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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 5/26/2026 is being considered by the Examiner.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a securing component configured to secure a skate blade within a skate sharpening system in claim 1.
a measurement system configured to obtain measurement data associated with at least one component in claim 69.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend “an sensor” to read “a sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 69, 73, 79-83, 85, 93 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 69, 73, 79-83, 85, and 93 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 69 recites generating an output or instruction, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Independent claim 69 recites limitations including “obtain measurement data associated with at least one component; and determine at least one measurement of the at least one component of the skate sharpening system, and generate an output based at least in part on the at least one measurement.” These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of “by the control system,” is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “by the control system” language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the “by the control system” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 73 and 79-83 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 85 and 93 will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claim 69 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 69 recites the additional element of “a measurement system…configured to obtain measurement data associated with at least one component of the skate sharpening system.” Independent claim 69 further recites the additional element of “a control system having computer-executable instructions configured to, when executed,” which is configured to perform the claim steps of “determine” and “generate.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 69 further recites the additional elements of “ an external housing” and “a frame positioned at least partially within the external housing, the frame configured to removably couple to a securing component of a skate sharpening system.” These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 73 and 79-83 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 85 introduces the additional element “wherein the measurement system further comprises a light emitting source and a sensor.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 93 introduces the additional element “wherein the external housing comprises a plurality of resilient members extending into the frame, wherein the plurality of resilient members are configured to allow the frame to move relatively to the external housing.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims above, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claim 69 does not comprise anything significantly more. Independent claim 69 recites the additional element of “a measurement system disposed within the external housing, the measurement system configured to obtain measurement data associated with at least one component of the skate sharpening system.” Independent claim 69 further recites the additional element of “a control system disposed within the external housing, the control system having computer-executable instructions configured to, when executed,” which is configured to perform the claim steps of “determine” and “generate.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) is not anything significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 69 further recites the additional element of “an external housing” and “a frame positioned at least partially within the external housing, the frame configured to removably couple to a securing component of a skate sharpening system.” This limitation is not anything significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more.
Dependent claims 73 and 79-83 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more.
Dependent claim 85 introduces the additional element “wherein the measurement system further comprises a light emitting source and a sensor.” This limitation is not anything significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 93 introduces the additional element “wherein the external housing comprises a plurality of resilient members extending into the frame, wherein the plurality of resilient members are configured to allow the frame to move relatively to the external housing.” This limitation is not anything significantly more because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims above, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 69, 73, 79-83, 85, and 93 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 69, 73, 75, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, and 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Layton (US 2020/0016716).
Regarding claim 69, Layton discloses a measurement device comprising:
an external housing (see boxlike housing disclosed in [0125], see also Figure 1);
a frame positioned at least partially within the external housing, the frame configured to removably couple to a securing component (see slot cover 28, which couple with the jaws 90 such that the jaws, i.e. the skate blade holder, is clamped; see [0229], [0125]; see Figures 3, 5, and 25) of a skate sharpening system (see Figure 5);
a measurement system disposed within the external housing, the control system configured to obtain measurement data associated with at least one component of the skate sharpening system ([0321]: machine vision or other apparatus may be used to monitor relative position between the grinding wheel 36 and alignment tool or between the alignment wheel 502 and the alignment tool); and
a control system disposed within the external housing ([0125]: skate sharpener 10 also includes a control module or controller, which is not visible in FIG. 1 and may be located, for example, inside of the rear cover 18; see also [0146-0147]), the control system having computer-executable instructions configured to, when executed: determine at least one measurement of the at least one component of the skate sharpening system, and generate an output based at least in part on the at least one measurement ([0321]: a controller can perform the process of Figure 28 or Figure 35 based on position information from the position monitoring apparatus, or the offset is displayed in numbers or graphics to a human user; see at least Figures 28 and 35; see also [0282]).
Regarding claim 73, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses wherein the output comprises human-readable instructions for a user to adjust at least one component of the skate sharpening system (([0321]: a controller can perform the process of Figure 28 or Figure 35 based on position information from the position monitoring apparatus, or the offset is displayed in numbers or graphics to a human user for adjustment; see at least Figures 28 and 35; see also [0282]).
Regarding claim 75, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions are further configured to transmit instructions for adjusting one or more components of the skate sharpening system, the instructions for adjusting the one or more components of the skate sharpening system being machine-readable instructions for the skate sharpening system to automatically adjust at least one component of the skate sharpening system ([0022]: In some configurations, the system includes a controller configured to control operation of the adjustment mechanism and automatically position the motor-driven component such that the second visual reference is brought into alignment with the first visual reference feature; see also [0321]).
Regarding claim 79, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses wherein the at least one measurement comprises a position of a target relative to a first axis of the skate sharpening system (see at least [0317-0321]; see also [0022], as well as Figures 28 and 25).
Regarding claim 80, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses wherein the target comprises a calibration wheel (see alignment wheel 502, [0310-0311]).
Regarding claim 82, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses where the reflective outer surface of the calibration wheel includes at least a radius portion, a curve of the radius portion extending about a second axis, the second axis perpendicular to the first axis (Layton: referring to Figures 30 and 31, the alignment wheel 502 is shown as having a circumferential outer surface, wherein the combination as applied above incorporates a reflective surface sensing configuration, i.e. the combination of prior art teaches the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 83, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses wherein the target comprises a grinding wheel (see grinding wheel 36, as well as [0279-0280], Figures 28 and 35).
Regarding claim 85, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses wherein the measurement system further comprises a light emitting source and a sensor ([0146]: sensors or switches can be used to detect whether a skate is properly positioned for sharpening; see also [0349-0350]; [0278]: The LED can be illuminated when the grinding wheel is being aligned. For example, in configurations having an alignment mode, the lighting feature in, on or around the jaw guard can be activated when the skate sharpening device enters into the alignment mode or at some time period during the alignment mode. The lighting feature thereby can illuminate the area surrounding the alignment features).
Regarding claim 93, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Layton further discloses wherein the external housing comprises a plurality of resilient members extending into the frame, wherein the plurality of resilient members are configured to allow the frame to move relatively to the external housing (see Figure 16; see slot cover 28, spring 310, bumper 29, button 28, see also [0191-0193]; [0226]; [0228-0229], [0232-0233]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 95, and 98-102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20200016716) in view of Yoshihara (US 20150111471).
Regarding claim 1, Layton discloses an alignment system configured for use in a skate sharpening system comprising:
a securing component configured to secure a skate blade within the skate sharpening system (see jaws 90, [0140], [0142]: the skate blade is inserted through the slot 24 between the jaws 90, and the user then rotates the clamp paddle 26 to close the jaws 90 on the skate blade);
an alignment component positioned within a housing of the skate sharpening system (alignment wheel 502, see also [0310-0316]; see also grinding wheel 36, as well as [0281-0283]);
a control system configured to control operation of the skate sharpening system (see [0321]: a controller can then perform the process of FIG. 28 or FIG. 35 based on position information from the position-monitoring apparatus and by generating the electrical adjustment signal to change the relative positions of the respective components accordingly until an aligned position is detected; see Figures 28 and 35); and
at least one measurement device configured be secured in the securing component ([0281-0282]: see alignment tool 440 positioned in between the jaws 90; see also [0159], [0289]; see also alignment tool 512, disclosed as being similar to the alignment tool 440, see also [0314-0321]).
While the purpose of the alignment tool disclosed by Layton is to ensure that the positions of the skate blade and grinding wheel are aligned during operation (see at least [0288-0290], Layton does not explicitly teach the alignment tool is configured to measure a position of the alignment component, the at least one measurement device comprising a light emitting source and an sensor, wherein the position of the alignment component is determined based in part on a reflected beam received by the sensor.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices employing grinding fixtures, Yoshihara teaches of a measurement device (see measuring apparatus 40) which is configured to measure a position of the alignment component, the at least one measurement device comprising a light emitting source and an sensor, wherein the position of the alignment component is determined based in part on a reflected beam received by the sensor ([0045], [0051-0052]: device 40 comprises devices 41, 42, wherein laser light emitted by a laser source is split into a measuring light and a reference light by a beam splitter, the light is projected towards a surface of a component, and light reflected thereby is detected by a photo detector, and the distance between surfaces is determined; see also [0055-0056], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Layton to include the features as taught by Yoshihara. Layton intimates and suggests a wide variety of alignment tools/methods, including alignment tool (440), alignment tool (512), alignment wheel (502), and specifically suggests modifications including a machine vision or apparatus used to monitor relative position between elements [0320-0321]. One would be motivated to combine in the sensor(s) and reflective surface detection element(s) because the measuring devices ensure correct positional detections ([0052], Yoshihara), thus contributing to the overall operation of the device of Layton; the in situ measurements would provide additional accuracy in comparison with an alignment notch, i.e. increasing the automated control of the system in an alternative manner. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. reflective surfaces and sensors, to improve a similar sharpening device in a similar manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches wherein the control system is configured to automatically adjust the position of the alignment component based at least in part on the position of the alignment component (please refer to the combination statement as applied above, as well as Layton [0321]: a controller can then perform the process of FIG. 28 or FIG. 35 based on position information from the position-monitoring apparatus and by generating the electrical adjustment signal to change the relative positions of the respective components accordingly until an aligned position is detected; see Figures 28 and 35; see also [0022], [0311], [0129], [0282-0283]; see also Yoshihara: [0051-0052], [0064]).
Regarding claim 95, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches wherein the control system is configured to output instructions to manipulate the alignment component based at least in part on the position of the alignment component (Layton: see display panel 34, [0125], [0129], [0146-0147], [0185], [0279], [0282-0283], [0321]: the offset may be displayed in numbers or graphics to a human user who controls the adjustment).
Regarding claim 98, Layton discloses a method of aligning an alignment component in a skate sharpening system using a measurement device (see Abstract), the method comprising:
inserting the alignment component into the skate sharpening system (alignment wheel 502, see also [0310-0316]; see also grinding wheel 36, as well as [0281-0283]);
securing the measurement device in a securing component of the skate sharpening system, the securing component configured to secure a skate blade within the skate sharpening system (see jaws 90 and alignment tool 440 and 512; see also [0140], [0142]: the skate blade is inserted through the slot 24 between the jaws 90, and the user then rotates the clamp paddle 26 to close the jaws 90 on the skate blade; see also [0281-0282]: the alignment tool 440 is positioned between the jaws 90; see also [0159], [0289]; see also alignment tool 512, disclosed as being similar to the alignment tool 440, see also [0314-0321]).
While Layton discloses using the alignment tool to arrange the positions of elements within the skate sharpening system, Layton does not explicitly teach directing a light beam at the alignment component using a light emitting source of the measurement device; and generating, by the measurement device, an output associated with a position of the alignment component based in part on a reflected light beam received by a sensor of the measurement device.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices employing grinding fixtures, Yoshihara teaches of a measurement device (see measuring apparatus 40) which is directing a light beam at the alignment component using a light emitting source of the measurement device; and generating, by the measurement device, an output associated with a position of the alignment component based in part on a reflected light beam received by a sensor of the measurement device ([0045], [0051-0052]: device 40 comprises devices 41, 42, wherein laser light emitted by a laser source is split into a measuring light and a reference light by a beam splitter, the light is projected towards a surface of a component, and light reflected thereby is detected by a photo detector, and the distance between surfaces is determined; see also [0055-0056], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Layton to include the features as taught by Yoshihara. Layton intimates and suggests a wide variety of alignment tools/methods, including alignment tool (440), alignment tool (512), alignment wheel (502), and specifically suggests modifications including a machine vision or apparatus used to monitor relative position between elements [0320-0321]. One would be motivated to combine in the sensor(s) and reflective surface detection element(s) because the measuring devices ensure correct positional detections ([0052], Yoshihara), thus contributing to the overall operation of the device of Layton; the in situ measurements would provide additional accuracy in comparison with an alignment notch, i.e. increasing the automated control of the system in an alternative manner. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. reflective surfaces and sensors, to improve a similar sharpening device in a similar manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 99, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches adjusting the position of the alignment component based at least in part on the output (please refer to the combination statement as applied above, as well as Layton [0321]: a controller can then perform the process of FIG. 28 or FIG. 35 based on position information from the position-monitoring apparatus and by generating the electrical adjustment signal to change the relative positions of the respective components accordingly until an aligned position is detected; see Figures 28 and 35; see also see display panel 34, [0125], [0129], [0146-0147], [0185], [0279], [0022], [0311], [0282-0283]; see also Yoshihara: [0051-0052], [0064]).
Regarding claim 100, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches transmitting, by the measurement device, the output to a remote computing device, wherein the remote computing device is configured to generate alignment instructions for modifying the position of the alignment component based in part on the output (Layton: see display panel 34, [0125], [0129], [0146-0147], [0185], [0279], [0282-0283], [0321]: the offset may be displayed in numbers or graphics to a human user who controls the adjustment).
Regarding claim 101, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches outputting alignment instructions on a display of the skate sharpening system (Layton [0321]: the offset may be displayed in numbers or graphics to a human user who controls the adjustment; see also display panel 34, [0125], [0129], [0146-0147], [0185], [0279], [0282-0283]).
Regarding claim 102, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches wherein the alignment instructions provide manual adjustments to the skate sharpening system for a user to manually align a center location of the skate blade with the center location of a grinding wheel of the skate sharpening system (please refer to Layton: [0321], as well as [0125], [0129], [0146-0147], [0185], [0279], [0282-0283]).
Claim(s) 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20200016716) in view of Fowler (US 2020/0246933).
Regarding claim 81, Layton discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, while Layton intimates and suggests alternative operations, Layton does not explicitly teach the alignment wheel (502) has a reflective outer surface.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Fowler teaches of using a reflective outer surface in combination with sensor(s) in order to detect an object and control operation of a sharpening device using the detected results (see at least [0036-0038], [0052], and Figures 3, 5A, 5B, 9A, 9B, 10; see also [0022], [0024], [0028-0030], [0059], [0062], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the use of a reflective surface into an object being measured within the context of controlling the operation and position of a sharpening apparatus, as taught by Fowler, into invention of Layton, i.e. the alignment wheel surface. Fowler suggests a wide variety of configurations for measuring and detecting, including, inter alia, by capacitance of inductance ([0045]), camera inspection ([0040], [0055]), reflection of impinging light ([0036]), and/or scanning profilometer ([0048]). Layton also provides a wide variety of alignment tools/methods, including alignment tool (440), alignment tool (512), alignment wheel (502), and specifically suggests modifications including a machine vision or apparatus used to monitor relative position between elements [0320-0321]. One would be motivated to combine in the sensor and reflective surface configuration as taught by Fowler because the in situ measurements would provide additional accuracy in comparison with an alignment notch, i.e. increasing the automated control of the system in an alternative manner. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. reflective surfaces and sensors, to improve a similar sharpening device in a similar manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20200016716) in view of Yoshihara (US 20150111471), and in further view of Cheng (US 7,495,759).
Regarding claim 96, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches wherein the at least one measurement device further comprises a filter, the filter configured to filter light beams of the light emitting source (see [0051] disclosing a beam splitter).
However, modified Layton describes the laser measuring devices (41, 42) as being known in the art, see [0052], and does not explicitly describe the subcomponents of the devices, i.e. and a lens, the lens configured to receive the reflected light beam.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Cheng teaches a sensor which includes a lens, the lens configured to receive the reflected light beam (see Col. 5, line 52-Col. 6, line 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Cheng, i.e. wherein there is a lens provided in the context of the light emission devices, into the invention of Layton. Layton already incorporates a lens within the context of the alignment tool (440), see [0281], [0287], but does not teach the combination as claimed, i.e. the apparatus of Layton still employs similar features. One would be motivated to do so in order to ensure the light receiving element is not openly exposed to the debris produced by sharpening operations, as Cheng explains the lenses serve as a barrier (see Col. 5, line 52-Col. 6, line 8).
Claim(s) 97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20200016716) in view of Yoshihara (US 20150111471), and in further view of Fowler (US 2020/0246933).
Regarding claim 97, Layton in view of Yoshihara teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Layton further teaches wherein the alignment component comprises a calibration wheel (see alignment wheel 502). However, while Layton intimates and suggests alternative operations, modified Layton does not explicitly teach the alignment wheel (502) has a reflective outer surface.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Fowler teaches of using a reflective outer surface in combination with sensor(s) in order to detect an object and control operation of a sharpening device using the detected results (see at least [0036-0038], [0052], and Figures 3, 5A, 5B, 9A, 9B, 10; see also [0022], [0024], [0028-0030], [0059], [0062], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the use of a reflective surface into an object being measured within the context of controlling the operation and position of a sharpening apparatus, as taught by Fowler, into invention of Layton, i.e. the alignment wheel surface. Fowler suggests a wide variety of configurations for measuring and detecting, including, inter alia, by capacitance of inductance ([0045]), camera inspection ([0040], [0055]), reflection of impinging light ([0036]), and/or scanning profilometer ([0048]). Layton also provides a wide variety of alignment tools/methods, including alignment tool (440), alignment tool (512), alignment wheel (502), and specifically suggests modifications including a machine vision or apparatus used to monitor relative position between elements [0320-0321]. One would be motivated to combine in the sensor and reflective surface configuration as taught by Fowler because the in situ measurements would provide additional accuracy in comparison with an alignment notch, i.e. increasing the automated control of the system in an alternative manner. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. reflective surfaces and sensors, to improve a similar sharpening device in a similar manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights