DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner attempted to contact Attorneys Kevin McGrath and Joe Key to discuss proposed amendments to place the case into condition for allowance, but was unable to connect and establish contact. The proposed amendments, set forth below, would place the case in condition for allowance. The Examiner welcomes the Attorney to establish contact after receipt of this action to further discuss the allowable subject matter.
Claim 1, An accessory tool for a power-driven oscillating tool, the accessory tool including:
a plate portion;
an attachment portion provided on the plate portion and configured to couple the accessory tool to the power-driven oscillating tool for oscillating the accessory tool about a rotational axis;
a first working section defined along a first peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the first working section including a first convexly curved portion;
a second working section defined along a second peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the second working section including a second convexly curved portion; and
a single notch formed in a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, positioned between the first convexly curved portion and the second convexly curved portion;
wherein the single notch includes a first side edge that intersects the first convexly curved portion to form a first front corner portion and a second side edge that intersects the second convexly curved portion to form a second front corner portion;
an outer extent of the second working section has a second width in a width direction perpendicular to a plane of the plate portion and an outer extent of the first working section has a first width in the width direction, wherein the second width is different than the first width and provides a second effective cutting thickness that is different than a first effective cutting thickness of the first working section such that the first working section removes a different thickness of material than the second working section.
Claim 14, wherein the plate portion further includes a single notch formed in a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion between the first convexly curved portion and the second convexly curved portion.
Claim 26-Canceled.
Claim 29, A power-driven oscillating tool, comprising:
a shaft that oscillates about a rotational axis;
an attachment mechanism coupled to the shaft; and an accessory tool coupled to the shaft by the attachment mechanism, wherein the accessory includes:
a plate portion;
an attachment portion provided on the plate portion that is coupled to the attachment mechanism for oscillating the accessory tool about the rotational axis of the shaft;
a first working section defined along a first peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the first working section including a first convexly curved portion;
a second working section defined along a second peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the second working section including a second convexly curved portion; and
a single notch formed in a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, positioned between the first convexly curved portion and the second convexly curved portion;
wherein the single notch includes a first side edge that intersects the first convexly curved portion to form a first front corner portion and a second side edge that intersects the second convexly curved portion to form a second front corner portion;
an outer extent of the second working section has a second width in a width direction perpendicular to a plane of the plate portion and an outer extent of the first working section has a first width in the width direction, wherein the second width is different than the first width and provides a second effective cutting thickness that is different than a first effective cutting thickness of the first working section such that the first working section removes a different thickness of material than the second working section.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a length of the first side edge (Claim 27, lines 1-2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed January 21, 2026 annd May 27, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a length of the first side edge” was not originally disclosed and is new matter. The specification discloses on Page 10, Para [0040], a first end portion 310A of the working section intersects a first straight edge portion 330A. The Examiner is not permitted to rely solely on the drawings when there is no disclosure of the drawings being to scale and no reference to dimensions. The Examiner is not permitted to measure the spacing distance and the length of the first side edge to arrive at the spacing is greater than a length of the first side edge. According to MPEP 2125, Section II, “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).” In this instance, as shown in Annotated Figure 1 below, the length (which is not to scale) is very close in length to the spacing between the corners. It cannot be reasonably concluded the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a length of the first side edge absent an omission of the drawings being to scale and dimensions.
Regarding claim 1 (lines 17-19), the phrase “a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft (Claim 1, lines 17-19)” is new matter. The specification sets forth in at least Figures 3A-14C a spacing between a first front corner portion and second front corner portion. There are no details in the specification to the oscillating angle in which the blade travels. There are further no dimensions defining the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion. The Examiner is not permitted to rely solely on the drawings when there is no disclosure of the drawings being to scale and no reference to dimensions. The Examiner is not permitted to measure the spacing distance and without details to the oscillation angle, one cannot reasonably conclude a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft. According to MPEP 2125, Section II, “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).” Based on the lack of disclosed details it cannot be reasonably concluded that a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “wherein the oscillating angle of the power-driven oscillating tool is between 0.5 and 7 degrees” is new matter. The disclosure does not provide any details to an oscillating angle of the power-driven tool being between 0.5 and 7 degrees.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-22, 24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The phrase “a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft (Claim 1, lines 17-19 and Claim 29, lines 18-20),” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the invention had possession at the time of filing the invention. The specification sets forth in at least Figures 3A-14C a spacing between a first front corner portion and second front corner portion. The specification sets forth in at least Figures 3A-14C a spacing between a first front corner portion and second front corner portion. There are no details in the specification to the oscillating angle in which the blade travels. There are further no dimensions defining the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion. The Examiner is not permitted to rely solely on the drawings when there is no disclosure of the drawings being to scale and no reference to dimensions. The Examiner is not permitted to measure the spacing distance and without details to the oscillation angle, one cannot reasonably conclude a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft. According to MPEP 2125, Section II, “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).” Based on the lack of disclosed details it cannot be reasonably concluded that a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase “wherein the oscillating angle of the power-driven oscillating tool is between 0.5 and 7 degrees” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the invention had possession at the time of filing the invention. The disclosure does not provide any details to an oscillating angle of the power-driven tool being between 0.5 and 7 degrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11,052,564 to Fellmann et al.
In re claim 1, as best understood, Fellmann teaches an accessory tool for a power-driven oscillating tool, the accessory tool including:
a plate portion (45);
an attachment portion (40) provided on the plate portion and configured to couple the accessory tool to the power-driven oscillating tool for oscillating the accessory tool about a rotational axis (Col. 1, lines 25-30; provides support that the tool can be an oscillating tool);
a first working section (as shown in at least Figure 1) defined along a first peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the first working section including a first convexly curved portion;
a second working section (as shown in Figure 1) defined along a second peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the second working section including a second convexly curved portion; and
a notch (33) formed in a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, positioned between the first convexly curved portion and the second convexly curved portion (as shown in at least Figure 1);
wherein the notch includes a first side edge (see Annotated Figure 12 below) that intersects the first convexly curved portion to form a first front corner portion and a second side edge (see Annotated Figure 2, below) that intersects the second convexly curved portion to form a second front corner portion;
wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is (capable of being) configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft
Note, the preamble is directed to an accessory tool, not the oscillating tool. The tool, alone, can travel an extremely small distance via manual/human rotation.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 26, as best understood, wherein the oscillating angle of the power-driven oscillating tool is (capable of being) between 0.5 and 7 degrees.
Note, the preamble is directed to an accessory tool, not the oscillating tool. The tool, alone, can travel through an extremely small angle via manual/human rotation.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellmann et al. and in further view of US Patent No. 11,738,398 to Heath et al.
In re claims 7 and 8, Fellmann teaches an accessory tool having a disk-shape, but does not teach wherein the plate portion further includes a first straight rear edge that intersects the first working section at substantially a right angle to form a first rear corner portion and the plate portion further includes a second straight rear edge that intersects the second working section at substantially a right angle to form a second rear corner portion.
Heath teaches in Figures 3-8 that accessory tools for an oscillating power tool can have various shapes. Figure 6 provides a blade having a circular contour with a first straight rear edge that intersects the first working section at a substantially right angle to form a first rear corner portion and a second straight rear edge that intersects the second working section at substantially a right angle to form a second rear corner portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the blade of Fellmann to have a circular contour with a first and second straight edges which intersect the first and second working portions at substantially rights angles as taught by Heath to accomplish a desired finished product. Changing the shape of the blade of Fellmann based on the desired finished work product is an obvious design choice. One having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to all saw blades when building the device from the ground up to determine which circular contour would be most effective in cutting the desired material to achieve the desired outcome.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellmann in view of Heath et al. as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 4,739,745 to Browning and in further view of US Patent D807,719 to Gopi and US Patent Application Publication No. 20150135915 to Mann.
In re claim 9, modified Fellmann teaches wherein the plate portion is formed of a material and the first working section includes a second material (Col. 22, lines 50-56), but does not teach the plate portion is formed from a first material and the first working section includes a second material that is different from the first material.
Browning teaches an accessory tool having a plate portion formed of a first material (Abstract) and a first working section formed of a second different material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the plate portion of Fellmann from a first material different from the material in the first working section as taught by Browning, since steel is advantageous (in the saw blade art) for providing high strength and wear resistance.
Regarding claim 9, modified Fellmann teaches the plate portion having a working section having a contour, but does not teach the working section includes a first straight portion wherein the first straight portion extends from the first convexly curved portion to the first rear corner portion.
Gopi teaches an accessory (cutting) tool having a working section which includes a first convexly curved portion which transitions into a first straight portion and extends to a first rear corner (as shown in at least Figure 6).
Mann teaches an accessory (cutting) tool having a plate portion and a working portion which transitions from a convexly curved portion to a first straight portion and subsequently to the first rear corner portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the blade of Fellmann to have a first straight portion extending from the convexly curved portion to a first rear corner as taught by both Gopi and Mann to accomplish a desired finished product. Changing the shape of the blade of Fellmann based on the desired finished product is an obvious design choice. One having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to all saw blades when building the device from the ground up to determine which circular contour would be most effective in cutting the desired material to achieve the desired outcome.
Regarding claim 22, modified Fellmann teaches the attachment portion includes an opening that includes a substantially u-shaped portion (as shown in at least Figure 2) having a first side and a second side, wherein the second side opposes the first side (as shown in at least Figure 2), but does not teach the first and second sides are parallel and the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a spacing between the first side and the second side of the u-shaped portion of the opening of the attachment portion.
Mann teaches an attachment portion having an opening with a plurality of u-shaped portions having a first side which is parallel to a second side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the substantially u-shaped openings in the attachment portion of Fellmann to have a u-shape with first and second sides in parallel as taught by Mann, which is an obvious design choice for shaping the attachment portion to secure it to a corresponding cutting tool to prevent unwanted movement and misaligned cuts. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the size of the u-shaped portions in the attachment portion would correspond to the oscillating tool, which is being attached. Modified Fellmann teaches the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portions can be various dimensions. The modification would have led to the spacing between the front corner portion and the second corner portion being greater than the spacing between the first and second sides of the u-shaped portion. Applicant has not set forth this spacing between the front corners or the u-shaped opening as critical; therefore, sizing the u-shaped portions to be smaller than the spacing would have been an obvious design choice based on the tool the accessory is attached to. Changing the shape of the u-shaped portions to be smaller than the spacing would further not impact the functionality of the accessory, which it to cut.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellman in view of US Patent No. 9,676,114 to Kuo et al.
In re claim 24, Fellmann teaches the first working section has an effective cutting thickness (Col. 9, lines 10-23), but does not teach the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than the effective cutting thickness.
Kuo teaches an accessory tool having a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion which can have different spacings (slot widths) and different thicknesses (with respect to the other slots, Col. 2, lines 7-26). Kuo teaches the spacing (width) can be from 0.5 to 3mm and the thickness can be from 1.5 to 2.5 mm. Based on the teachings of Kuo the spacing (width) could be 3mm and the thickness 1.5mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the slots of Fellmann to have a spacing between the first corner portion and the second front corner portion greater than a thickness as taught by Kuo to maintain removal of debris to prevent cutting interference (Col. 2, lines 8-13).
Regarding claim 27, Fellmann teaches a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion, but does not teach a the spacing is greater than a length of the first side edge.
Kuo teaches an accessory tool having a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion which can have different slot spacing (widths) and different slot lengths (depths; with respect to the other slots, Col. 2, lines 7-26). Kuo teaches the spacing (width) can be from 0.5 to 3mm and the length (depth) can be from 1 to 3 mm. Based on the teachings of Kuo the spacing (width) could be 3mm and the length (depth) of the first side edge could be 1mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the slots of Fellmann to have a spacing between the first corner portion and the second front corner portion greater than a length of the first side edge as taught by Kuo to maintain removal of debris to prevent cutting interference (Col. 2, lines 8-13).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellman in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20210114125 to Heath et al.
In re claim 28, Fellman teaches an accessory tool, but does not teach wherein: the attachment portion includes: one or more segments that collectively define an arcuate opening configured to receive a portion of a tool clamping mechanism; and
a radial opening spaced radially outward from the arcuate opening, wherein a diameter of the arcuate opening is greater than a width of the radial opening; and
a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a diameter of the arcuate opening.
Heath teaches an accessory tool having an attachment portion (256) includes: one segments that defines an arcuate opening (as shown in at least Figure 9) configured to receive a portion of a tool clamping mechanism; and
a radial opening (266) spaced radially outward from the arcuate opening, wherein a diameter of the arcuate opening (see Annotated Figure 3, below) is greater than a width of the radial opening; and
a spacing between the first front corner portion (290a) and the second front corner (290b) portion is greater than a diameter of the arcuate opening (as shown in at least Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape opening of Fellman to have an arcuate shape and a radial opening such that a spacing between the first corner portion and the second corner portion is greater than a diameter of the arcuate opening as taught by Heath to maintain a secure connection between the accessory tool and power tool and remove material at a desired rate.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,427,230 to Barnardi et al. in view of Fellman.
In re claim 29, Barnardi teaches a power driven-oscillating tool, comprising:
a shaft that oscillates about a rotational axis (Col. 1, lines 20-31);
an attachment mechanism coupled to the shaft (Col. 1, lines 20-31); and
an accessory tool (Fig. 24) coupled to the shaft by the attachment mechanism, wherein the accessory includes a plate portion (as shown in at least Figure 24).
Barnardi does not teach an attachment portion provided on the plate portion that is coupled to the attachment mechanism for oscillating the accessory tool about the rotational axis of the shaft;
a first working section defined along a first peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the first working section including a first convexly curved portion;
a second working section defined along a second peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the second working section including a second convexly curved portion; and
a notch formed in a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, positioned between the first convexly curved portion and the second convexly curved portion;
wherein the notch includes a first side edge that intersects the first convexly curved portion to form a first front corner portion and a second side edge that intersects the second convexly curved portion to form a second front corner portion;
wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft.
Fellmann teaches an accessory tool for a power-driven oscillating tool, the accessory tool includes:
a plate portion (45);
an attachment portion (40) provided on the plate portion and configured to couple the accessory tool to the power-driven oscillating tool for oscillating the accessory tool about a rotational axis (Col. 1, lines 25-30; provides support that the tool can be an oscillating tool);
a first working section (as shown in at least Figure 1) defined along a first peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the first working section including a first convexly curved portion;
a second working section (as shown in Figure 1) defined along a second peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the second working section including a second convexly curved portion; and
a notch (33) formed in a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, positioned between the first convexly curved portion and the second convexly curved portion (as shown in at least Figure 1);
wherein the notch includes a first side edge (see Annotated Figure 12 below) that intersects the first convexly curved portion to form a first front corner portion and a second side edge (see Annotated Figure 2, below) that intersects the second convexly curved portion to form a second front corner portion;
wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is (capable of being) configured to be greater than a distance traveled by the first front corner portion through an oscillating angle of the shaft.
Note, the preamble is directed to an accessory tool, not the oscillating tool. The tool, alone, can travel an extremely small distance via manual/human rotation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the accessory tool of Barnardi as taught by Fellman to maintain effective removal of material of the desired material being cut.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5 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.
Claims 11-15 and 17-21 are allowed. Kuo teaches an accessory tool including an attachment portion, a plate portion, a first working section and a second working section. The saw blade of Kuo has a thickness within a range of 1.5 to 2.5mm and a plurality of slots having different lengths and widths. Kuo does not teach an outer extent of the second working section has a second width in the width direction different than the first width, the second width providing a second effective cutting thickness that is different than the first effective cutting thickness that removes a different thickness of material than the first effective cutting thickness.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection to claim 27, which is previously recited in claim 1 has been maintained for the reasons set forth in the Office Action above.
The drawing objection to claim 11 in the Office Action mailed February 25, 2026 has been obviated by the amendments filed May 27, 2026.
The claim objection the Office Action mailed February 25, 2026 been obviated by the amendments filed May 27, 2026.
The 112(a) rejection with respect to claim 1 to “wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a depth of the first working section” has been overcome by the amendments filed May 27, 2027. However, a 112(a) rejection was made due to similar language in claim 27 in the above rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-22, 24, 26-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights