DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on February 26, 2026, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 11/26/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 12 and 18 have been amended,
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-17, 19 and 20 were previously presented,
Claims 10, 21 and 22 have been cancelled, and
Claim 23 has been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-9, 11-20 and 23 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 26, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18, ln. 18, the phrase, “…generally…” should be deleted as it is not needed.
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 20, ln. 9, the phrase, “…a plurality of radial slots…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant encompassing the same “a plurality of radial slots” (claim 18, ln. 16; which claim 20 depends from) OR different “plurality of radial slots” in this occurrence? Further clarification is required. For the purpose examination, examiner will treat “a plurality of radial slots” (of claim 20) to be the same as the “plurality of radial slots” (of claim 18) in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 11, 18-20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black & Decker Inc. (GB 2316928 A – art of record; hereinafter Black & Decker) in view of Weiner (US 4205572 A – art of record; hereinafter Weiner).
Regarding claim 1, Black & Decker teaches a saw blade holder embodiment (1; as shown in Figs. 1-3 - for a circular saw blade, the circular saw blade having a central aperture), the saw blade holder comprising:
a base (2);
a blade mount (5, 14-17) extending from the base, the blade mount configured to be received in the central aperture of the circular saw blade, at least a portion of the blade mount being flexible (15-16; Black & Decker pg. 5 Ln. 23 – pg. 7 Ln. 35).
However, Black & Decker fails to teach a retaining member removably coupled to the blade mount for retaining the circular saw blade on the blade mount, the retaining member being removable from the blade mount and reusable, wherein the retaining member includes a first portion defining a fixed inner diameter and a second portion defining an outer diameter, wherein the first portion is axially offset from the second portion, and wherein the first portion is configured to move axially toward the second portion to retain the circular saw blade on the blade mount, and wherein the first portion includes a central opening defined by a circular inner surface having the fixed inner diameter.
Weiner is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a spring washer. Weiner teaches a spring washer embodiment (24; as shown in Figs. 1-6) removably coupled to a blade mount (i.e. in the form of a spindle (18)) and the spring washer being removable from the blade mount (or spindle) and reusable, wherein the spring washer includes a first portion (see annotated Weiner Figs. 3-4 below) defining a fixed inner diameter and a second portion defining an outer diameter, wherein the first portion is axially offset from the second portion, and wherein the first portion is configured to move axially toward the second portion to retain a circular saw blade (14) on the blade mount or spindle, and wherein the first portion includes a central opening defined by a circular inner surface having the fixed inner diameter (Weiner Col. 2 ln. 21 – Col. 3 ln. 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
1386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall saw blade holder (of Black & Decker) with a similar spring washer (as taught by Weiner) as additional fastening member and to minimize the axial movement of the circular saw blade(s) being secured the blade mount.
Regarding claim 18, Black & Decker teaches saw blade holder system comprising:
a circular saw blade including a body, a plurality of cutting teeth, and a central aperture, the body having a thickness measured in an axial direction; and
a saw blade holder embodiment (1; as shown in Figs. 1-3) including
a base (2),
a blade mount (5, 14-17) extending from the base in the axial direction, the blade mount received in the central aperture of the saw blade, at least a portion of the blade mount being flexible (15-16; Black & Decker pg. 5 Ln. 23 – pg. 7 Ln. 35).
However, Black & Decker fails to teach a retaining member removably coupled to the blade mount for retaining the circular saw blade on the blade mount, the retaining member being elastically flexible in the axial direction to accommodate the thickness of the circular saw blade, the retaining member being removable from the blade mount and reusable, wherein the retaining member includes a central opening defined by a circular inner surface having a constant inner diameter; and wherein the circular inner surface is a continuous circle, wherein the retaining member includes a plurality of lobes and a plurality of slots alternating the plurality of lobes, wherein each slot has a generally width, and wherein each lobe increases in width in a direction extending away from the central opening.
Weiner is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a spring washer. Weiner teaches a spring washer embodiment (24; as shown in Figs. 1-6) removably coupled to a blade mount (i.e. in the form of a spindle (18)) for retaining the circular saw blade on the blade mount, the spring washer being elastically flexible in the axial direction to accommodate different thicknesses of circular saw blades, wherein the spring washer includes a central opening (see annotated Weiner Figs. 3-4 above) defined by a circular inner surface having a constant inner diameter, and wherein the circular inner surface is a continuous circle, and the retaining member includes a plurality of lobes and a plurality of slots alternating the plurality of lobes, wherein each slot has a generally width and wherein each lobe has constant width in a direction extending away from the central opening (Weiner Col. 2 ln. 21 – Col. 3 ln. 11).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall saw blade holder (of Black & Decker) with a similar spring washer (as taught by Weiner) as additional fastening member and to minimize the axial movement of the circular saw blade(s) being secured the blade mount.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each lobe increases in width in a direction extending away from the central opening because the resultant structure will work equally well. Since, it has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
Lastly, it is noted that NOWHERE in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed lobe width(s); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 2, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the blade mount includes a flexible wall (15-16) and a rigid wall (14), and wherein the flexible wall is deformable relative to the rigid wall to facilitate removal of the circular saw blade from the blade mount (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the flexible wall includes an outwardly extending flange (16), the outwardly extending flange being ramped on one side to facilitate inserting the circular saw blade onto the blade mount and being flat on another side to inhibit removal of the circular saw blade from the blade mount (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the flexible wall is a first flexible wall and the rigid wall is a first rigid wall, wherein the blade mount also includes a second flexible wall and a second rigid wall, and wherein the first and second flexible walls are deformable relative to the first and second rigid walls to facilitate removal of the circular saw blade from the blade mount (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the first flexible wall, the second flexible wall, the first rigid wall, and the second rigid wall are arranged in a circle (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the base includes a hub (5) at a center of the base, one or more spokes (6) extending radially from the hub, and a rim (2) surrounding the hub and coupled to the one or more spokes (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the rim includes a lip around an outer circumference of the rim, and wherein the lip extends in an axial direction from the rim (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the base includes a tab (3 and 20) projecting from the rim, and wherein the tab is configured to hang the saw blade holder (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the blade mount extends from the base in an axial direction, and wherein the spring washer is flexible in the axial direction to accommodate different thicknesses of circular saw blades (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the spring washer includes a plurality of radial slots formed in a perimeter of the spring washer (see annotated Weiner Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 23, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the retaining member is plastic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the retaining member out of plastic because the resultant structure will work equally well.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07
Lastly, it is noted that NOWHERE in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the retaining member being plastic; emphasis added.
Claims 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black & Decker Inc. (GB 2316928 A – art of record; hereinafter Black & Decker) in view of Kendrick (US 5085550 A – art of record; hereinafter Kendrick).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Black & Decker teaches a saw blade holder embodiment (1; as shown in Figs. 1-3 - for a circular saw blade, the circular saw blade having a central aperture), the saw blade holder comprising:
a base (2);
a blade mount (5, 14-17) extending from the base in an axial direction, the blade mount configured to be received in the central aperture of the circular saw blade (Black & Decker pg. 5 Ln. 23 – pg. 7 Ln. 35).
However, Black & Decker fails to teach a retaining member removably coupled to the blade mount for retaining the circular saw blade on the blade mount, the retaining member being elastically flexible in the axial direction to accommodate different thicknesses of circular saw blades, wherein the retaining member includes a central opening defined by a circular inner surface having an inner diameter that remains constant as the retaining member is coupled to the blade mount, and wherein the retaining member includes a beveled edge that surrounds the central opening.
Kendrick is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a spring washer. Kendrick teaches a spring washer (16) includes a central opening (19) defined by a circular inner surface having an inner diameter that remains constant, and wherein the retaining member includes a beveled edge (i.e. in the form of a countersink (20)) that surrounds the central opening; and a first portion (i.e. the portion that contains cylindrical bore (19); as shown in Figs. 4-7) defining an inner diameter and a second portion (i.e. outer peripheral edge (21); as shown in Figs. 4-7) defining an outer diameter, and wherein the first portion is offset from the second portion (Kendrick Col. 4 ln. 48 – Col. 5 ln. 62 and Figs. 4-7).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overall saw blade holder (of Black & Decker) with a similar spring washer (as taught by Kendrick) as additional fastening member and to minimize the axial movement of the circular saw blade(s) being secured the blade mount.
Regarding claim 13, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the base includes a hub (5) at a center of the base, one or more spokes (6) extending radially from the hub, and a rim (2) surrounding the hub and coupled to the one or more spokes (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the rim includes a lip around an outer circumference of the rim, and wherein the lip extends in an axial direction from the rim (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the base includes a tab (3 and 20) projecting from the rim, and wherein the tab is configured to hang the saw blade holder (see Black & Decker Figs. 1-2).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the applied references (as applied to claim 12 above) and further in view of Weiner (US 4205572 A – art of record; hereinafter Weiner).
Regarding claim 17, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claim 12, except for wherein the retaining member includes a plurality of radial slots formed in a perimeter of the retaining member.
Weiner is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, which is a spring washer. Weiner teaches a spring washer embodiment (24; as shown in Figs. 1-6) removably coupled to a blade mount (i.e. in the form of a spindle (18)) for retaining the circular saw blade on the blade mount, the spring washer being elastically flexible in the axial direction to accommodate different thicknesses of circular saw blades, wherein the spring washer includes a central opening (see annotated Weiner Figs. 3-4 above) defined by a circular inner surface having a constant inner diameter, and wherein the circular inner surface is a continuous circle, and the retaining member includes a plurality of slots formed in a perimeter of the retaining member(Weiner Col. 2 ln. 21 – Col. 3 ln. 11).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retaining member (of Black & Decker) to have a plurality of radial slots formed in a perimeter of the retaining member (as taught by Weiner) to adjust the overall flexibility of the retaining member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection(s).
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 with respect to claims 1-9, 11 and 18-20 have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: applicant argues the applied art (Black & Decker in view of Weiner), either alone or together, fail to teach or render obvious the claimed features of ind. claims 1 and 18. To further support this assertion, applicant argues that teaching prior art (i.e. Weiner) has a very complex assembly AND would not be proper to combine with the structure (of Black & Decker). Essentially, the prior art structure has more components that what is claimed or required and would make it harder to use (see Remarks pg. 9-13).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion(s).
First and foremost, applicant argues against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP §2145(III) and §2145(IV)
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
It must be noted that prior art structure discloses or teaches the invention as claimed. The fact that it discloses additional structure not claimed is irrelevant.
It appears some of applicant arguments are directed to usability (i.e. intended-use) and/or functionality of the overall prior art structure (i.e. harder to use and so on). To which no patentable weight has been given by the examiner. Applicant is remined of the following: In other words, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
Lastly, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights