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 § 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 of this title, 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, 4, 11, 16, 18-19 and 22 are rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20090314136 Culf in view of USPGPUB 20040016132, Dion and as evidenced by USPN 5095790 Pattillo.
Regarding Claim 1, Culf discloses a tool blade (which may be used as a saw, since the tool formed by the process disclosed in Culf is a strip of tungsten carbide, and since such material is able cut materials in a sawing back and forth fashion/manner), comprising:
a backing strip (200) comprising a length (see annotated fig 8, below) and an edge (201) extending along the length (see annotated fig 8, below);
a cutting edge 271 (par 0060) formed on the edge (fig 1), each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprising a discrete section of binder layer (binder element supplied to the edge 201), the binder layer comprising a binding material (“binder element”); and
abrasive particles (tungsten carbide, par 0051; disclosed as abrasive in par 0003) bound to the teeth by the binder layer (par 0051);
wherein each discrete section of the binder layer comprises a first region (203a) bonded to the edge of the backing strip (200, per par 0054), a second region (203b); and a third region (an additional layer in addition to layers 203 a-b, per the disclosure of par. 0054, where it is disclosed that “It will be appreciated that more than two layers having the same or a different mixture composition could be coated on the thin edge 201”), (the) first region being completely separated from the third region by the second region; and the third regions of the plurality of teeth being substantially parallel to the edge (since regions 203a and 203b are parallel to one another and to the edge 201, and additional such regions added to the edge would also be substantially parallel to the edge and separated from region 203a by region 203b, if added on top of the layer 203b, per the above cited disclosure in par 0054), and
wherein the first regions, the second regions and the third regions differ from each of the other regions in composition (par. 0034 where it is noted that the layers 203a and 203b [and any additional layers] may be of a different mixture composition);
wherein a whole portion of each of the first regions, and the second regions are substantially parallel to the edge (since regions 203a and 203b are parallel to one another and to the edge 201, and additional such regions added to the edge would also be substantially parallel to the edge and separated from region 203a by region 203b, if added on top of the layer 203b, per the above cited disclosure in par 0054).
PNG
media_image1.png
483
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, in Culf, the abrasive particles are bound to the third region of each tooth of the plurality of teeth, (since as noted above, the abrasive elements are part of the mixture 342 that is bound to the regions 203 a and b and to the additional regions disclosed in the par 0054).
Regarding Claim 11, in Culf, the abrasive particles comprise a mixture of particles of different materials (par 0038).
Regarding Claim 16, in Culf, the backing strip is steel (Paragraph 0030).
Regarding Claim 19, in Culf, the edge extending along the length is a linear edge (fig 7).
Culf lacks the tool being a saw blade and having a toothed cutting edge and creating a plurality of teeth on the backing strip, each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprising the discrete section of binder layer (Claim 1), and adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth are separated by a gap (Claim 18).
Dion discloses a saw blade cutting tool (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the saw blade of Culf and of the present invention and discloses that such a tool includes a blade cutting edge having a portion thereof be a linear cutting edge, similar to the linear cutting edge of Culf, and that another portion of the blade may have teeth 140 formed thereon, and that in some embodiments the cutting edge can either be tapered to form a linear cutting edge (similar to that shown in Culf), or cut to form teeth on the cutting edge, (par 0050) and a step of creating a plurality of teeth on the backing strip, (through cutting into the cutting edge, par 0050) (Claim 1), and showing that in the finished product having teeth thereon, that adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth are separated by a gap (fig 1A) (Claim 18).
Also Pattillo discloses that in the field of saws, and particularly bandsaws, that it is beneficial to have a cutting edge that comprises a combination of a linear non toothed cutting edge, 15, and a toothed portion of the cutting edge, 25, in order to cut softer materials such as bread, in a superior manner, col 2, lines 2-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Culf by including the steps thereof used to create a plurality of teeth on the backing strip (Claim 1), and where adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth are separated by a gap (Claim 18) in order to allow the blade of Culf, which already has strength properties as disclosed by Culf, to be used to form a cutting edge with a combined flat cutting section thereon and with teeth thereon, in order to cut softer materials such as bread, in a superior manner as taught by Pattillo. In addition, the forming of the teeth into the Culf assembly via the process taught in Dion the teeth would also comprise the benefit of the strength properties of Culf.
As to the limitation of the limitation / feature requiring the tool being a saw blade and having a toothed cutting edge comprising a plurality of the teeth, as noted above, in Culf the tool thereof may be used as a saw, since the tool formed by the process disclosed in Culf is a strip of tungsten carbide, and since such material is able cut materials in a sawing back and forth fashion/manner. Also, Pattillo discloses that a blade having a combination of a linear and toothed cutting edge, can be used as a bandsaw blade to cut sot materials.
As to the limitation requiring the plurality of teeth each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprising the discrete section of binder layer disclosed, and the teeth having the third layer comprising abrasive particles, the cutting edge formed in Culf already comprises binder layers, thus the teeth formed by removing material from the cutting edge to form/shape the teeth would also comprise this layer.
Regarding Claim 22, as noted above, in Culf, the tool thereof may be used as a saw, since the tool formed by the process disclosed in Culf is a strip of tungsten carbide, and since such material is able cut materials in a sawing back and forth fashion (reciprocable and reciprocating) manner.
Claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culf in view of Dion, as evidenced by Pattillo, and in view of USPN 3886926, Hall.
Regarding Claims 2-3, and 8, Culf as modified above discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Modified Culf lacks the binding material includes a ductile braze material (Claim 2) and the ductile braze material is in combination with a binder material (Claim 3), and the binding material includes a nickel braze material (Claim 8), where the abrasive particles are diamond (Claim 12).
Hall discloses a method of forming a cutting edge of a cutting tool (Col. 1, 50-67) which cutting edge is formed via the deposition of a binding material (“Bonding matrix” of 24) mixed with abrasive particles (diamond particles; col. 5, 15-40), in the same field of endeavor as the present process of forming teeth on a saw blade via a mixture of a bonding agent and abrasive particles, and discloses that the wherein the binding material includes a ductile braze material (“brazing powder”); and wherein the abrasive particles are bound by the ductile braze material (claim 2), the ductile braze material is/being in combination with a binder material (col. 5, 15-50) (Claim 3), and wherein the binding material includes a nickel braze material (col. 5, 30-40) (Claim 8), the abrasive particles are diamond (col 5, 15-20) (Claim 12), in order to prevent diamond particles in cutting portions from penetrating the braze and cutting or nicking the cutter support to which the cutting portions are attached to, and therefore from creating stress concentration points at which the cutting support would break (Col. 6 lines 15-21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Culf by having the mixture comprise ductile braze particles in the form of nickel braze or diamond with the binding material in order to prevent diamond particles in cutting portions from penetrating the braze and cutting or nicking the cutter support to which the cutting portions are attached to, and therefore from creating stress concentration points at which the cutting support may break, as taught by Hall.
Regarding Claim 6, in Culf, the abrasive particles are bound to the second region of each tooth of the plurality of teeth (in as much as the parts 203 and 203b as discussed above in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9, in modifying Culf to include the abrasive particles be ductile nickel braze particles, it also would have been obvious to have the nickel braze material be bound to the third region of each tooth of the plurality of teeth since the mixture of binding material and abrasive particles is disclosed in Culf as being applied to each of the layers above the backing strip.
Regarding Claim 5, Culf discloses a tool blade (fig 8), comprising: a backing strip (200);
binding material (binder element) forming a binder layer (binder element supplied to the edge 201), with a cutting edge formed on the backing strip; and
abrasive particles (tungsten carbide particles, par 0051 and 0003) bound to the teeth by the binder layer (par 051);
wherein the discrete regions of the binder layer formed as teeth are formed with
a first region (weld pool 365, fig 6) bonded to the edge of the backing strip (via the region being welded, and thus bonded to the un-weld portion), a second region (203a); and a third region (203b), (the) first region being completely separated from the third region by the second region (comparing figs 6-8); and the third regions of the plurality of teeth being substantially parallel to the edge (comparing figs 6-8), and
wherein the first regions, the second regions and the third regions differ from each of the other regions in composition (par. 0034 where it is noted that the layers 203a and 203b may be of a different mixture composition, and since the weld pool is an irradiated portion of the steel backing);
wherein a whole portion of each of the first regions, and the second regions are substantially parallel to the edge (compare fig’s. 6-8).
Culf lacks feature (I) discrete regions of the binder layer formed as teeth along an edge of the backing strip and, feature (II) wherein the binding material includes a ductile braze material; and wherein the abrasive particles are bound by the ductile braze material.
Regarding feature (I) Dion discloses a saw blade cutting tool (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the saw blade of Culf and of the present invention and discloses that such a tool includes a blade cutting edge having a portion thereof be a linear cutting edge, similar to the linear cutting edge of Culf, and that another portion of the blade may have teeth 140 formed thereon, and that in some embodiments the cutting edge can either be tapered to form a linear cutting edge (similar to that shown in Culf), or cut to form teeth on the cutting edge, (par 0050) and (I) a step of creating a plurality of teeth on the backing strip, (through cutting into the cutting edge, par 0050),
Also Pattillo discloses that in the field of saws, and particularly bandsaws, that it is beneficial to have a cutting edge that comprises a combination of a linear non toothed cutting edge, 15, and a toothed portion of the cutting edge, 25, in order to cut softer materials such as bread, in a superior manner, col 2, lines 2-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Culf by including the steps thereof used to create a plurality of teeth on the backing strip, in order to allow the blade of Culf, which already has strength properties as disclosed by Culf to be used to form a cutting edge with a flat cutting section thereon and with teeth thereon, which teeth also comprise the strength properties of Culf, and which cutting edge can perform particularly well for certain types of material cutting, see for instance Pattillo teaching that it is beneficial to have a cutting tool with a combined flat cutting edge and toothed edge thereon, in order to allow the blade of Culf, which already has strength properties as disclosed by Culf, to be used to form a cutting edge with a combined flat cutting section thereon and with teeth thereon, in order to cut softer materials such as bread, in a superior manner as taught by Pattillo. In addition, the forming of the teeth into the Culf assembly via the process taught in Dion the teeth would also comprise the benefit of the strength properties of Culf.
As to the limitation requiring each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprising the discrete section of binder layer disclosed, and the teeth having the third layer comprising abrasive particles, the cutting edge formed in Culf already comprises binder layers, thus the teeth formed by removing material from the cutting edge to form/shape the teeth would also comprise this layer.
Regarding Feature II, Hall discloses a method of forming a cutting edge of a cutting tool (Col. 1, 50-67) which cutting edge is formed via the deposition of a binding material (“Bonding matrix” of 24) mixed with abrasive particles (diamond particles; col. 5, 15-40), in the same field of endeavor as the present process of forming teeth on a saw blade via a mixture of a bonding agent and abrasive particles, and discloses that the wherein the binding material includes a ductile braze material (“brazing powder”); and wherein the abrasive particles are bound by the ductile braze material, in order to prevent diamond particles in cutting portions from penetrating the braze and cutting or nicking the cutter support to which the cutting portions are attached to, and therefore from creating stress concentration points at which the cutting support would break (Col. 6 lines 15-21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Culf by having the mixture comprise ductile braze particles bound by the ductile brazen material, in order to prevent diamond particles in cutting portions from penetrating the braze and cutting or nicking the cutter support to which the cutting portions are attached to, and therefore from creating stress concentration points at which the cutting support may break, as taught by Hall.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culf in view of Dion, as evidenced by Pattillo, as applied to claim 1 above in view of USPGPUB 20160121413, Ly,
Regarding Claims 13-15, Modified Culf lacks the abrasive particles being coated to promote binding with the binding layer (claim 13), and the abrasive particles are coated by a physical vapour deposition or chemical vapour deposition technique (Claim 14), and the abrasive particles are coated with a material which promotes wetting of the abrasive particles by the binding material (claim 15).
Ly discloses an abrasive cutting tool in the same field of endeavor as the abrasive cutting tool of the present invention and discloses that such a tool includes abrasively coated teeth in the same field of endeavor as the tool blade of the present invention, and includes the blade formed by forming a binder layer, where the abrasive particles are coated to promote binding with the binding layer (par 0110 of Ly) (Claim 13), the abrasive particles are coated by a physical vapour deposition or chemical vapour deposition technique (par 0048 of Ly) (Claim 14), where the abrasive particles of Ly are coated with a material (titanium is disclosed to be one of the materials used to coat the particles, par 0040) which promotes wetting of the abrasive particles by the binding material (as evidenced by Ly, col. 2 lines 10-20) (Claim 15) and where the backing strip is steel (par 0023 of Ly) (Claim 16), in order to have the cutting portions thereof comprise better hardness (par 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Culf by including the abrasive particles being coated to promote binding with the binding layer (claim 13), and the abrasive particles are coated by a physical vapour deposition or chemical vapour deposition technique (Claim 14), and the abrasive particles are coated with a material which promotes wetting of the abrasive particles by the binding material (claim 15) in order to have the cutting portions thereof comprise better hardness as taught via Ly.
Claim 20 is rejected in the under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culf in view of Dion, evidenced by Pattillo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further over USPGPUB 20150064452, Pitonak.
Regarding Claim 20, Culf lacks the first region of each tooth does not contain abrasive particles.
Pitonak discloses a coated cutting element and method of coating the cutting element, in the same field as the coated cutter element of the present invention, and discloses that in applying a multi-layer coat to a cutting tool, in which a top layer 5 of the coat comprises abrasive particles (par 0003 “outermost coating layer (5) is deposited on the coating layer (4). The coating layer (5) is formed with aluminum, titanium”), and discloses that in such a multilayer coat a binding layer 3 may be applied directly to a metal substrate 2, wherein the binder layer comprises only binding material (see par. 0033, where it is disclosed: “A coating layer (3) of TiN serving as a bonding layer is deposited on the base body (2)”), in order to have the coated cutter substrate have a high rigidity and wear resistance (par 0015, where it is disclosed that the coating which comprises multiple layers, including the TiN layer produces such a benefit of high rigidity and wear resistance, see also par 0018, where it is disclosed that the layer of cubic TiN, [free of abrasive particles], is particularly useful to provide this benefit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Culf by having a first region be deposited onto the substrate which first region includes only binder, TiN material, and does not comprise abrasive particles, prior to the abrasive particle regions being applied to the Culf substrate, in order to have the coated cutter substrate have a high rigidity and wear resistance as taught by Pitonak.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culf in view of Dion, as evidenced by Pattillo, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US 3704576, Quick.
Modified Culf lacks the apparatus having the binder layer of the plurality of teeth be welded to the edge.
Quick discloses a sawing sickle apparatus (abstract), like the sickle apparatus of Stoffel, and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to have teeth being welded onto a support in order to allow the rearward ends of the teeth have lateral flexibility to prevent the jamming of crop material between the teeth (col 2, lines 20-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify hall by having the binder layer of the plurality of teeth be welded to the edge in order to allow the rearward ends of the teeth have lateral flexibility to prevent the jamming of crop material between the teeth as taught by Quick.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/25 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Culf, Dion and Patillo as proposed in the previous action, 8/25/25, does not lead to the invention of Claim 1. In support of this, applicant argues that:
“Pattillo is directed to ‘a uniform width of steel [that] forms a continuous band saw blade, the cutting edge of which has uniform lengths having a smooth straight knife life cutting edges and other lengths which have three to eight teeth between the adjacent ends of the smooth knife like cutting edges. The blade is used for cutting bread.’ Pattillo, abstract. Pattillo further states that "[a]nother object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus and process for cutting soft material . .. ." Id. at col. 2, lines 1-5. The bread knife to which Pattillo is directed does not have any carbide-tipped blade teeth as disclosed in Dion; it does not contain a binder layer as recited in claim 1; nor does it provide the rationale to apply the technique of Culf to a tooth-typed blade of Dion.
Here, Culf discloses the building up of a cutting edge through laser deposition of a
powder on a straight-edged blade; whereas, Dion discloses that inserts (i.e. edged members) are seated into a blade base for the forming of toothed-edge tools. As such, Dion echoes the teachings of Culf regarding toothed blades, and a person of ordinary skill in the art, starting at Culf, would not select and combine the cited prior art elements of Culf and Dion in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.
Therefore, nothing in the disclosure of Pattillo would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Culf and Dion to build up serrated teeth for a saw blade as disclosed in Dion using a powder deposition process as disclosed in Culf. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550U.S. 398, 418, (2007) (Finding that obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination);
Unigene Laboratories, Inc., v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (2011) (emphasis added) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421) (‘Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person
of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.’). ”
This is not found persuasive. First, Applicant mischaracterizes Dion, and the manner in which Dion is applicable to the modification of Culf. While Dion does in some embodiments thereof discloses that inserts (i.e. edged members) are seated into a blade base for the forming of toothed-edge tools, Dion, also in relevant part discloses that in a saw such as the saw assembly of Culf, that it is known that such a saw tool can include a cutting edge having a portion thereof be a linear cutting edge, similar to the linear cutting edge of Culf, and that another portion of the blade may have teeth 140 formed thereon, and that in some embodiments the cutting edge can either be tapered to form a linear cutting edge (similar to that shown in Culf), or cut to form teeth on the cutting edge, (par 0050, which discloses that “As in FIG. 1A above, cutting teeth may be cut into a cutting edge 250 of the article. Alternatively, the edge may be sharpened to form a knife edge 270, as is shown in FIG. 2C. Such edges are used in band saws and/or in the manufacture of knives.”).
Also, Patillo discloses in relevant part that in the field of saws, that it is beneficial to have a cutting edge that comprises a combination of a linear non toothed cutting edge, 15, and a toothed portion of the cutting edge, 25, in order to cut softer materials such as bread, in a superior manner, col 2, lines 2-20. Thus, Patillo lends to the teaching of forming a cutting edge on a saw blade where parts of the edge are cutting teeth, and parts are a straight blade, for instance to allow for the cutting of softer materials in some applications. The fact that Patillo does not include carbide-tipped blade teeth as disclosed in Dion; it does not contain a binder layer is irrelevant because Patillo is only being cited for the rationale that in a saw blade it is known in some applications to include the cutting edge having both z straight portion and a toothed part.
As such, the rejection of claims 1, 4, 11, 16, 18, 19 and 22 is maintained.
Applicant next argues:
“On pages 6-9 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Culf, Dion, Pattillo, and Nakamura, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0039211. Applicant respectfully traverses this ground of rejection because Nakamura is not prior art.
In particular, the present application claims priority to United Kingdom Application No.
1512361.5, which was filed on July 15, 2015. Nakamura does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(a)(2) because Nakamura was not effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Nakamura claims priority from a Japanese filed application with a priority
date of March 24, 2016, and therefore, the earliest effective filing date of Nakamura is more than 8 months after this application's priority date. Absent the use of Nakamura, the rejection does not present a prima facie case of obviousness for claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are patentable
over Culf, Dion, Pattillo, and Nakamura under 35 U.S.C.§ 103, and therefore, withdrawal of this ground of rejection is respectfully requested.”
This is found persuasive. Applicant has shown that Nakamura cannot be used as prior art. Thus, a new rejection is produced over Culf in view of Hall.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FERNANDO AYALA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights