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
Claims 72 and 73 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.
Claims 72 and 73 recite the limitations "within the regions of interest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
There is, however, proper antecedent basis for “a region of interest” in Claim 71.
Were Claims 72 and 73 intended to depended from Claim 71?
For purposes of examination, Claims 72 and 73 have been examined to have depended from Claim 71.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 70 and 76-78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0320184 issued to Tatomir.
Regarding Claim 70, Tatomir teach in Figures 1-4D and respective portions of the specification of a template (70T) for profiling a blade (70R) for a skate, the template (70T) being elongate and having a length (see Figure 1C), the template (70T)) comprising:
template material with a longitudinal profile to be imparted to ice-contacting material of the blade (70R), the longitudinal profile having a radius of curvature that varies smoothly over a majority of the length of the template—see Figure 1C which shows the longitudinal profile for the template (70T) that varies smoothly over the length of the template.
Regarding Claim 76, Tatomir teach the template (70T) having a flat transverse profile along a cross-section of the template taken at a lengthwise midpoint of the template (see Figure 1C where the template would have a flat transverse profile at the midpoint).
Regarding Claim 77, Tatomir teach at least one recess (52) for receiving a knob (88) of a holding mechanism (60) of a profiling apparatus.
Regarding Claim 78, Tatomir teach the portion of the template (70T) over which the radius of curvature of the longitudinal profile varies smoothly is a region of interest, wherein the longitudinal profile corresponds to an elliptical arc in the region of interest—see Figure 1C which shows the elliptical arc of the template (70T) varies smoothly.
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) 71-72, 74, 75 and 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatomir, as disclosed above.
Regarding Claims 71 and 72, Tatomir teach the majority of the length of the template (70T) over which the radius of curvature of the longitudinal profile varies smoothly (see Figure 1C) corresponds to a region of interest of the template. Tatomir does not state if the radius of curvature of the longitudinal profile has an effective slope of at least 1.18 within the region of interest or in re claim 72 if the radius of curvature of the longitudinal profile has a maximum slope of no more than 17.14 within the region of interest.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include provide a radius of curvature to have an effective slope of at least 1.18 and in re claim 72 the radius of curvature of the longitudinal profile has a maximum slope of no more than 17.14 within the region of interest, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclose in the prior art (see at least paragraph [0030]), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 74 and 75, Tatomir is silent if the template (70T) is made from in re claim 74 a non-metallic material or in re claim 75 a ferromagnetic material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a non-metallic or ferromagnetic material, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclose in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 83, Tatomir disclose in Step 1 and paragraph [0032] a plurality of templates (70T) but does not explicitly state each as a different length. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a different length for each template to provide the advantage of sharpening different length skates (juniors or senior skates, for example).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 73 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in this case is the inclusion of: in re claim 73, where the longitudinal profile includes N consecutive arcs, each having a radius of curvature, wherein a ratio of the radius of curvature of each of the segments in the region of interest to the radius of curvature of each adjacent one of the segments is between 0.9 and 1.1,and wherein N is at least as great as 8, in combination with the other elements recited, not found in the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN L SWENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9-5).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
BRIAN SWENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/BRIAN L SWENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights