DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 6, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on November 6, 2025, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 08/07/2025), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 12 and 18 has been amended,
Claims 2-9, 11, 13-17, 19 and 20 were previously presented,
Claims 10 and 21 have been cancelled, and
Claim 22 has been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-9, 11-20 and 22 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
he following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 22, Ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the perimeter being elastically deformable, thereby varying the outer diameter of the second portion…” IS NOT supported by the original disclosure (dated 06/01/2022); emphasis added.
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 22 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 22, Ln. 2-3, the phrase, “…the perimeter being elastically deformable, thereby varying the outer diameter of the second portion.…” renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to what structural limitation(s) or relationship(s) is being encompassed with such language. For example, there are multiple interpretations for the noted limitation(s) above.
The first interpretation could be since the second portion includes a plurality of radial slots or grooves (will inherently have reduce outer diameter) AND a plurality of radial lobes (will inherently have a greater outer diameter when compared to the outer diameter of the plurality of radial slots or grooves). Therefore, the overall outer diameter of the second portion will vary because of its overall geometrical shape.
The second interpretation could be the outer diameter of the second portion varies because of the flexible nature of the plurality of radial lobes AND the amount of force applied to those plurality of radial lobes.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
For the purpose of examination, examiner will rely on the first interpretation in the art rejection below; emphasis added.
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, 11-20 and 22 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; 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 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.
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 an inner diameter that remains constant as the spring washer is coupled to the blade mount (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.
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.
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 (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.
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 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 6, 13 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 claims 7 and 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 claims 8 and 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).
Regarding claims 11, 17 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 22, modified Black & Decker as above further teaches wherein the perimeter is formed by a plurality of radial lobes alternating the plurality of radial slots (see annotated Weiner Fig. 4 above), the perimeter being elastically deformable thereby varying the outer diameter of the second portion.
Examiner’s note: Since, Weiner teaches a substantially identical structure as claimed, which includes a retaining member having a first portion defining a fixed inner diameter and a second portion defining an outer diameter, and wherein the first portion is axially offset from the second portion, wherein the first portion is configured to move axially toward the second portion (i.e. as the bolts is being tighten) to retain a circular saw blade on the blade mount, and a perimeter of the retaining member having a plurality of radial slots and a plurality of radial lobes alternating the plurality of radial slots. Then the retaining member (of Weiner) will perform as claimed above; emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or §2112.01(II)
Furthermore, with respect to “varying outer diameter of the second portion” please refer to the “claim interpretation section” above for clarification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 on 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 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights