DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-13 and 15-23 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3, 9 and 14 were cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/04/2026 has been entered.
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, 4, 10, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grolimund (US 9707634 B2) in view of Elliston (US 20130174701 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grolimund teaches a reciprocating saw blade (see Figure 1) comprising:
an elongated blade body (2) extending along a blade axis (horizontal axis in Figure 1) and having a rear end, a front end, a non-cutting edge (top edge of 2 in Figure 1) that extends between the rear end and the front end, and a cutting edge opposite the non-cutting edge (bottom cutting edge of 2 in Figure 1), the cutting edge having a plurality of teeth extending between the rear end and the front end to form a plurality of cutting edge portions (4a, 4b and 4c), the cutting edge portions including an inclined cutting edge portion oriented at an incline relative to the blade axis (half of 4b), a declined cutting edge portion oriented at a decline relative to the blade axis (other half of 4b), and a linear cutting edge portion oriented parallel to the blade axis (4 a and 4c); and
a tang (3), coupled to the rear end, configured to be received in a blade holder of a powered reciprocating saw (see Figure 1).
Grolimund fails to teach a repeating sequence, the cutting edge portions including an inclined cutting edge portion oriented at an incline relative to the blade axis, a declined cutting edge portion oriented at a decline relative to the blade axis, wherein the inclined cutting edge portion extends away from the blade axis toward the front end from a first tooth to a second tooth closer to the front end than the first tooth, the first tooth having a first tip at a first vertical distance from a horizontal line that is parallel to the blade axis, and the second tooth having a second tip at a second vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance, and wherein the declined cutting edge portion extends toward the blade axis and the front end from a third tooth to the first tooth, the first tooth being closer to the front end than the third tooth, and the third tooth having a third tip at a third vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance, and wherein the inclined cutting edge portion has a first length extending from the first tooth to the second tooth, the declined cutting edge portion has a second length extending from the third tooth, the first length being greater than the second length.
Elliston teaches the cutting edge includes (a) an inclined cutting edge portion extending away from the blade axis and toward the front end from a first tooth to a second tooth closer to the front end than the first tooth (see annotated Figure 3), the first tooth having a first tip at a first vertical distance from a horizontal line that is parallel to the blade axis (blade axis of 150, see annotated Figure 3), and the second tooth having a second tip at a second vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance (see annotated Figure 3); and (b) a declined cutting edge portion extending toward the blade axis and toward the front end from a third tooth to the first tooth (see annotated Figure 3), the first tooth closer to the front end than the third tooth (see annotated Figure 3), and the third tooth having a third tip at a third vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance (see annotated Figure 3); wherein the inclined cutting edge portion has a first length from the first tooth to the second tooth, the declined cutting edge portion has a second length from the third tooth, the first length greater than the second length (see annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Grolimund to change a cutting edge portion (such as 4b of Grolimund), as taught by Elliston, in order to have a more effective cutting angle set up (paragraph 0032 of Elliston).
Regarding claim 4, modified Grolimund further teaches tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a straight line extending from the first tooth to the second tooth (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Regarding claim 10, modified Grolimund further teaches the tang includes a hole and the first tooth is located a horizontal distance from the hole (as modified, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston of the hole to 4b in Grolimund for example).
Modified Grolimund fails to clearly teach the horizontal distance approximately 34% to 53% of a length of the blade.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific the horizontal distance to be approximately 34% to 53% of a length of the blade, 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 the blade of modified Grolimund to have the specific horizontal distance, to get the desired cutting effect from the cutting blade profile.
Regarding claim 18, Grolimund teaches a reciprocating saw blade (see Figure 1) comprising:
an elongated blade body (2) extending along a blade axis (horizontal axis in Figure 1) and having a rear end, a front end, a non-cutting edge (top edge of 2 in Figure 1) that extends between the rear end and the front end, and a cutting edge opposite the non-cutting edge (bottom cutting edge of 2 in Figure 1), the cutting edge having a plurality of teeth extending between the rear end and the front end to form a plurality of cutting edge portions (4a, 4b and 4c), the cutting edge portions including an inclined cutting edge portion oriented at an incline relative to the blade axis (half of 4b), a declined cutting edge portion oriented at a decline relative to the blade axis (other half of 4b), and a linear cutting edge portion oriented parallel to the blade axis (4 a and 4c); and
a tang (3), coupled to the rear end, configured to be received in a blade holder of a powered reciprocating saw (see Figure 1).
Grolimund fails to teach a repeating sequence, wherein the inclined cutting edge portion extends extending away from the blade axis and toward the front end at a first acute angle to the blade axis, and wherein the declined cutting edge portion extends extending toward the blade axis and toward the front end at a second acute angle that is greater than the first acute angle, wherein the inclined cutting edge portion has a first length extending from the a first tooth to the a second tooth, the declined cutting edge portion has a second length extending from the a third tooth to the first tooth, the first length being greater than the second length, and wherein the first tooth is located a horizontal distance from the hole, the horizontal distance approximately 34% to 53% of a length of the blade.
Elliston teaches the cutting edge includes (a) an inclined cutting edge portion extending away from the blade axis and toward the front end from a first tooth to a second tooth closer to the front end than the first tooth (see annotated Figure 3), the first tooth having a first tip at a first vertical distance from a horizontal line that is parallel to the blade axis (blade axis of 150, see annotated Figure 3), and the second tooth having a second tip at a second vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance (see annotated Figure 3); and (b) a declined cutting edge portion extending toward the blade axis and toward the front end from a third tooth to the first tooth (see annotated Figure 3), the first tooth closer to the front end than the third tooth (see annotated Figure 3), and the third tooth having a third tip at a third vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance (see annotated Figure 3); wherein the inclined cutting edge portion has a first length from the first tooth to the second tooth, the declined cutting edge portion has a second length from the third tooth, the first length greater than the second length (see annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Grolimund to change a cutting edge portion (such as 4b of Grolimund), as taught by Elliston, in order to have a more effective cutting angle set up (paragraph 0032 of Elliston).
Furthermore, with respect to the specific a second acute angle that is greater than the first acute angle, 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 the blade of modified Grolimund to have the specific angle, to get the desired cutting effect from the cutting blade profile.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific the horizontal distance to be approximately 34% to 53% of a length of the blade, 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 the blade of modified Grolimund to have the specific horizontal distance, to get the desired cutting effect from the cutting blade profile.
Regarding claim 19, modified Grolimund further teaches tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a straight line extending from the first tooth to the second tooth (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Regarding claim 21, modified Grolimund further teaches the third tooth is a second tooth of another inclined cutting edge portion (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Regarding claim 22, modified Grolimund further teaches the third tooth is a second tooth of another inclined cutting edge portion (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Regarding claim 23, modified Grolimund further teaches the third tooth is a second tooth of another inclined cutting edge portion (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Claims 6-8, 11-12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grolimund (US 9707634 B2) in view of Elliston (US 20130174701 A1) and in further view of Butzen (US 20120090443 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Grolimund further teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Modified Grolimund fails to teach the declined cutting edge portion includes at least one intermediate tooth between the third tooth and the first tooth.
Butzen teaches a cutting saw including one intermediate tooth (130) on every tooth (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Grolimund to add a bump tooth on each teeth, as taught by Butzen, in order to better cutting work piece and deal with hard item in the work piece (paragraph 0054 of Butzen).
Regarding claim 7, modified Grolimund further teaches the at least one intermediate tooth comprises at least one non-cutting bump tooth configure to receive impact loads on the cutting edge, the at least one non-cutting bump tooth having a tooth height less than a tooth height of the third tooth (as modified each tooth would have a bump tooth portion 130 of Butzen, as the shape is round (paragraph 0049 of Butzen), the limitation is considered met in the same was as how element 82” of the current application discuss that round shape is a non-cutting tooth, since one of ordinary skill in the art understand any metal teeth regardless of shape can cut a soft work piece, thus the level of “non-cutting” for round shape teeth meets functional limitation in the as claimed, at least the bump tooth on the third tooth meets the limitation, see Figure 2 of Butzen).
Regarding claim 8, modified Grolimund further teaches the at least one intermediate tooth comprises at least one non-cutting bump tooth configure to receive impact loads on the cutting edge, the at least one non-cutting bump tooth having a configuration different from the third tooth (as modified each tooth would have a bump tooth portion 130 of Butzen, as the shape is round (paragraph 0049 of Butzen), the limitation is considered met in the same was as how element 82” of the current application discuss that round shape is a non-cutting tooth, since one of ordinary skill in the art understand any metal teeth regardless of shape can cut a soft work piece, thus the level of “non-cutting” for round shape teeth meets functional limitation in the as claimed, since the bump tooth and the third tooth have different height, it meets the configuration different from the third tooth limitation, see Figure 2 of Butzen).
Regarding claim 11, Grolimund teaches a reciprocating saw blade (see Figure 1) comprising:
an elongated blade body (2) extending along a blade axis (horizontal axis in Figure 1) and having a rear end, a front end, a non-cutting edge (top edge of 2 in Figure 1) that extends between the rear end and the front end, and a cutting edge opposite the non-cutting edge (bottom cutting edge of 2 in Figure 1), the cutting edge having a plurality of teeth extending between the rear end and the front end to form a plurality of cutting edge portions (4a, 4b and 4c), the cutting edge portions including an inclined cutting edge portion oriented at an incline relative to the blade axis (half of 4b), a declined cutting edge portion oriented at a decline relative to the blade axis (other half of 4b), and a linear cutting edge portion oriented parallel to the blade axis (4 a and 4c); and
a tang (3), coupled to the rear end, configured to be received in a blade holder of a powered reciprocating saw (see Figure 1).
Grolimund fails to teach a repeating sequence, the cutting edge portions including an inclined cutting edge portion oriented at an incline relative to the blade axis, a declined cutting edge portion oriented at a decline relative to the blade axis, wherein the inclined cutting edge portion extends away from the blade axis toward the front end from a first tooth to a second tooth closer to the front end than the first tooth, the first tooth having a first tip at a first vertical distance from a horizontal line that is parallel to the blade axis, and the second tooth having a second tip at a second vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance, and wherein the declined cutting edge portion extends toward the blade axis and the front end from a third tooth to the first tooth, the first tooth being closer to the front end than the third tooth, and the third tooth having a third tip at a third vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance, and wherein the inclined cutting edge portion has a first length extending from the first tooth to the second tooth, the declined cutting edge portion has a second length extending from the third tooth, the first length being greater than the second length, the declined cutting edge portion includes at least one intermediate tooth between the third tooth and the first tooth.
Elliston teaches the cutting edge includes (a) an inclined cutting edge portion extending away from the blade axis and toward the front end from a first tooth to a second tooth closer to the front end than the first tooth (see annotated Figure 3), the first tooth having a first tip at a first vertical distance from a horizontal line that is parallel to the blade axis (blade axis of 150, see annotated Figure 3), and the second tooth having a second tip at a second vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance (see annotated Figure 3); and (b) a declined cutting edge portion extending toward the blade axis and toward the front end from a third tooth to the first tooth (see annotated Figure 3), the first tooth closer to the front end than the third tooth (see annotated Figure 3), and the third tooth having a third tip at a third vertical distance from the horizontal line that is greater than the first vertical distance (see annotated Figure 3); wherein the inclined cutting edge portion has a first length from the first tooth to the second tooth, the declined cutting edge portion has a second length from the third tooth, the first length greater than the second length (see annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Grolimund to change a cutting edge portion (such as 4b of Grolimund), as taught by Elliston, in order to have a more effective cutting angle set up (paragraph 0032 of Elliston).
Butzen teaches a cutting saw including one intermediate tooth (130) on every tooth (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Grolimund to add a bump tooth on each teeth, as taught by Butzen, in order to better cutting work piece and deal with hard item in the work piece (paragraph 0054 of Butzen).
Regarding claim 12, modified Grolimund further teaches the at least one intermediate tooth comprises at least one non-cutting bump tooth configure to receive impact loads on the cutting edge, the at least one non-cutting bump tooth having a tooth height less than a tooth height of the third tooth (as modified each tooth would have a bump tooth portion 130 of Butzen, as the shape is round (paragraph 0049 of Butzen), the limitation is considered met in the same was as how element 82” of the current application discuss that round shape is a non-cutting tooth, since one of ordinary skill in the art understand any metal teeth regardless of shape can cut a soft work piece, thus the level of “non-cutting” for round shape teeth meets functional limitation in the as claimed, at least the bump tooth on the third tooth meets the limitation, see Figure 2 of Butzen).
Regarding claim 13, modified Grolimund further teaches the at least one intermediate tooth comprises a bump tooth that has a configuration different from the third tooth (since the bump tooth and the third tooth have different height, it meets the configuration different from the third tooth limitation, see Figure 2 of Butzen).
Regarding claim 15, modified Grolimund further teaches tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a straight line extending from the first tooth to the second tooth (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Regarding claim 17, modified Grolimund further teaches the tang includes a hole and the first tooth is located a horizontal distance from the hole (as modified, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston of the hole to 4b in Grolimund for example).
Modified Grolimund fails to clearly teach the horizontal distance approximately 34% to 53% of a length of the blade.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific the horizontal distance to be approximately 34% to 53% of a length of the blade, 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 the blade of modified Grolimund to have the specific horizontal distance, to get the desired cutting effect from the cutting blade profile.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grolimund (US 9707634 B2) in view of Elliston (US 20130174701 A1) in view of Hampton (US 20170320152 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, modified Grolimund further teaches tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a straight line extending from the first tooth to the second tooth (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Modified Grolimund fails to teach tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a curve extending from the first tooth to the second tooth.
Hampton teaches a saw blade with tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a curve extending from the first tooth to the second tooth (section 2, see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Grolimund to change the straight line profile into the curve profile, as taught by Hampton, in order to have better progressive cutting along the portion (paragraph 0034 of Hampton).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grolimund (US 9707634 B2) in view of Elliston (US 20130174701 A1) and in further view of Butzen (US 20120090443 A1) and in further view of in view of Hampton (US 20170320152 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Grolimund further teaches tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a straight line extending from the first tooth to the second tooth (as modified by Elliston, see annotated Figure 3 of Elliston).
Modified Grolimund fails to teach tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a curve extending from the first tooth to the second tooth.
Hampton teaches a saw blade with tips of teeth in the inclined cutting edge portion are arranged generally along a curve extending from the first tooth to the second tooth (section 2, see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Grolimund to change the straight line profile into the curve profile, as taught by Hampton, in order to have better progressive cutting along the portion (paragraph 0034 of Hampton).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-13 and 15-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that Elliston fail teach the first/second length. The examiner disagrees and notes that Elliston teaches the length required in annotated Figure 3 above.
Conclusion
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 at 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 3/27/2026
Prosecution Insights