DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in
the application. Newly added claim 21 is also pending in the application.
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 1-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee Foong et al. (US 20150183131 A1 - hereinafter Foong) in view of Ariel Miranda et al. (US 20080092714 A1 - hereinafter Miranda).
Regarding claim 1, Foong teaches a blade (Fig. 3, Blade 100) for sawing a panel (Fig. 3,
Workpiece 104), the blade comprising: a first blade portion (Fig. 3, portion of Protuberance 103 location below 102) configured to saw the panel along a first direction (Examiner interprets that this is intended use, and that the first blade portion is capable of sawing the work piece along a first direction), wherein the panel includes a plurality of panel level packages (PLPs) arranged in the first direction and a second direction which is substantially perpendicular to the first direction
(Examiner interprets that the blade would still be able to perform its necessary function on a
panel with these specifications. It has been held that [i]nclusion of the material or article worked
upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312
F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)); and a second blade portion (Fig. 3, Blade Edge
102) arranged on an upper surface of the first blade portion (Fig. 3, where the upper surface is
defined as the top ¾ of the vertical right side-facing outer surface of the aforementioned portion of 103) configured to saw the panel along the second direction (Examiner interprets that this is intended use, and that the second blade portion is capable of sawing the work piece along a second direction), wherein a width of the second blade portion is greater than a width of the first blade portion (Fig. 3). Foong also teaches wherein the first blade portion includes a first blade head (Fig. 2, the lower half of the aforementioned portion of Protuberance 103) with first lower ends (Fig. 2, left and right bottom outer corner of Protuberance 103), wherein the second blade portion includes a second blade head (Fig. 3, the lower half of Blade Edge 102) with second lower ends (Fig. 3, left and right bottom front-facing corner of Blade Edge 102), wherein the second blade head comprises a planar lower surface (Fig. 2, bottom half of the vertical left side-facing surface of the righmost Blade Edge 102) on (in this situation, Examiner defines “on” as “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with”, as also defined by Merriam-Webster) the upper surface of the first blade portion, and wherein the second lower ends are arranged between the planar lower surface and the side surfaces (Fig. 3, left and right bottom horizontal surfaces of Blade Edge 102) of the second blade head, wherein the planar lower surface of the second blade is parallel to the upper surface of the first blade portion (Fig. 3, both surfaces are vertical in the same plane, and therefore parallel) and perpendicular to the side surface of the second blade head (Fig. 3, the side surfaces are horizontal and therefore perpendicular to the vertical planar lower surface).
Foong fails to teach that the first lower ends and second lower end are rounded.
However, Miranda teaches a blade head which has a rounded shape (Fig. 1B, Leading
Edge 128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the first and second lower ends of Foong to have a rounded shape
as taught by Miranda as a matter of design choice. 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.
Regarding claim 2, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the panel has a
rectangular shape (Fig. 3), wherein the first direction comprises a first axial direction of the
panel, wherein the second direction comprises a second axial direction of the panel, and wherein
a length of the panel in the first axial direction is greater than a length of the panel in the second
axial direction (Examiner interprets that the blade would still be able to perform its necessary
function on a panel with these specifications. It has been held that [i]nclusion of the material or
article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In
re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 3, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein a gap between
the PLPs along the first direction is wider than a gap between the PLPs along the second
direction (Examiner interprets that the blade would still be able to perform its necessary function
on a panel with these specifications. It has been held that [i]nclusion of the material or article
worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto,
312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 4, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the first blade
portion comprises: a plurality of first grits ([0014]) arranged on a surface of the first blade head.
Regarding claim 5, Foong further teaches that the first blade head has a rectangular
shape (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, the existing combination of Foong and Miranda fails to explicitly
teach the attributes of claim 6.
However, Miranda further teaches a blade wherein a plurality of grits (Fig. 1B, grits 125,
135, and 145) are arranged on side surfaces (Fig. 1B, Core 120, First Surface Region 130, and
Second Surface Region 140) and a lower surface (Fig. 1B, tip of Leading Edge 128) of a blade
head (Leading Edge 128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the first blade head of Foong and Miranda such that the plurality
of first grits are arranged on side surfaces and lower surfaces of the first blade head as taught by
Miranda. Doing so is beneficial as having grit across various surfaces allows for the optimization
of grit size and concentration across the first blade head in a way that can reduce chipping
(Miranda, [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the width of the
first blade portion is in a range of about 15 micrometers to about 20 micrometers.
Foong fails to teach wherein the width of the first blade portion is in a range of about 160
micrometers to about 220 micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width to be about 160 micrometers to
about 220 micrometers as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105
USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The width of the first blade portion is disclosed to be a result
effective variable by Foong as it needs to be optimized to improve the stability during cutting
(Foong, [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the second blade
portion comprises: a plurality of second grits ([0014]) arranged on a surface of the second blade
head.
Regarding claim 9, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 8, wherein the second blade
head has a rectangular shape (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the existing combination of Foong and Miranda fails to explicitly
teach the attributes of claim 10.
However, Miranda teaches a blade wherein a plurality of grits (Fig. 1B, grits 125, 135,
and 145) are arranged on side surfaces (Fig. 1B, Core 120, First Surface Region 130, and Second
Surface Region 140) and a lower surface (Fig. 1B, tip of Leading Edge 128) of a blade head
(Leading Edge 128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the second blade head of the combination of Foong and Miranda,
such that the plurality of second grits are arranged on side surfaces and lower surfaces of the
second blade head as taught by Miranda. Doing so is beneficial as having grit across various
surfaces allows for the optimization of grit size and concentration across the first blade head in a
way that can reduce chipping (Miranda, [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein the width of
the second blade portion is in a range of about 22.5 micrometers to about 30 micrometers (Fig. 3,
the width of the second blade portion includes the width of 103, and shoulder 106 and 107;
[0015] and [0016], 103 is 15-20 micrometers wide, and each shoulder width is 25% of the width
Foong fails to teach wherein the width of the second blade portion is in a range of about
220 micrometers to about 320 micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width to be about 220
micrometers to about 320 micrometers as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held
that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The width of a at least a portion of the second blade
portion is disclosed to be a result effective variable by Foong as it needs to be optimized to
improve the stability during cutting (Foong, [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, further comprising a lifter configured to lift the first blade portion and the second blade portion ([0017] – the chuck table which may be moved laterally is the lifter).
Regarding claim 13, Foong teaches a blade (Fig. 3, Blade 100) for sawing a panel (Fig. 3, Workpiece 104), the blade comprising: a first blade portion (Fig. 3, portion of Protuberance 103 location below 102) configured to saw the panel along a first direction (Examiner interprets that this is intended use, and that the first blade portion is capable of sawing the work piece along a first direction), wherein the panel includes a plurality of panel level packages (PLPs) arranged in the first direction and a second direction which is substantially perpendicular to the first direction (Examiner interprets that the blade would still be able to perform its necessary function on a panel with these specifications. It has been held that [i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)); and a second blade portion (Fig. 3, Blade Edge 102) arranged on an upper surface of the first blade portion (Fig. 3, where the upper surface is defined as the top ¾ of the vertical right side-facing outer surface of the aforementioned portion of 103) configured to saw the panel along the second direction (Examiner interprets that this is intended use, and that the second blade portion is capable of sawing the work piece along a second direction), wherein a width of the second blade portion is greater than a width of the first blade portion (Fig. 3). Foong also teaches wherein the first blade portion includes a first blade head (Fig. 2, the lower half of the aforementioned portion of Protuberance 103) with first lower ends (Fig. 2, left and right bottom outer corner of Protuberance 103), wherein the second blade portion includes a second blade head (Fig. 3, the lower half of Blade Edge 102) with second lower ends (Fig. 3, left and right bottom front-facing corner of Blade Edge 102), wherein the second blade head comprises a planar lower surface (Fig. 2, bottom half of the vertical left side-facing surface of the righmost Blade Edge 102) on (in this situation, Examiner defines “on” as “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with”, as also defined by Merriam-Webster) the upper surface of the first blade portion, and wherein the second lower ends are arranged between the planar lower surface and the side surfaces (Fig. 3, left and right bottom horizontal surfaces of Blade Edge 102) of the second blade head, wherein the planar lower surface of the second blade is parallel to the upper surface of the first blade portion (Fig. 3, both surfaces are vertical in the same plane, and therefore parallel) and perpendicular to the side surface of the second blade head (Fig. 3, the side surfaces are horizontal and therefore perpendicular to the vertical planar lower surface).
Foong fails to teach that the first lower ends and second lower ends are rounded.
However, Miranda teaches a blade head which has a rounded shape (Fig. 1B, Leading
Edge 128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the first and second lower ends of Foong to have a rounded
shape as taught by Miranda as a matter of design choice. 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.
Regarding claim 14, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 13, wherein the first
direction comprises a first axial direction of the panel, wherein the second direction comprises a
second axial direction of the panel, and wherein a length of the panel in the first axial direction is
greater than a length of the panel in the second axial direction (Examiner interprets that the blade
would still be able to perform its necessary function on a panel with these specifications. It has
been held that [i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed
does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459
(CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 15, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 13, wherein the first blade
portion comprises: a rectangular first blade head (Fig. 3, lower half of Protuberance 103); and a
plurality of first grits ([0014]).
The existing combination of Foong and Miranda fails to teach that the plurality of first
grits are arranged on side surfaces and a lower surface of the first blade head.
However, Miranda teaches a blade wherein a plurality of grits (Fig. 1B, grits 125, 135,
and 145) are arranged on side surfaces (Fig. 1B, Core 120, First Surface Region 130, and Second
Surface Region 140) and a lower surface (Fig. 1B, tip of Leading Edge 128) of a blade head
(Leading Edge 128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the first blade head of Miranda and Foong such that the plurality
of first grits are arranged on side surfaces and lower surfaces of the first blade head as taught by
Miranda. Doing so is beneficial as having grit across various surfaces allows for the optimization
of grit size and concentration across the first blade head in a way that can reduce chipping
(Miranda, [0019]).
Regarding claim 16, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 13, wherein the width of
the first blade portion is in a range of about 15 micrometers to about 20 micrometers.
Foong fails to teach wherein the width of the first blade portion is in a range of about 160
micrometers to about 220 micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width to be about 160 micrometers to
about 220 micrometers as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the
general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105
USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The width of the first blade portion is disclosed to be a result
effective variable by Foong as it needs to be optimized to improve the stability during cutting
(Foong, [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 13, wherein the second
blade portion comprises: a rectangular second blade head (Fig. 3, lower half of Protuberance
103); and a plurality of second grits ([0014]).
The existing combination of Foong and Miranda fails to teach that the plurality of first
grits are arranged on side surfaces and a lower surface of the first blade head.
However, Miranda teaches a blade wherein a plurality of grits (Fig. 1B, grits 125, 135,
and 145) are arranged on side surfaces (Fig. 1B, Core 120, First Surface Region 130, and Second
Surface Region 140) and a lower surface (Fig. 1B, tip of Leading Edge 128) of a blade head
(Leading Edge 128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the second blade head of Foong such that the plurality of second
grits are arranged on side surfaces and lower surfaces of the second blade head as taught by
Miranda. Doing so is beneficial as having grit across various surfaces allows for the optimization
of grit size and concentration across the second blade head in a way that can reduce chipping
(Miranda, [0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 13, wherein the width of
the second blade portion is in a range of about 22.5 micrometers to about 30 micrometers (Fig. 3,
the width of the second blade portion includes the width of 103, and shoulder 106 and 107;
[0015] and [0016], 103 is 15-20 micrometers wide, and each shoulder width is 25% of the width
of 103).
Foong fails to teach wherein the width of the second blade portion is in a range of about
220 micrometers to about 320 micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the width to be about 220
micrometers to about 320 micrometers as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held
that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The width of a at least a portion of the second blade
portion is disclosed to be a result effective variable by Foong as it needs to be optimized to
improve the stability during cutting (Foong, [0015]).
Regarding claim 21, Foong further teaches the blade of claim 1, wherein all of the second blade portion is disposed above the upper surface of the first blade portion (as it is defined the rejection of claim 1 above, the entirely of the first blade portion resides below the entirety of the second blade portion).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant contends that Foong does not teach the upper surface of the first blade portion facing towards the planar lower surface of the second blade head. The rejection of claim 1 has been amended to refer to a different upper surface and planar lower surface of Foong in response to Applicant’s amendments, and it can be seen in the rejection of claim 1 above that these limitations are taught by the new interpretation of Foong.
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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights