein the incorporated motor 40 of Wu is a servomotor. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and provide a motor for adjusting position of the rotary table.
Regarding claim 10, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9.
Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the sorter assembly further includes a position sensor operable to detect a rotary position of the rotary frame.
However, Mori teaches a grinding apparatus further includes a position sensor (encoder 65) operable to detect a rotary position of the rotary motor [0033 and 0036].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mori to provide wherein the sorter assembly further includes a position sensor operable to detect a rotary position of the rotary frame. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate an encoder onto the incorporated rotary motor, in order to allow the encoder to detect a rotary position of the rotary frame. Doing so would allow the sorter assembly to work in cooperation with the grinding assembly and endless loop as intended. Additionally, doing so would promote correct sorting.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu (KR 20010044169).
Regarding claim 11, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach further including a knife receptacle located upstream of the grinder assembly along the flow path and configured to releasably retain the knife on the track at the first location, wherein the knife receptacle defines a passage dimensioned to allow the lug and the knife to exit the receptacle along the flow path in the first direction.
However, Ryu teaches an abrading device for processing blades (abstract of attached translation) further including a knife receptacle (feeder 21 and jig 22 of fig. 2-3) located upstream of the grinder assembly along the flow path (fig. 2-3, Ryu teaches the blades 3 are fed from the feeder 21 to the grinding assembly along the flow path) and configured to releasably retain the knife on the track at the first location (fig. 2 of Ryu, structure labeled as 21 is interpreted as the first location, wherein the feeder 21 releasably retains the blade at the first position then feeds it towards the grinding assembly), wherein the knife receptacle defines a passage dimensioned to allow the knife to exit the receptacle along the flow path in the first direction (fig. 5b, wherein the jig 22 includes a passage (see wherein blades 3 are queued) dimensioned to allow the blade to exit the receptacle along the flow path in the first direction and be processed by the grinding assembly 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Ryu to provide further including a knife receptacle located upstream of the grinder assembly along the flow path and configured to releasably retain the knife on the track at the first location, wherein the knife receptacle defines a passage dimensioned to allow the lug and the knife to exit the receptacle along the flow path in the first direction. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide a knife receptacle located upstream of the grinding assembly of Liu, as modified, wherein the knife receptacle defines a passage dimensioned to allow the lug of Liu, as modified, and the knife of Liu, as modified, to exit the receptacle along the flow path in the first direction towards the grinding assembly. Doing so would provide for continuous automatic processing, which prevents downtime.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fowler et al. (US PGPUB 20200246933), hereinafter Fowler.
Regarding claim 18, Liu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Liu, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a control system configured to:
determine an average width of the knife based on data received from the sensor assembly;
determine a target width of the knife based on the average width and a desired reduction value;
determine a target position for the grinder wheel based on the target width; and
send a control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position.
However, Fowler teaches a grinding unit for a blade including a control system (controller 22) configured to [0059-0064]:
determine an average width of the knife based on data received from the sensor assembly ([0059-0061], wherein the initial blade profile is interpreted as an average width of the knife based on data received from the sensor assembly at a plurality of points along the knife);
determine a target width of the knife based on the average width and a desired reduction value [0062];
determine a target position for the grinder wheel based on the target width [0062]; and
send a control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position [0064].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Liu, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fowler to provide a control system configured to:
determine an average width of the knife based on data received from the sensor assembly;
determine a target width of the knife based on the average width and a desired reduction value;
determine a target position for the grinder wheel based on the target width; and
send a control signal to the linear positioner to reposition the grinder wheel to the target position.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller, sensor assembly, and controller operations of Fowler to control the grinding and sensor assembly to determine a preliminary average width, determine a target average width, generate a tool position for the grinding wheel and control the grinding assembly to grind the workpiece with the generated parameters. Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by setting customized grinding parameters. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by measuring specific features of the respective workpiece and setting parameters accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 12-17 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 12, Liu et al. (CN 205364121), hereinafter Liu, in view of Tian (CN 109454504), and further in view of Mori et al. (US PGPUB 20230106649), hereinafter Mori, is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the combination of features including the hold-down assembly, the knife receptacle, the sensor assembly configured to detect a width of the knife, and the sorter assembly as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 1, 2 and 12.
Claims 13-17 and 19-20 are indicated as being allowable for depending from claim 12.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Genozono (US PGPUB 20210245326) teaches a grinding device with a raising lowering device similar to the claimed invention.
Chiocchetti et al. (US PGPUB 20200171615) teaches a grinding unit for a cutting blade similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights