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 1/29/2026 in which claims 1, 5-12, 17-18 are pending, claims 17 and 18 are new and claims 1, 12 and 14 are currently amended.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/29/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5-12, 17-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, that “wherein each respective hard metal blade and each tooth base upper face has a first bevel and a second bevel”, thereby introducing four bevels. However, the subsequent limitation reciting “each of the first and second bevels” is unclear as to whether it refers to the bevels of the hard metal blade, the bevels of the tooth base, or all bevels collectively. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 12 recites, that “wherein each respective hard metal blade and each tooth base upper face has a first bevel and a second bevel”, thereby introducing four bevels. However, the subsequent limitation reciting “each of the first and second bevels” is unclear as to whether it refers to the bevels of the hard metal blade, the bevels of the tooth base, or all bevels collectively. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is unclear.
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, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hayden, Sr. (U.S. Patent 5,249,485), in view of Hayden et al. (U.S. Patent 4,784,033), herein referred to as Hayden in view of Hopper et al. (U.S. Patent 6,520,722), herein referred to as Hopper.
In regards to claim 1 and 12, Hayden, Sr. discloses a sawblade comprising a plurality of wave-shaped teeth formed on a continuous base section of the sawblade (steel band 10 of bandsaw blade), each tooth of the plurality of teeth having an associated tooth base (12) with a tooth base upper face (area of tooth around upper surface 14) and a respective hard metal blade (carbide tip 13) arranged on the tooth base upper face (area near 14) of the associated tooth base (12),
wherein each respective hard metal blade (13) and each tooth base upper face (14) has a first bevel and a second bevel (4 bevels; 14 and 15 on each side; “ A back edge of the body was usually beveled along its opposite corners by means of a cutting operation performed on an edging machine, in order to minimize stress concentrations.”) extending substantially along the longitudinal axis of the base section, wherein each of the first and second bevels extends continuously from a cutting edge of the hard metal blade (13) onto the tooth base (12) that directly supports the hard metal blade (“the upper surface 14 of the steel part 12 is raised so that it forms a continuation of (i.e., is aligned with) the upper surface 15 of the carbide tip 13, with no step or discontinuity existing at the braze joint 16” (col. 3, lines 57-61);
and wherein each tooth of a first subset of the plurality of teeth is set; and
wherein the first bevel of each tooth of the first subset has a first bevel width and the second bevel of each tooth of the second subset has a second bevel width that is different from the first bevel width.
wherein the sawblade is bent substantially into a ring (bandsaw blade forms a continuous ring bent around wheels of the bandsaw); claim 12.
While it appears clear that the areas 14 and 15 of Hayden, Sr. are beveled edges as set forth in the background of the invention, to the extent that it could be argued that 14 and 15 are not positively set forth as bevels, attention is also directed to the Hayden reference. Hayden discloses another carbide tip 15, per Figure 6, with a plurality of beveled cutting edge 18/22, wherein Hayden discloses that the surface of the tooth 12 follow the beveled edges 18/22 of the carbide tip 15, such that the two surface merge together. Therefore, as Hayden, Sr. sets forth that beveled edges are known in prior art to lower stress concentrations, and as demonstrated by Hayden, to form the tooth with the same beveled edges as the carbide tip, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have applied these teachings to the carbide tip and tooth of Hayden. Sr. incorporating bevels on the teeth edges along both the hard metal blade and tooth base, wherein the bevels continuously extended onto the tooth portions.
Moreover, Hayden, Sr. does not state that (i) the teeth are set nor (ii) that the first and second bevel widths of each tooth are different. Hopper teaches a cutting tool having non-symmetrical carbide tipped tooth geometries, including teeth configured to cut material on opposite sides of the kerf, thereby providing improved cutting performance and chip formation (see e.g. Figs. 3 and 4 and col. 5, lines 52-68; col. 6, lines 1-29). Hopper further acknowledges conventional set tooth forms and their benefits in improving cutting performance. It would have been obvious to modify the teeth of Hayden to include asymmetric features such as differing bevel width and angles as taught by Hopper in order to improve cutting efficiency and chip removal. Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide set teeth as acknowledged by Hopper to be a known and beneficial configuration to increase kerf clearance and reduce binding during cutting.
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein two directly successive teeth (e.g. 32/33; Fig. 3d/e Hopper or 43/44; figs. 4e/4f Hopper) of the plurality of teeth are set in opposite directions to one another along the longitudinal axis (see Figures 3 and 4 of Hopper as modified)
In regards to claim 6, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the plurality of teeth includes a sequence of teeth comprising at least one tooth that is unset (31 Hopper) and two teeth (32/33 Hopper as modified) which directly follow said at least one tooth along the longitudinal axis, the two teeth (32/33 as modified by Hopper) being set in opposite directions to one another, and the sequence is repeated along the longitudinal axis over all the teeth of the plurality of teeth (Hopper Fig. 3J).
In regards to claim 7, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the plurality of teeth includes a sequence of teeth comprising at least one tooth that is unset (41 Hopper), a first pair of teeth (42/43 Hopper) which directly follow said at least one tooth (41) along the longitudinal axis, the teeth (42/43) of the first pair of teeth being set in opposite directions to one another at a first set angle (fig. 4d/4e Hopper); a second paid of teeth (44/45 Hopper) which directly the first pair of teeth along the longitudinal axis, the teeth of the second pair of teeth being set in opposite directions to one another at a second set angle and the sequence is repeated along the longitudinal axis over all the teeth of the plurality of teeth. (Fig. 4N)
In regards to claim 8, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses that the first set angle is smaller than the second set angle (see Figs. 4N Hopper).
In regards to claim 9, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the respective hard metal blades (13) form a tooth tip (top forward tip of 13) above a concave chip space (22) of each tooth, the tooth tips pointing in a cutting direction.
In regards to claim 10, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the respective hard metal blades (13) are fixedly connected to the associated tooth base (12) (brazed; col. 3, lines 16-22)
In regards to claim 11, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the base section of the sawblade is formed with a tempered steel (steel band 10), and the respective hard metal blades are formed with a tungsten carbide-cobalt hard metal (carbide tip 13).
In regards to claim 13, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the respective hard metal blades (13) are joined thermally to the associated tooth base (12) (brazed; col. 3, lines 16-22).
In regards to claim 14, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein each associated tooth base adjoins the respective hard metal blade in a flush manner on both sides along a longitudinal axis of the base section. (“Also, the upper surface 14 of the steel part 12 is raised so that it forms a continuation of (i.e., is aligned with) the upper surface 15 of the carbide tip 13, with no step or discontinuity existing at the braze joint 16” (col. 3, lines 57-61).
In regards to claim 17, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the first bevel has a first bevel angle and the second bevel has a second bevel angle that is different from the first bevel angle (e.g. left and right sides of the teeth of either Fig. 3D or 4D Hopper).
In regards to claim 18, the modified device of Hayden, Sr. discloses wherein the first bevel width (e.g. 32 right side bevel; Fig. 3D) is greater than the second bevel width (32 left side bevel; Fig. 3D Hopper), and the first bevel (e.g. 32 right side bevel; Fig. 3D) of each of the first subset of the plurality of teeth is arranged at a greater distance from the longitudinal axis than the second bevel (32 left side bevel; Fig. 3D Hopper) of each of the first subset of the plurality of teeth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 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