DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14, 19-20 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 13, the term “substantial” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation requiring the base structure to be “configured to enclose a substantial portion of the abrasive medium therein” is unclear. How much of the abrasive medium must be enclosed to be considered a “substantial portion?” What structural limitation is being imparted to the base structure here? This is made further unclear by the fact that the abrasive medium is not positively recited as a part of the sharpener in this claim. The base structure as recited in claim 9 must only be “configured to have an abrasive medium mountable thereto,” which indicates that any abrasive of any size or form may be usable here. How is one to determine whether the structure of a given base structure is capable of enclosing a “substantial portion” of a mountable abrasive medium? For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be read as defining the base structure being capable of enclosing any portion of any abrasive medium, as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation.
Claim 14 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency upon rejected claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “wherein abrasive medium” in the first line. It is unclear if this is referring to one of the abrasive mediums of claim 15, or each abrasive medium which is included in each of the sharpening stations. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be read as “the abrasive medium of each of the plurality of sharpening stations”, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Further regarding claim 19, the claim recites “the rotatable edge guide is configured to rotate about an edge guide central axis, and the roller member is configured to rotate about an edge roller axis.” However, claim 15 recites that the rotatable edge guide comprises the roller member. The roller member is the only recited structure of the rotatable edge guide. This makes it unclear if the edge roller axis and edge guide central axis are attempting to refer to different axes and indicate some additional rotation, or if these axes are referring to the same element and rotation. For the purposes of this examination, as the rotatable edge guide is recited as comprising a roller member, the roller member being rotatable about an edge roller axis will also be interpreted as satisfying the limitation of the rotatable edge guide being configured to rotate about an edge guide axis.
Claim 20 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency upon rejected claim 19.
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) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stokes (US 6117002, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 9, Stokes discloses a tool sharpener for sharpening a cutting tool, the tool sharpener comprising: a base structure (45) configured to have an abrasive medium (14) mountable thereto (note that the abrasive medium is not positively recited as a part of the claimed tool sharpener); a stationary sharpening guide (41) connected to the base structure and configured to engage the cutting tool (col 5, lines 40-52); and a roller member (34) connected to the base structure and configured to rotate when engaged by a cutting edge of the cutting tool (col 6, lines 41-52), the roller member being selectively movable between a retracted position (upper position shown in fig 4) and a deployed position (lower position shown in fig 9), the roller member being a first distance from the stationary sharpening guide when in the deployed position and a second, greater distance from the stationary sharpening guide when in the retracted position (roller is further left in the deployed position as viewed in fig 9, which is closer to the stationary sharpening guide 41, which is fully depicted in fig 12).
Regarding claims 10-12 Stokes further discloses a locking mechanism (elements 54, 39, 38) that is configured to selectively hold the roller in the retracted position (as shown in fig 11); the locking mechanism comprises a retention tab member (39) that is configured to selectively engage the roller member (as shown in fig 11); and wherein the locking mechanism comprises a detent switch arrangement (as broadly claimed, element 49 is considered to constitute a detent switch arrangement, as its arrangement allows the locking mechanism to be switched between the retracted and deployed positions as shown in figs 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 13, Stokes further discloses the base structure is configured to enclose a substantial portion of the abrasive medium (as best understood, the base structure 45 is capable of enclosing a bottom of an abrasive medium if the medium is used above the base structure; note that the abrasive medium is not positively recited as a prat of the tool sharpener; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation).
Regarding claim 14, Stokes further discloses the roller member is disposed external to the base structure (fig 4; roller 34 is external to base structure 45).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunkin (US 4672777).
Regarding claim 15, Dunkin discloses a tool sharpener for sharpening a cutting tool, the tool sharpener comprising: a base structure (12) comprising a plurality of sharpening stations (at elements 18), each sharpening station comprising: an abrasive medium (32); and one or more stationary sharpening guides (surfaces defining each side of slot 58; fig 2) positioned adjacent to an edge of the abrasive medium (fig 2); a rotatable edge guide (38) coupled to the base structure, the rotatable edge guide comprising a roller member (38) that extends along at least a portion of the base structure so as to be simultaneously positioned adjacent to each of the plurality of sharpening stations such that the cutting tool can engage the roller member when using any of the plurality of sharpening stations (as shown in fig 2, roller member extends adjacent each abrasive medium 32).
Regarding claim 19, Dunkin further discloses the abrasive medium of each of the plurality of sharpening stations (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) is configured to rotate about an abrasive axis (axes central to elements 30), the rotatable edge (38) guide is configured to rotate about an edge guide central axis (axis central to element 42), and the roller member (38) is configured to rotate about an edge roller axis (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation; the roller member 38, which is rotatable about shaft 42 constitutes the claimed rotatable edge guide).
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (US 2011/0201257, cited by applicant) in view of Petroff (US 5009040, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a tool sharpener for sharpening a cutting tool, the tool sharpener comprising: a base structure (106) configured to have an abrasive medium (elements 208, 210, 212) mountable thereto (note that the abrasive medium is not positively recited as a part of the claimed tool sharpener) such that the abrasive medium can rotate about an abrasive axis (axis central to shaft 206; fig 4).
Walker does not teach a central body connected to the base structure configured to pivot about an edge guide central axis or a roller member connected to the central body and being configured to rotate about an edge roller axis when engaged by a cutting edge of the cutting tool. Petroff teaches a tool sharpener including a central body (17) connected to a base structure (6), the central body being configured to pivot about an edge guide central axis (28) and a roller member (21) connected to the central body and being configured to rotate about an edge roller axis (24) when engaged by a cutting edge of the cutting tool (as shown in fig 5), wherein the edge roller axis (24) and the edge guide central axis (28) are nominally parallel to one another (fig 4; col 4, lines 12-14). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a central body pivoting about an edge guide central axis with a roller member rotatable about an edge roller axis to the base structure of Walker such that the edge roller axis, the edge guide central axis, and the abrasive axis are nominally parallel to one another (when oriented transverse to the intended direction of the blade as discussed by Petroff col 4, lines 12-14), as such a pivoting central body and roller allows the sharpener to be selectively placed in operative and inoperative positions as taught by Petroff (col 4, lines 12-36).
Regarding claim 2, Walker, as modified by Petroff, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Petroff further teaches the central body (when included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) is configured to pivot relative to the base structure (about axis 28) to selectively move the roller member between a retracted position and a deployed position (relative positions depicted in figs 5 and 6; col 4, lines 27-34).
Regarding claims 3-4, Walker, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Walker does not teach a biasing member between the central body and base structure. Petroff further teaches a biasing member (33) connected between the central body (17) and base structure (shown as unlabeled line in fig 9), the biasing member being configured to bias the roller member toward the deployed position (biased upward as shown in fig 9); wherein the biasing member comprises a spring (fig 9; col 6, lines 14-20). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a spring between the central body and base structure of Walker, configured to bias the roller member towards the deployed position, as this ensures the roller engages the blade to be sharpened with minimal hinderance as taught by Petroff (col 6, lines 14-28).
Regarding claims 5-6, Walker, as modified by Petroff, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Petroff further teaches the central body (17; included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) is configured to pivot relative to the base structure (as described col 4, lines 12-36) to enable the roller member to move to a deflected position; wherein the deflected position is between the retracted position and the deployed position (the central body is capable of deflecting to any deflected position between the retracted and deployed positions shown in figs 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Walker, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Walker further teaches a stationary sharpening guide (154, 156) connected to the base structure (fig 5).
Regarding claim 8, Walker, as modified by Petroff, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Petroff further teaches the roller member (21; included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) is a first distance from the stationary sharpening guide when in the deployed position and a second, greater distance from the stationary sharpening guide when in the retracted position (lower and upper positions in figures 6 and 5 respectively would be relatively closer to and further away from the stationary sharpening guide when deployed in the sharpener of Walker as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkin as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Baughman (US 5525095).
Regarding claim 16, Dunkin teaches all the elements of claim 15 as described above. Dunkin further teaches the rotatable edge guide further comprises a central body (34, 36) connecting the roller member to the base structure (as shown in fig 3). Dunkin does not teach the central body being configured to pivot relative to the base structure. Baughman teaches a tool sharpener including a central body (118) connecting a tool guiding member (120) to a base structure (94), wherein the central body is configured to pivot relative to the base structure (col 4, lines 34-48). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the central body of Dunkin to pivot relative to the base structure, as this allows the tool guiding member (equivalent to the roller member of Dunkin) to be pivotally adjustable relative to the abrasive medium as taught by Baughman (col 4, lines 34-48; fig 3), which would allow the precise positioning of the roller desired by Dunkin for providing the correct grinding pressure (col 3, lines 33-43).
Regarding claims 17-18, Dunkin teaches all the elements of claim 15 as described above. Dunkin does not teach the roller member being selectively movable between a retracted and deployed position at different relative distances to the stationary sharpening guide. Baughman teaches a tool sharpener including a tool guiding member (120) which is selectively movable between a retracted position and a deployed position (configured to pivot relative to the base structure; col 4, lines 34-48; fig 3) wherein the tool guiding member is a first distance from an abrasive medium (46) when in the deployed position (upper position shown in fig 3) and at a second, greater distance from the abrasive medium when in the retracted position (when rotated counterclockwise from the position shown in fig 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure roller member of Dunkin to be selectively movable between a retracted and deployed position relative to the stationary sharpening guide, as this allows the tool guiding member (equivalent to the roller member of Dunkin) to be adjustable relative to the abrasive medium (movement relative to the abrasive medium would necessarily be movement relative to the stationary guide, as the stationary guide of Dunkin is adjacent the abrasive medium) as taught by Baughman (col 4, lines 34-48; fig 3), which would allow the precise positioning of the roller desired by Dunkin for providing the correct grinding pressure (col 3, lines 33-43).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkin as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Leung (US 6802763).
Regarding claim 20, Dunkin teaches all the elements of claim 19 as described above. Dunkin further teaches the edge roller axis and edge guide central axis are parallel to one another (as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above, these axes are the same; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation). Dunkin does not teach the abrasive axis is also nominally parallel to the edge roller axis (in Dunkin, the abrasive axes are angled to achieve the desired grinding angle). Leung teaches a tool sharpener including sharpening stations including an abrasive medium (26, 28) configured to rotate about a horizontal parallel axis (about shaft 18; fig 3; col 4, lines 17-31). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the abrasive mediums of Dunkin to rotate about an axis parallel to the edge roller axis by arranging the rotation to be horizontal as taught by Leung (fig 3), as this simplifies construction and still allows precise grinding angle by the use of appropriately angled sharpening guides as taught by Leung (col 5, lines 1-21).
Claim(s) 21-22, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkin (US 4672777) in view of Baughman (US 5525095).
Regarding claim 21, Dunkin teaches a tool sharpener for sharpening a cutting tool, the tool sharpener comprising: a base structure (12) configured to have an abrasive medium (32) mountable thereto (note that the abrasive medium is not positively recited as a part of the claimed sharpener); and a stationary sharpening guide (surfaces defining each side of slot 58; fig 2) connected to the base structure (fig 2) and configured to engage the cutting tool (col 3, lines 8-15); an edge guide (38) connected to the base structure and having a guide surface (outer surface of roller 38) that is configured to engage a cutting edge of the cutting tool (as shown in fig 5). Dunkin does not teach the edge guide being selectively movable between a retracted and deployed position at different relative distances to the stationary sharpening guide. Baughman teaches a tool sharpener including an edge guide (120) which is selectively movable between a retracted position and a deployed position (configured to pivot relative to the base structure; col 4, lines 34-48; fig 3) wherein the edge guide is a first distance from an abrasive medium (46) when in the deployed position (upper position shown in fig 3) and at a second, greater distance from the abrasive medium when in the retracted position (when rotated counterclockwise from the position shown in fig 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the edge guide of Dunkin to be selectively movable between a retracted and deployed position relative to the stationary sharpening guide, as this allows the edge guide to be adjustable relative to the abrasive medium (movement relative to the abrasive medium would necessarily be movement relative to the stationary guide, as the stationary guide of Dunkin is adjacent the abrasive medium) as taught by Baughman (col 4, lines 34-48; fig 3), which would allow the precise positioning of the edge guide desired by Dunkin for providing the correct grinding pressure (col 3, lines 33-43).
Regarding claim 22, Dunkin, as modified by Baughman, teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Dunkin further teaches the abrasive medium is configured to rotate about an abrasive axis (axis central to shaft 30). Baughman further teaches the edge guide is configured to pivot about an edge guide central axis (when the selectively movable limitation of Baughman is provided as described in the rejection of claim 21 above).
Regarding claims 26-27, Dunkin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as described above. Dunkin further teaches the base structure comprises a plurality of sharpening stations (at each of elements 18), each sharpening station being configured to have an abrasive medium mounted thereto (see both abrasive media shown in fig 1) and having one or more stationary sharpening guides positioned adjacent to an edge of the abrasive medium (sharpening guide at each of the surfaces defining each side of slot 58; fig 2); and wherein the edge guide extends along at least a portion of the base structure so as to be simultaneously positioned adjacent to each of the plurality of sharpening stations such that the cutting tool can engage the guide surface when using any of the plurality of sharpening stations (edge guide 38 spans across both polishing stations as shown in fig 2).
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunkin and Baughman as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Leung (US 6802763).
Regarding claim 23, Dunkin, as modified, teaches all the elements of claim 21 as described above. Dunkin does not teach the abrasive axis and edge guide central axis are parallel to one another (in Dunkin, the abrasive axis is angled to achieve the desired grinding angle; the pivoting axis of Baughman is horizontal when provided to the edge guide of Dunkin). Leung teaches a tool sharpener including sharpening stations including an abrasive medium (26, 28) configured to rotate about a horizontal parallel axis (about shaft 18; fig 3; col 4, lines 17-31). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the abrasive medium of Dunkin to rotate about an axis parallel to the edge guide central axis by arranging the rotation to be horizontal as taught by Leung (fig 3), as this simplifies construction and still allows precise grinding angle by the use of appropriately angled sharpening guides as taught by Leung (col 5, lines 1-21).
Regarding claims 24-25, Dunkin, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 23 as described above. Dunkin further teaches the guide surface of the edge guide is on a roller member that is configured to rotate about an edge roller axis (outer surface of element 38 is on roller member 38, which rotates about an axis central to shaft 42; fig 1); wherein the edge roller axis is parallel to the edge guide central axis and the abrasive axis (rotatable about a horizontal axis, which would be parallel to the edge guide central axis and abrasive axis when the modifications in light of Baughman and Leung are employed as described in the rejections above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar tool sharpeners are cited, including those with similar roller edge guides and multiple polishing stations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights