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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/19/2026, with respect to double patenting have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent terminal disclaimer filed 6/19/2026. The rejections of 6/18/2026 has therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the instant application should be allowable because patent US11172611 is allowed is not persuasive because the application of cladding on a knife or knife edge is known and obvious in the art area as evidenced by the rejection of US20130233145A1 Sotelo in view of US11724322B2 Smith herein. Prosecution must proceed independently from the prosecution of US11172611.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards the claim unexamined amendments of front and rear surfaces of the blade body, these amendments do not read over the art of Sotelo in combination with Smith.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards Smith not cutting through the harder and softer materials, the examiner respectfully disagrees and interprets this to be taught in steps 106, 110, and 126 and 694, 894, and 1094 where the gullies and carbide strip of the saw blades per steps 106, 110, and 126 and 694, 894, 910, 950, and 1094, therefore, both materials are cut through. Smith is used to teach cutting two materials of different hardnesses in the creation of a saw blade tooth and 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. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is therefore the examiners opinion that it is obvious to laser clad an edge as taught by Sotelo to add a harder material over a softer material and also obvious to combine the methods of Smith of cutting a harder material and softer material to form a recessed pockets, aka teeth.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments towards Smith teaching the cutting steps not teaching “the process acts to remove away portions including the base material and the cladding material”, examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that Smith does this in sequential steps as discussed in the rejections below.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130233145A1 Sotelo in view of US11724322B2 Smith.
Regarding claim 1,
Sotelo teaches forming cladding on a cutting edge of a serrated blade with serrations, cutting edge segments 50, already present, which are mixer blades 112, 212, and 224, and also teaches, except where struck through, A method for forming a blade (mixer blades 112, 212, and 224) for mounting on a rotor of a cutting machine for cutting vegetation (abstract) (Sotelo par. 61) comprising:
forming a chamfered surface (end tip 242) on a blade body (cutting blade 224) to define a cutting edge of the blade body (par. 50 teaches “The sharpened end tip 242 provides along with the converging surfaces 238, 240 the cutting edge support surface 236”);
the blade body being formed of a base material (par. 6 teaches steel) and having front and rear surfaces extending from the cutting edge (see annotated fig. 19e below);
applying a strip of cladding material to one of the front and rear surfaces of the blade body at the cutting edge (244 a to c par. 51) so as to provide at least one part of the cutting edge which has the cladding material thereon (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g);
the cladding material having a resistance to wear greater than that of the base material (par. 7);
said strip being applied to said one of the front and rear surfaces of the blade body in a direction longitudinal of the cutting edge so that said strip has a length extending along the cutting edge and a width extending from a first side edge of said strip at the cutting edge and a second side edge spaced across said one of the front and rear surfaces of the blade body from said cutting edge (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g teach the strips being applied in a longitudinal fashion with a width of the strips having one side closer to the cutting edge and one side closer to the bottom side surface 226);
.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: and applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions including the base material and the cladding material at of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Smith teaches a method of manufacturing a saw blade forming a plurality of tooth bodies in the saw blade (claim 1, column 1 lines 22 to 57) and per column 8 lines 60 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 4 teach using a laser to form the cutting teeth, see steps 106, 110, and 126 and 694, 894, 910, 950, and 1094 of Smith, which is a form of applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions including the base material and the cladding material at of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations. Smith indicates this is one of an equivalent number of methods (grinding, chemical, water jet) that can be utilized.
Therefore because Sotelo is silent to how the cutting teeth are formed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try any known method as discussed in Smith, including laser cutting, in an attempt to produce an acceptable cutting edge to cut through .
PNG
media_image1.png
564
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 1 (as discussed above)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: wherein said strip is applied before the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the heat energy to cut the series of recessed pockets also cuts through said at least one strip.
Smith teaches methods 694, 894, and 1094 which are steps for creating a saw blade by forming tooth bodies, attaching a hardened and wear resistant surface to saw blade body, then forming further teeth on the wear resistant surface per figs. 16, 21, and 26.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of forming cutting surface profiles on non-hardened and hardened surfaces.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Smith teaching that the order in which cutting teeth or recessed pockets are applied can be substituted before or after a step of cladding or applying a hardened, wear resistant material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the steps of where a strip is applied before the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the heat energy to cut the series of recessed pockets also cuts through said at least one strip.
The results would have been predictable, since Smith teaches in the embodiments of figs. 16, 21, and 26 a method by which coupling inserts to the saw blade body per step 726, coupling carbide strips to the saw blade body per steps 926 and 1126, then further shaping cutting inserts to include cutting teach and cutting gullets into the coupling inserts and carbide strips per steps 750, 950, and 1150 and column 9 lines 61 to 67.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to provide a hardened cutting surface.
Regarding claims 7,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 1 (as discussed above)
Sotelo teaches forming cladding on a cutting edge of a serrated blade with serrations as cutting edge segments 50 which are already present on the mixer blades 112, 212, and 224, and therefore also teaches wherein said strip is applied after the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the cladding material is discarded at the series of recessed pockets (cutting edge segments 50).
Regarding claim 11,
Sotelo teaches forming cladding on a cutting edge of a serrated blade with serrations, cutting edge segments 50, already present, which are mixer blades 112, 212, and 224, and also teaches, except where struck through, A method for forming a blade (mixer blades 112, 212, and 224) for mounting on a rotor of a cutting machine for cutting vegetation (abstract) (Sotelo par. 61) comprising:
forming a chamfered surface (end tip 242) on a blade body (cutting blade 224) to define a cutting edge of the blade body (par. 50 teaches “The sharpened end tip 242 provides along with the converging surfaces 238, 240 the cutting edge support surface 236”);
the blade body being formed of a base material (par. 6 teaches steel);
applying a first strip of cladding material (244 a to c par. 51) to the chamfered surface of the blade body at the cutting edge so that the first strip (244 a, b, or c) extends from the cutting edge onto the chamfered surface (see figs. 19a to 19f) and a second strip (244 d, e, or f) to a second surface opposed to the chamfered surface so that the second strip extends from the cutting edge onto the second surface (see figs. 19a to 19f) so as to provide at least one part of the cutting edge which has the cladding material thereon (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g);
the cladding material having a resistance to wear greater than that of the base material (par. 7);
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: and applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the base material and first and second strips of the cladding material at of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Smith teaches a method of manufacturing a saw blade forming a plurality of tooth bodies in the saw blade (claim 1, column 1 lines 22 to 57) and per column 8 lines 60 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 4 teach using a laser to form the cutting teeth, see steps 106, 110, and 126 and 694, 894, and 1094 of Smith, which is a form of applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the base material and first and second strips of the cladding material at of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo to create cutting teeth using a laser per the teachings of Smith per column 8 lines 60 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 4 of Smith.
Regarding claim 16,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 11 (as discussed above)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: wherein the first and second strips are applied before the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the heat energy to cut the series of recessed pockets also cuts through said first and second strips.
Smith teaches methods 694, 894, and 1094 which are steps for creating a saw blade by forming tooth bodies, attaching a hardened and wear resistant surface to saw blade body, then forming further teeth on the wear resistant surface per figs. 16, 21, and 26.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of forming cutting surface profiles on non-hardened and hardened surfaces.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Smith teaching that the order in which cutting teeth or recessed pockets are applied can be substituted before or after a step of cladding or applying a hardened, wear resistant material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the steps of where the first and second strips are applied before the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the heat energy to cut the series of recessed pockets also cuts through said first and second strips.
The results would have been predictable, since Smith teaches in the embodiments of figs. 16, 21, and 26 a method by which coupling inserts to the saw blade body per step 726, coupling carbide strips to the saw blade body per steps 926 and 1126, then further shaping cutting inserts to include cutting teach and cutting gullets into the coupling inserts and carbide strips per steps 750, 950, and 1150 and column 9 lines 61 to 67.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to provide a hardened cutting surface.
Regarding claim 17,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 11 (as discussed above)
Sotelo teaches forming cladding on a cutting edge of a serrated blade with serrations as cutting edge segments 50 which are already present on the mixer blades 112, 212, and 224, and therefore also teaches wherein said first and second strips are applied after the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the cladding material is discarded at the series of recessed pockets (cutting edge segments 50).
Regarding claim 18,
Sotelo teaches, The method according to claims 11 (as discussed above).
Sotelo further teaches, wherein the second surface forms a planar side of the blade body (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g).
Regarding claims 10 and 19,
Sotelo teaches, The method according to claim 1 and 11 respectively (as discussed above).
Sotelo further teaches, wherein the chamfered surface is flat (figs. 19 a through g).
Regarding claim 20,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claim 11 (as discussed above)
Sotelo teaches, a method of laser cladding can be done over the converging surfaces as well as the end tip (Sotelo par. 61) wherein said first and second strips (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g) are applied in a direction longitudinal of the cutting edge so that each of the first and second strips has a length extending along the cutting edge and a width extending from a first side edge at the cutting edge and a second side edge spaced from said cutting edge (figs. 19 a through g)
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130233145A1 Sotelo in view of US11724322B2 Smith in view of US20160008920A1 Goya.
Regarding claims 2 and 12,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 1 and 11 respectively (as discussed above)
Sotelo further teaches wherein the blade body is mounted in a laser heating system (laser clad tool 58) and the laser heating system is used to apply the cladding material (par. 31 to 46)(claims 9, 11, 17, 20, and 27).
Smith teaches the laser heating system is used both to cut the series of recessed pockets (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the primary combination does not teach: and the laser heating system is used both to cut the series of recessed pockets and to apply the cladding material.
Goya teaches a laser processing apparatus 10 capable of performing “one of cutting processing, boring processing, welding, cladding, surface reforming processing, surface finishing, laser lamination molding. Also, these processing can be combined” (Goya par. 47).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that to laser cut a workpiece with a laser per Smith and laser clad a workpiece per Sotelo are elements that are known in the art as being no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Therefore, the results would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art and based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the performing of laser cutting and laser cladding into one work station per the teachings of Goya to allow the processing apparatus to have a simpler structure (par. 8 and 21).
Regarding claim 3,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claim 2 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo in view of Smith does not teach: wherein the laser heating system comprises a single laser which is used both to cut the recessed pockets and to apply the cladding material.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Goya teaches a laser processing apparatus 10 capable of performing “one of cutting processing, boring processing, welding, cladding, surface reforming processing, surface finishing, laser lamination molding. Also, these processing can be combined” (Goya par. 47) and therefore also anticipates combining the inventions of Sotelo and Smith into one apparatus such that the laser heating system comprises a single laser which is used both to cut the recessed pockets and to apply the cladding material.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo with the combination of a laser cutting and cladding apparatus into one work station per the teachings of Goya to allow the processing apparatus to have a simpler structure (par. 8 and 21).
Regarding claim 5,
The primary combination teaches, the method according to claims 3 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: wherein the single laser comprises one laser head with adjustable optics.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Goya teaches the single laser comprises one laser head with adjustable optics (rotating mechanisms 53 and 54, par. 61 to 66, par. 95 and 96, and par. 108 and 109).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo with the teachings of Goya for the purpose of changing a position of a laser irradiation point (Goya par. 66).
Regarding claim 13,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claim 11 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo in view of Smith does not teach: wherein the laser heating system comprises a single laser with adjustable optics.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Goya teaches wherein the laser heating system comprises a single laser with adjustable optics (rotating mechanisms 53 and 54, par. 61 to 66, par. 95 and 96, and par. 108 and 109).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo with the teachings of Goya for the purpose of changing a position of a laser irradiation point (Goya par. 66).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights