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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/30/2026 in which claims 1, 5-14, 17-18 are pending, claims 1, 12, and 18 are currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/30/2026 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Hopper et al. (U.S. Patent 6,520,722), herein referred to as Hopper in view of Hayden, Sr. (U.S. Patent 5,249,485), herein referred to as Hayden and in further view of view of Kullmann et al. (U.S. Patent 9,162,299), herein referred to as Kullmann.
In regards to claim 1, Hopper discloses a sawblade for a holesaw, the sawblade comprising: a plurality of wave-shaped teeth (e.g. two teeth 63/64; Fig. 6 ) formed on a continuous base section of the sawblade (band saw blade, circular saw, hacksaw; see abstract), each tooth of the plurality of teeth having (i) an associated tooth base (below the carbide tip) with a tooth base upper face (supporting the carbide tip) and (ii) a respective hard metal blade (63/64) arranged on the tooth base upper face of the associated tooth base, wherein each respective hard metal blade and its associated tooth base upper face forms a first bevel extending continuously from a cutting edge of the hard metal blade onto the tooth base that directly supports the hard metal blade, and a second bevel extending continuously from the cutting edge of the hard metal blade onto the tooth base that directly supports the hard metal blade (63/64 have two bevels), each of the first and second bevels being formed as flat planar bevels extending substantially along a longitudinal axis of the base section, wherein each tooth of a first subset (63/64) of the plurality of teeth is set (fig. 6c/6d), wherein the sawblade is bent substantially into a ring (bandsaw blade),
wherein the first bevel of each tooth of the first subset has a first bevel width (Fig. 6c/6d), and the second bevel of each tooth of the first subset has a second bevel width that is different from the first bevel width.
Hopper does not set forth that each respective hard metal blade and its associated tooth base upper face forms a first bevel extending continuously from a cutting edge of the hard metal blade onto the tooth base that directly supports the hard metal blade, and a second bevel extending continuously from the cutting edge of the hard metal blade onto the tooth base that directly supports the hard metal blade as highlighted above. Hayden sets forth a bandsaw with a plurality of carbide tipped saw teeth, and teaches forming the upper surface of the steel part as a continuation of the corresponding upper surface of the carbide tip, with no step of discontinuity at the braze joint, thereby reducing fatigue cracks and stress concentrations (col. 3, lines 48-68). It
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hopper’s carbide tipped tooth so that the corresponding bevel surfaces extend continuously across the carbide tip and supporting tooth base in accordance with Hayden’s teaching to eliminate discontinuities at the connecting joint and reduce stress concentrations.
Hopper also discloses wherein the first bevel has a first bevel angle, and the second bevel has a second bevel angle but it is unclear whether the second bevel angle is different from the first bevel angle for teeth 63 and 64. Kullmann sets forth a bandsaw with a plurality of carbide tipped saw teeth having first and second chamfers formed at different chamfer angles (e.g. first chamfer angle w1 and second chamfer angle w3 on the same tooth (see e.g. fig. 3). Kullman further teaches that providing different chamfer angles improves cutting performance by producing greater cutting power, reducing burr formation, and providing smooth, clean cuts, especially when sawing hollow or formed profiles (col. 5, lines 18-24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the bevel geometry of Hopper as taught by Kullman in order to have the recognized advantages of improved cutting performance, greater cutting power, and smooth cleaner cuts while retaining Hopper’s disclosed tooth arrangement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-11, 13-14, 17 are allowed.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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, Boyer Ashley 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.
/LAURA M LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights