DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-17 and 19-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 and 18 were cancelled.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN104249189A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a blade (300, see Figure 5) for use with an oscillating power tool (200, see Figure 3), the blade comprising:
an attachment portion (350, see Figure 5) including a mounting aperture arrangement (340) configured to couple with the oscillating power tool (see Figure 3);
a body (body of 300) extending from the attachment portion in a direction defining a longitudinal axis (center axis of 300, see Figure 5), the body including a distal end generally opposite the attachment portion (top end in Figure 5) and first and second side edges (left and right side edge) extending between the attachment portion and the distal end (see Figure 5); and the distal end, the distal end including a cutting edge (302, see Figure 5);
a channel open (310) to one of the first or second side edges (at right side, see Figure 5) and extending towards the longitudinal axis from an open end to a closed end (towards the center), the channel being defined by a first elongated edge (portion of edge on 310 above the line for 310, see Figure 5) and a second elongated edge (portion of edge on 310 below the line for 310, see Figure 5) opposed to the first elongated edge, wherein at least one of the first or second elongated edges includes a chamfer (see Figure 5),
wherein a largest distance between the first and second elongated edges is at an unknown ratio to a length of the channel from the open end to the closed end (see Figure 5).
Wang fails to teach a largest distance between the first and second elongated edges is less than half a length of the channel from the open end to the closed end.
With respect to the specific size of a largest distance between the first and second elongated edges is less than half a length of the channel from the open end to the closed end, Wang also teaches that general variation can be altered as needed (last paragraph of the Wang translation), the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify channel size of Wang to be any size/ratio including the claimed size/ratio, in order for the end user to cut a desired size sheet with the device.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang further teaches at least one of the first or second elongated edges is convex into the channel (at least convex at near top point for the first elongated edge (convex corner), see Figure 5 of Wang).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang further teaches both of the first and second elongated edges are convex into the channel (at least convex at near top point for the first elongated edge (convex corner) and the convex corner at bottom near the corner of 310 near 301 for the second elongated edge, see Figure 5 of Wang).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang further teaches at least one of the first or second elongated edges is substantially straight (at least substantially straight along bottom edge, see Figure 5 of Wang).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang further teaches the first elongated edge is substantially straight (at least substantially straight top edge, see Figure 5) and the second elongated edge is convex into the channel (the convex corner at bottom near the corner of 310 near 301 for the second elongated edge, see Figure 5 of Wang).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang further teaches the first and second elongated edges are toothless (see Figure 5 of Wang).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wang further teaches the distal end meets one of the first or second side edges at a pointed tip portion configured to pierce a pilot hole in a workpiece (meet at the point of right edge, see Figure 5 of Wang).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang further teaches the channel further comprises a gap between the first and second elongated edges defined as a smallest distance therebetween (at the intersecting point of line pointed by 310 in Figure 5) and a gap of unknown value (see Figure 5 of Wang).
Wang fails to teach wherein the gap is sized for cutting a sheet having a thickness of about 0.0625 inches or less between the first and second elongated cutting edges (Examiner notes is interpreted that this limitation is requiring at least the gap need to fit a sheet having a thickness of about 0.0625 inches or less can fit between the first and second elongated cutting edges).
With respect to the specific size of the gap being at least about 0.0625 inches in order to fit a sheet that is about 0.0625 inches or less, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify gap of Wang to be any size including the claimed size, in order for the end user to cut a desired size sheet with the device.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang further teaches the longitudinal axis is disposed between the first and second side edges without intersecting the first and second side edges (as 310 is less than half way, see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang further teaches the first and second elongated edges extend from the open end toward the closed end (see Figure 5).
Claims 3-4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN104249189A) in view of Knox (US 20180194019 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Wang fails to teach the at least one of the first or second elongated edges is chamfered to a sharp edge.
Knox teaches the at least one of the first or second elongated edges is chamfered to a sharp edge (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Wang to change the bevel edge into chamfered edge, as taught by Knox, in order to performed the desired type of cutting (paragraph 0008 of Knox).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Wang fails to teach the first and second elongated edges both include the chamfer
Knox teaches the first and second elongated edges both include the chamfer (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Wang to change the bevel edge into chamfered edge, as taught by Knox, in order to performed the desired type of cutting (paragraph 0008 of Knox).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wang teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Wang fails to teach the channel further includes a chamfered cutter extending from the first elongated edge to the second elongated edge proximate the closed end of the channel.
Knox teaches the channel further includes a chamfered cutter extending from the first elongated edge to the second elongated edge proximate the closed end of the channel (see chamfer in Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Wang to change the bevel edge into chamfered edge, as taught by Knox, in order to performed the desired type of cutting (paragraph 0008 of Knox).
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (US 20180194019 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Knox teaches a blade (200, see Figure 5) for use with an oscillating power tool (102, see Figure 1), the blade comprising:
an attachment portion (204, see Figure 5) including a mounting aperture arrangement (216) configured to couple with the oscillating power tool (see Figure 1);
a body (242) extending from the attachment portion in a direction defining a longitudinal axis (center axis of 200, see Figure 5), the body including a distal end generally opposite the attachment portion (left end in Figure 5)and first and second side edges (208 and 210) extending between the attachment portion and the distal end (see Figure 5); and
a channel open (220) to one of the first or second side edges (at side of 210, see Figure 5) and extending towards the longitudinal axis from an open end to a closed end (towards the center), the channel being defined by a first elongated edge (portion of 222 left of 6-6 including a small portion of 218 in Figure 5 for claims 2-9 and portion of 222 left of 6-6 up to 230 in Figure 5 for claim 10) and a second elongated edge (portion of right of 6-6 including a small portion of 210 in Figure 5) opposed to the first elongated edge, wherein at least one of the first or second elongated edges includes a chamfer (see Figure 6), the channel including a gap between the first and second elongated edges defined as a smallest distance therebetween (at the intersecting point of 6-6 and 224 in Figure 5), and a gap of unknown value (see Figure 5 of Knox).
Knox fails to teach wherein the gap is sized for cutting a sheet having a thickness of about 0.0625 inches or less between the first and second elongated cutting edges (Examiner notes is interpreted that this limitation is requiring at least the gap need to fit a sheet having a thickness of about 0.0625 inches or less can fit between the first and second elongated cutting edges), wherein the gap is less than or equal to about 0.125 inches.
With respect to the specific size of the gap being at least about 0.025 inches in order to fit a sheet that is about 0.0625 inches or less, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify gap of Knox to be any size including the claimed size of at least about 0.025 inches, in order for the end user to cut a desired size sheet with the device.
Regarding claim 19, modified Knox further teaches the gap is less than or equal to about 0.0625 inches (as modified in claim 17, the gap is at least 0.025 inches, which meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 20, modified Knox further teaches the gap is less than or equal to about 0.025 inches (as modified in claim 17, the gap is at least 0.025 inches, which meets the limitation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15-16 are allowed.
Regarding claim 15, Wang (CN104249189A) teaches a blade (300) for use with an oscillating power tool (see Figure 3), the blade comprising:
an attachment portion (350, see Figure 5) including a mounting aperture arrangement (340) configured to couple with the oscillating power tool (see Figure 1);
a body (body of 300) extending from the attachment portion in a direction defining a longitudinal axis (center axis of 300, see Figure 5), the body including a distal end generally opposite the attachment portion (top end in Figure 5)and first and second side edges (left and right sides) extending between the attachment portion and the distal end (see Figure 5); and
a channel open (opening in 310) to the second side edge (right side, see Figure 5) and extending towards the longitudinal axis from an open end to a closed end (towards the center), the channel being defined by a first elongated edge extending towards the longitudinal axis from the second side edge (portion of 310 top of the line for 310, see Figure 5) and a second elongated edge (portion of 310 below the line for 310, see Figure 5) opposed to the first elongated edge and extending towards the longitudinal axis from the second side edge (See Figure 5), wherein at least one of the first or second edges is configured as a sharp cutting edge (see Figure 5),
wherein the closed end includes a curved cutting edge extending between and connecting the first elongated edge and the second elongated edge (see Figure 5),
the distal end and the one of the first or second side edges meet at a pointed tip portion (at least the left side end in a point, see Figure 5).
Wang fails to teach the closed end includes a linear cutting edge extending between and connecting the first elongated edge and the second elongated edge, and wherein both of the first and second elongated edges are convex and disposed in opposed relation such that the respective convex edges face toward one another to define a region of decreased thickness of the channel therebetween.
Mercy (US 2635337) teaches a knife with a cutting channel (15) with the closed end includes a curved cutting edge extending between and connecting the first elongated edge and the second elongated edge (see Figure 1).
Hasseler (US 1843223) teaches a knife with a cutting channel (10) with the closed end includes a linear cutting edge extending between and connecting the first elongated edge and the second elongated edge (see Figure 1).
Examiner notes that a cutting channel in a blade can come in all shapes, for example the curved end cutting edge in Wang and Mercy, or the linear end cutting edge of Hasseler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wang to change the shape of the cutting channel to have a linear cutting edge extending between and connecting the first elongated edge and the second elongated edge, as taught by Hasseler. As the courts have held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Martin (US 20150273706 A1) teaches a oscillating tool with a toothed cutting edge.
While it may have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Wang to have the toothed cutting edge, as taught by Martin. Thus teaches wherein both of the first and second elongated edges are convex and disposed in opposed relation such that the respective convex edges face toward one another to define a region of decreased thickness of the channel therebetween (since the teeth are convex and at the highest point of the teeth, there is a decreased thickness of the channel). However, as the cutting edge already have been modified into a linear cutting edge and Martin only teaches making the entire region into a toothed area, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cherry pick and choose what region to make it toothed and other region to make it linear, based on the current prior art cited in the office action.
Furthermore, no additional prior art could be found to teach the claimed limitations either alone nor in combination to further modify the device of Wang, Mercy, Hasseler and Martin. Thus claim 15 is allowable, claim 16 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 15.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that Wang fails to teach the set distance required by claim 1. The Examiner disagrees and notes that in this case the size of gap is determine by the size of work piece that the end user desired to be, and altering the size of the tool in order to cut respected size work piece is known and obvious in the art. Therefore under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. the change in size modification is obvious.
In response to applicant's argument that the gap of Knox cannot be modified into 0.0625 inches or less because there is no asphalt roofing shingles that thin, thus destroy the intended use of the device in Knox. The examiner the claim does required any work piece and cutting asphalt roofing shingles is only one intended use for the device of Knox. In this case the size of gap is determine by the size of work piece that the end user desired to be, and altering the size of the tool in order to cut respected size work piece is known and obvious in the art. Therefore under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. the change in size modification is obvious.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/27/2026