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 .
Response to Amendment / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 04/17/2025. Claims 25-26 are withdrawn. Claims 1-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
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 11-12 and 18 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 11 (Original), the limitation “at least 10 microns or less” appears to render the claim indefinite. “at least 10 microns” would appear to mean more than 10 microns, while “10 microns or less” would appear to mean less than 10 microns. It is suggested that this limitation should read “10 microns or less”.
Regarding claim 12 (Original), the limitation “at least 5 microns or less” appears to render the claim indefinite. “at least 5 microns” would appear to mean more than 5 microns, while “5 microns or less” would appear to mean less than 5 microns. It is suggested that this limitation should read “5 microns or less”
Regarding claim 18 (Original), the limitation “said computational means” lacks antecedent basis. It appears that claim 18 should depend from claim 3.
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidmo et al (US Patent No. 4,817,339) in view of Wenke et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0143611), hereinafter referred to as Weidmo and Wenke, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Weidmo discloses an ice blade measuring system comprising:
a holder for holding the ice blade in a measurement position [Weidmo, figs 2, 14 which retains an ice skate 15];
a measuring device [Weidmo, col 4, lines 49-61, 27] operationally positioned relative to the holder to measure at least a multi-dimensional shape of an ice contacting surface of the ice blade held in said holder [Weidmo, col 5, line 57 – col 6, line 42, 27 measures a profile of 15 in multiple directions], said measuring device being configured to create a dataset which corresponds to said multi-dimensional shape [Weidmo, col 6, lines 29-42]; and
a data storage means operatively connected to said measuring device to record said measured dataset [Weidmo, col 3, line 68 – col 4, line 1, 7].
Weidmo does not explicitly teach a non-contact measuring device operationally positioned relative to the holder to measure at least a three-dimensional (3D) shape of an ice contacting surface of the ice blade held in said holder, said non-contact measuring device being configured to create a dataset which corresponds to said 3D shape.
Wenke teaches a blade measuring system comprising:
a holder for holding the blade in a measurement position [Wenke, fig 1, 29 holds blade 16];
a non-contact measuring device operationally positioned relative to the holder to measure at least a three-dimensional (3D) shape of a contacting surface of a blade held in said holder [Wenke, page 3, pp’s 0042-0044, 17 is a measuring device, specifically a 3D scanner 24, where 24 is functionally equivalent because there are insubstantial differences between the prior art element (24 being a 3D scanner) and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification], said non-contact measuring device being configured to create a dataset which corresponds to said 3D shape [Wenke, page 3, pp’s 0049-0050 and page 4, pp 0057]; and
a data storage means operatively connected to said non-contact measuring device to record said measured dataset [Wenke, page 3, pp 0049-0050, 19 and 20 and an external computer, where 19 and 20 are functionally equivalent because there are insubstantial differences between the prior art element (19 and 20) and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have upgraded and to replace the multi-dimensional shape measuring device of Weidmo with the 3D scanner device of Wenke to measure a 3D shape of the ice skate blade because the 3D scanning of the tool is substantially more efficient than the contacting of individual sensing points and accurately determines the material allowance of the surface relative to the desired contour, which would become highly complex with touch contact only [Wenke, page 6, pp 0078, summarized].
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 1, wherein said non-contact measuring device is a 3D scanner [Wenke, page 3, pp 0044, 24 is a 3D scanner].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 1, wherein said data storage means includes at least one ideal dataset for a desired ice contacting surface [Wenke, page 4, pp 0057] and said ice blade measuring system further includes a computational means to allow said at least one ideal dataset to be compared to said measured dataset to determine any differences in shape between the desired 3D shape and the measured 3D shape to guide sharpening and shaping of said ice blade [Wenke, page 4, pp 0058, the data set of the tool is compared to a reference contour and the measured contour WD].
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 3, wherein said computational means evaluates said measured dataset to determine if said ice blade is capable of being shaped to said desired 3D shape [Wenke, page 4, pp’s 0058-0059 determines the type of tool].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 3, further comprising a display means and wherein said computational means is programmed to display an image of said comparison between said desired 3D shape and said measured 3D shape on said display means [Wenke, page 3, pp 0050].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said computational means associates the measured 3D shape with an individual blade user.
Wenke further teaches the measurement system can be used on different types of tools, which characteristics are suitable, and what model parameters are determined [Wenke, page 3, pp 0041 and page 4, pp 0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system Weidmo to have different data sets within the computational means being associated with an individual user, just like the different types of tools and model parameters as taught by Wenke because this allows the user to rework more frequently expensive tools and ensures that there is no damaged or worn areas [Wenke, page 1, pp 0013, summarized].
Regarding claims 7 (Original) and 8 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 6, further including a database for storing the measured data set information [Wenke, page 4, pp 0057, data sets are stored within 20], wherein the measured data sets are measured for consistency [Wenke, page 4, pp 0057, data sets for the tool parameters are compared].
Weidmo as modified does not explicitly disclose the dataset information for both a left foot ice blade and a right foot ice blade and the data sets for both the left and right feet are compared.
Wenke teaches the data sets are for different tools and tool parameters [Wenke, page 4, pp 0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the data set of Weidmo to include data sets for both the left and right ice blades and to compare the data sets, analogous to the different tool parameters and data sets for different tools as taught by Wenke because this allows for faster processing of the tool/blade [Wenke, page 4, pp 0058, summarized].
Regarding claim 9 (Original), the ice blade measuring system of claim 6, further comprising an ice blade marking system to mark the ice blade once measured [Weidmo, col 3, line 66 - col 4, line 2]
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, wherein said 3D scanner measures to an accuracy of substantially 1/8 inch or less [Wenke, page 5, pp 0076, the resolution is to substantially 3 micrometers].
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, wherein said 3D scanner has a resolution of at least 10 microns or less [Wenke, page 5, pp 0076, the resolution is to substantially 3 micrometers].
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, wherein said 3D scanner has a resolution of at least 5 microns or less [Wenke, page 5, pp 0076, the resolution is to substantially 3 micrometers].
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, wherein said 3D scanner is a form of active noncontact scanner [Wenke, page 1, pp 0006, the 3D scanner can be a laser scanner].
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 13, wherein said 3D scanner is a laser scanner [Wenke, page 1, pp 0006, the 3D scanner can be a laser scanner].
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 14, wherein said laser scanner uses triangulation to measure said 3D shape of said ice blade [Wenke, page 3, pp 0044, 24 uses a laser to then reflect the beam off of the object which is what a triangulation method is].
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, wherein said 3D scanner is a form of passive non-contact scanner [Wenke, page 1, pp 0006 the 3D scanner continuously scans].
Regarding claim 17 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, wherein said 3D scanner is a profile sensor which creates a point cloud measurement dataset [Wenke, page 1, pp 0006].
Regarding claim 18 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 17, wherein said point cloud measurement dataset is reconstructed into a 3D model of said ice blade by said computational means [Wenke, page 4, pp 0053].
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 18, wherein said 3D scanner is configured to make more than one scan of said ice blade to create multiple point cloud sets which in turn are aligned in a common reference system by said computational means to generate said measured dataset [Wenke, page 3, pp 0064].
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the blade measuring system of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said laser scanner has a sample rate of at least 100 hertz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Weidmo to have the laser scanner have a sample rate of at least 100 hertz since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)]. In the instant case, the device of Weidmo would not operate differently with the claimed sample rate and since the laser scanner is intended to scan the workpiece the device would function appropriately having the claimed sample rate. Further it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the sample rate “may be sufficiently accurate” within the claimed range (specification pp [0052]).
Regarding claim 21 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the blade measuring system of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said laser scanner is a lower power laser scanner having a power of less than 10 watts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Weidmo to have the laser scanner have a power of less than 10 watts since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)]. In the instant case, the device of Weidmo would not operate differently with the claimed power and since the laser scanner is intended to scan the workpiece the device would function appropriately having the claimed power of less than 10 watts. Further it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the power “may be” within the claimed range (specification pp [0052]).
Regarding claims 22 (Original) and 23 (Original), Weidmo as modified further discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, wherein said ice blade is a hockey skate blade, a figure skate blade, a speed skate blade, a leisure skate blade, or a sled runner [Weidmo, fig 1, 15 is a leisure skate blade] (clm 22); wherein said sled runner is a sled runner for a luge, a skeleton sled, or a bobsled [Since a sled runner was not required by the claim, claim 23 is rejected as being dependent on claim 22] (clm 23).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weidmo et al (US Patent No. 4,817,339) in view of Wenke et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0143611) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Layton Jr. et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0355056), hereinafter referred to as Weidmo, Wenke and Layton, respectively.
Regarding claim 24 (Original), Weidmo as modified discloses the ice blade measuring system of claim 2, however does not explicitly disclose wherein said 3D scanner is housed in a transparent protective housing.
Layton teaches an ice blade grinding machine [Layton, fig 1, 10] comprising a housing [Layton, fig 1, 30] having a transparent protective housing [Layton, fig 1, 31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the housing of Weidmo as modified to include a transparent protective housing as taught by Layton because Per MPEP 2143(I)(A), to include the transparent protective housing as taught by Layton in the system of Weidmo as modified, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the transparent protective housing as taught by Layton in the system of Weidmo because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being sensor and holder being within the transparent protective housing as taught by Layton. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of keeping the elements safe from the grinding operation due to the housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued on page 8 that the prior art Wenke is not analogous art and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have commanded itself to an inventors attention in solving a problem associated with the desired performance and repeatability of creating carious ice blade shapes because inventor would not have turned to the reworking of rotatable drill bits given Wenke’s end goal of simply reworking vs fundamentally changing the shape of the cut article and simply discloses a difference device cutting a different article that is used for a different purposed than the claimed invention. Respectfully the Office disagrees. The Applicant has not claimed that the blade is fundamentally changed in shape. Further the prior art Wenke is analogous art in that Wenke is directed to a blade and the sharpening of a blade. When the term “ice” is given the proper patentable weight within the claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to any blade and any sharpening method, including that of a drill bit, where the shape of drill bits vary and one drill bit shape can be different from shapes and types of other drill bits. Further the Wenke appears to be, at least, reasonably pertinent in that it would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in solving issues related to analysis and repairing wear over time to blades and other metal objects that require sharpening, reforming, etc. in by machining.
Because the Office has changed its mind on this argument and no longer finds this argument persuasive, has changed its mind on the allowable subject matter and presented a rejection for the previously objected to claims, and rejected claims under 112(b), the Office has issued a second non-final rejection to offer the applicant the opportunity to fully respond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights