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 7/15/2024 and 10/25/2024 were 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 1-6, 9-15 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11, “the surface of the nipper device” should read “[[the]] a surface of the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 2, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 3, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 4, line 2, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 4, line 4, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 3, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 4, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12, line 9, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12, line 11, “the surface of nipper device” should read “[[the]] a surface of the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 13, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 14, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 15, line 2, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 15, line 4, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, line 1, “positioning a magnet” should read “positioning [[a]] magnet” to provide increased clarity
Claim 18, line 3, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 18, line 5, “a nipper” should read “[[a]] the nipper device” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worthington (US PGPUB 20130237134) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPUB 20200009700), hereinafter Nguyen.
Regarding claim 1, Worthington teaches a sharpening device (fig. 1) comprising:
a holding surface for receiving a device (armature 22 receives device 10, figs. 1, 3a-3b);
securing the device to the holding surface ([0024], fig. 3b);
a sharpening strip holder (sharpening strip mandrel 30) coupled to a motor (motor 42), wherein upon activation of the motor, the sharpening strip holder moves from a first position to a second position (oscillating motor 42 provides lateral oscillation of the sharpening mandrel, see arrow 44 in fig. 1 [0025]);
PNG
media_image1.png
626
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sharpening strip having at least one surface wherein at least a portion of such surface comprises a roughened area (sharpening pads 40a-40b include a coating of cubic boron nitride dust or diamond dust to act as a sharpening media [0025], see annotated fig. 1 above);
wherein placement of the sharpening strip in the sharpening strip holder positions the sharpening strip such that the roughened area of the sharpening strip contacts a device placed on the holding surface and activation of the motor moves the roughened area of the sharpening strip across at least a portion of the surface of the device placed on the holding surface (blade edge 18 of device 10 is moved against sharpening pad 40a, wherein sharpening pad 40a and the sharpening mandrel 30 are then laterally reciprocated via motor 42 in order to sharpen blade edge 18 [0032]).
Worthington does not explicitly teach a nipper sharpening device, wherein the cutting device is a nipper, and a clamp for securing the nipper device.
However, Nguyen teaches a nipper sharpening system for a nipper (fig. 4-5, [0032]), and a clamp for securing the nipper device (fig. 5, block 34 clamps nipper 40 via fastener 39 [0040]).
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 Worthington to incorporate the teachings of Nguyen to provide a nipper sharpening device, wherein the cutting device is a nipper, and a clamp for securing the nipper device. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Worthington to be capable of sharpening a nipper device, wherein the nipper device is secured to the holding surface via a clamp. Doing so would provide increased utility of the device of Worthington by allowing it to sharpen nippers. Additionally, doing so would securely mount the tool to be sharpened such that the tool does not easily become dislodged or rotate, thereby promoting quality of the sharpening process.
Regarding claim 2, Worthington, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Worthington, as modified, teaches wherein the roughened area of the sharpening strip contacts at least one cutting edge of a nipper placed on the holding surface (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein Worthington was modified to sharpen a nipper device. Because the claim is directed towards the sharpening device and not a system, the prior art must only be capable of interacting with the nipper as claimed. Worthington, as modified, is capable of performing wherein the roughened area of the sharpening strip contacts at least one cutting edge of a nipper placed on the holding surface).
Regarding claim 3, Worthington, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Worthington, as modified, teaches wherein the activation of the motor causes the roughened area of the sharpening strip to reciprocally contact at least one cutting edge of a nipper placed on the holding surface (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein Worthington was modified to sharpen a nipper device. Because the claim is directed towards the sharpening device and not a system, the prior art must only be capable of interacting with the nipper as claimed. Worthington, as modified, is capable of performing wherein the activation of the motor causes the roughened area of the sharpening strip to reciprocally contact at least one cutting edge of a nipper placed on the holding surface).
Regarding claim 7, Worthington, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Worthington, as modified, teaches wherein the holding surface and sharpening strip holder are coupled to a device housing (fig. 1 of Worthington, as modified, case/housing 20).
Regarding claim 12, Worthington teaches a method for sharpening a cutting device (razor sharpening system, fig. 1) comprising:
providing a holding surface for receiving a device (armature 22 receives device 10, figs. 1, 3a-3b);
securing the device to the holding surface ([0024], fig. 3b);
providing a sharpening strip holder (sharpening strip mandrel 30) coupled to a motor (motor 42), wherein upon activation of the motor, the sharpening strip holder moves from a first position to a second position (oscillating motor 42 provides lateral oscillation of the sharpening mandrel, see arrow 44 in fig. 1 [0025]);
providing a sharpening strip having at least one surface wherein at least a portion of such surface comprises a roughened area (sharpening pads 40a-40b include a coating of cubic boron nitride dust or diamond dust to act as a sharpening media [0025], fig. 1);
placing the sharpening strip in the sharpening strip holder to position the sharpening strip such that the roughened area of the sharpening strip contacts a device placed on the holding surface and activation of the motor moves the roughened area of the sharpening strip across at least a portion of the surface of device placed on the holding surface (blade edge 18 of device 10 is moved against sharpening pad 40a, wherein sharpening pad 40a and the sharpening mandrel 30 are then laterally reciprocated via motor 42 in order to sharpen blade edge 18 [0032]).
Worthington does not explicitly teach a nipper sharpening device, wherein the cutting device is a nipper.
However, Nguyen teaches a nipper sharpening system for a nipper (fig. 4-5, [0032]), and a clamp for securing the nipper device (fig. 5, block 34 clamps nipper 40 via fastener 39 [0040]). Nguyen also teaches causing a second abrasive device 116, which has edge 176 (fig. 10) to sharpen the inside edge of the tool (fig. 10, [0050]). Overall, Nguyen teaches using a sharpening system to sharpen a cutting edge of a nipper.
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 Worthington to incorporate the teachings of Nguyen to provide a nipper sharpening device, wherein the cutting device is a nipper, and wherein the sharpening system sharpens a cutting edge of a nipper. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Worthington to be capable of sharpening a nipper device, wherein the nipper device is secured to the holding surface, wherein the sharpening system sharpens a cutting edge of a nipper via the sharpening pad of Worthington. Doing so would provide increased utility of the device of Worthington by allowing it to sharpen nippers. Additionally, doing so would securely mount the tool to be sharpened such that the tool does not easily become dislodged or rotate, thereby promoting quality of the sharpening process.
Regarding claim 13, Worthington, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Worthington, as modified, teaches further comprising the step of causing the roughened area of the sharpening strip to contact at least one cutting edge of a nipper placed on the holding surface (see above rejection of claim 12, wherein Worthington was modified to sharpen a cutting edge of a securely mounted nipper via the sharpening pad of Worthington).
Regarding claim 14, Worthington, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Worthington, as modified, teaches further comprising the step of activating the motor to cause the roughened area of the sharpening strip to reciprocally contact at least one cutting edge of a nipper placed on the holding surface (see above rejection of claim 12, wherein Worthington was modified to sharpen a cutting edge of a securely mounted nipper via the sharpening pad of Worthington. The motor 42 of Worthington causes the sharpening pad to reciprocally contact a cutting edge of the nipper placed on the holding surface).
Regarding claim 16, Worthington, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Worthington, as modified, teaches further comprising the step of coupling the holding surface and sharpening strip holder to a housing (fig. 1 of Worthington, as modified, case/housing 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 4-6, 8-11, 15 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Worthington (US PGPUB 20130237134) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPUB 20200009700), hereinafter Nguyen, 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 feature of a positioning magnet, wherein the positioning magnet is placed in contact with the sharpening strip to magnetically engage with a nipper placed on the holding surface as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 1 and 4.
Claims 5-6 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Worthington (US PGPUB 20130237134) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPUB 20200009700), hereinafter Nguyen, 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 feature of a positioning magnet positioned within a magnet holder, wherein the magnet holder is pivotally coupled as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 1, 7 and 8.
Claims 9-11 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, Worthington (US PGPUB 20130237134) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPUB 20200009700), hereinafter Nguyen, 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 feature of positioning a magnet in contact with the sharpening strip to magnetically engage a nipper placed on the holding surface as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 12 and 15.
Regarding claim 17, Worthington (US PGPUB 20130237134) in view of Nguyen et al. (US PGPUB 20200009700), hereinafter Nguyen, 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 feature of placing a positioning magnet within a magnet holder, wherein the magnet holder is pivotally coupled as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 12, 16 and 17.
Claim 18 is indicated as allowable for depending from claim 17.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Le (US Patent 12070831) teaches a nail clipper sharpener similar to the claimed invention.
Coyle (US PGPUB 20170057041) teaches a sharpening apparatus similar to the claimed invention.
Magnuson (US Patent 4567693) teaches a sharpening apparatus 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