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 .
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 1, lines 16-17),” “a first die of the attachment portion (Claim 11, line 7),” “straight first side edge portion (Claim 11, lines 9-10),” “third end (Claim 11, line 11),” “straight second side edge portion (Claim 11, line 15)” 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 11 (line 16), the phrase should recite “a straight second side edge portion extending rearward from the second convexly curved portion” to more appropriately reflect the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The amendment filed January 21, 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.
Note, for the purpose of this rejection, it has been interpreted, the first side edge and the first straight edge portion are interchangeable terms.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
PNG
media_image1.png
681
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, the phrase “wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than depth of the first working section” 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 depth to arrive at the spacing is greater than a depth of the first working section. 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 depth (which is not to scale) is very close in length to the spacing between the corners. Figure 9, does not further support this limitation, since once again the spacing between the first and second corners and the depth of the notch appear to have very similar distances. It cannot be reasonably concluded the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a depth of the first working portion absent an omission of the drawings being to scale and dimensions.
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 1-5, 7-9, 22-24, and claim 25 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 “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 described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor(s) had possession at the time of filing 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 on Page 4, above, 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 25, the phrase “wherein a spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than depth of the first working section” was not originally described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor(s) had possession at the time of filing 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 depth to arrive at the spacing is greater than a depth of the first working section. 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 depth (which is not to scale) is very close in length to the spacing between the corners. Figure 9, does not further support this limitation, since once again the spacing between the first and second corners and the depth of the notch appear to have very similar distances. It cannot be reasonably concluded the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than a depth of the first working portion absent an omission of the drawings being to scale and dimensions.
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 1, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,052,564 to Fellmann et al. in view of US Patent No. 9,676,114 to Kuo.
In re claim 1, 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 and a second front corner.
Note, the preamble is directed to an accessory tool, not the oscillating tool.
Regarding claim 1, Fellmann teaches an accessory tool having a spacing between the first a spacing between the first front corner and a second front corner for separating the cutting edges (31). Fellmann does not teach 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.
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 widths and different slot depths (with respect to the other slots, Col. 2, lines 7-26). Kuo teaches the width can be from 0.5 to 3mm and the depth from 1 to 3 mm. Based on the teachings of Kuo the width could be 3mm and the length 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
446
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 23, modified Fellmann teaches wherein the first side edge is configured to engage a workpiece to remove a material from the workpiece.
Note, the first side edge merely has to be capable of engaging a workpiece, in which it is.
In re claim 24, modified Fellmann teaches the first working section has an effective cutting thickness (t, Col. 9, lines 10-23); and
the spacing between the first front corner portion and the second front corner portion is greater than the effective cutting thickness (Col. 2, lines 7-26, Kuo).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellmann in view of Kuo et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20240316833 to Beljean.
In re claims 2-5, modified Fellmann teaches a second working section has a second effective cutting thickness (Fig. 1), but does not teach the second effective cutting thickness is different than a first effective cutting thickness of the first working section (claim 2), wherein the second effective cutting thickness of the second working section is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section (claim 3), wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is greater than a first material thickness of the first cutting section (claim 4), wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is substantially the same as a first material thickness of the first working section, and the second working section includes a contoured surface such that the second effective cutting thickness of the second working section is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section (claim 5), and further comprising a third working section defined along a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, wherein: the first working section has a first effective thickness, the second working section has a second effective thickness that is different than the first effective cutting thickness, and the third working section has a third effective cutting thickness that is different than the first effective thickness and the second effective cutting thickness.
Beljean teaches a circular saw (2) which has a second working section having a second effective cutting thickness with a different thickness than the first effective cutting thickness in the first working section, wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section second (Para 0049), and wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is substantially the same as a first material thickness of the first working section (note, there are several sections along the axial cross section, which includes the first working section and the second working sections that have substantially the same mechanical thickness), and the second working section includes a contoured surface (the surface of the saw is contoured, as it extends about a circle) such that the second effective cutting thickness of the second working section is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section, and further comprising a third working section defined along a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, wherein: the first working section has a first effective thickness, the second working section has a second effective thickness that is different than the first effective cutting thickness.
Note, it has been interpreted that the first working section, has a plurality of sections, in which have a different and lesser thickness than the second working section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the blade of modified Fellmann to have a second working section having a second effective cutting thickness with a different and greater thickness than the first effective cutting thickness in the first working section as taught by Beljean in order to impart sufficient mechanical straight to the portion (of the blade) which engages the post ((of the tool), Para 0049).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellmann et al. in view of Kuo, as applied to the above claims, 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 modified 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 et al. in view of Kuo, and 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 11-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,052,564 to Fellmann et al. in view of US Patent No. 4,739,745 to Browning, and in further view of Gopi, and in further view of Mann.
In re claim 11, Fellmann teaches an accessory tool for a power-driven oscillating tool, the accessory
tool including (15):
an attachment portion (40) provided on a plate portion (45,47) and configured to couple the accessory tool to the power-driven oscillating tool) Col. 1, lines 25-30; provides support that the tool can be an oscillating tool); and
a plate portion (45,47), (capable of being) formed from a first material and including:
a first working section (as shown in at least Figure 1) that includes a second material (Col. 22, lines 49-63) that extends along a first side of the attachment portion and is defined along a first peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the first working section including a first convexly curved portion that extends from a first end to a second end (as shown in at least Figure 1)
a second working section that extends along a second side of the attachment portion (as shown in at least Figure 1) that is opposite the first side of the attachment portion and defined along a second peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, the second working section including a second convexly curved portion,
wherein the attachment portion (40).
Note, it has been interpreted, that the first and second working portions extend along the same contour as each of the first and second sides of the attachment portion. Per Merriam Webster, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term along is in accordance with.
Regarding claim 11, Fellmann teaches the plate portion is formed of a first material and the first working section is formed from an abrasive material, but does not explicitly teach the first material is different than the second 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 11, Fellmann teaches an accessory tool having a first working section, but does not teach a straight first side edge portion that includes the second material and that extends rearward from the second end of the first convexly curved portion to a third end, a straight second side edge portion extending rearward from the first convexly curved portion, a straight first rear edge portion that intersects the third end of the straight first side edge portion of the first working section to form a first rear corner portion, and the attachment portion is located between the first end and the third end.
Gopi teaches an accessory (cutting) tool having a working section with a first straight edge portion that extends rearward from a first convexly curved portion to a third end (as shown in at least Figure 6), a straight second side edge portion (opposite the first straight edge portion) extending rearward from the second convexly curved portion, a straight first rear edge portion (see Annotated Figure 3, below) that intersects the third end of the straight first side edge portion of the first working section to form a first rear corner portion, and an attachment portion is located between first end and the third end.
PNG
media_image3.png
701
1161
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mann teaches an accessory (cutting) tool having a working section with a first straight edge portion that extends rearward from a first convexly curved portion to a third end (as shown in at least Figure 1), a straight second side edge portion (opposite the first straight edge portion) extending rearward from the second convexly curved portion, a straight first rear edge portion that intersects the third end of the straight first side edge portion of the first working section to form a first rear corner portion, and an attachment portion is located between first end and the third end (as shown in at least Figure 1)
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 and second straight edge portion extending from the convexly curved portion to a third end with the attachment portion between the first and third ends 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.
In re claim 12, modified Fellmann teaches wherein the first peripheral edge portion and the first rear edge portion intersect at substantially a right angle (as shown in at least Figure 1, Gopi and Mann).
In re claim 13, modified Fellmann teaches wherein the second peripheral edge portion and the second rear edge portion intersect at substantially a right angle (as shown in at least Figure 1, Gopi and Mann).
In re claim 14, modified Fellmann teaches wherein the plate portion further includes a
notch (33, Fellmann) formed in a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion between the first convexly curved portion and the second convexly curved portion.
In re claim 15, modified Fellmann teaches wherein the notch (33, Fellmann) includes a first straight side edge (see Annotated Figure 2, Pg. 8, above) that intersects the first convexly curved portion to form a first front corner portion and a second straight side edge (see Annotated Figure 8, above) that intersects the second convexly curved portion to form a second front corner portion.
In re claim 21, modified Fellmann teaches wherein the plate portion includes a straight second rear edge portion that intersects the straight second side edge portion of the second working section to form a second corner portion (as shown in at least Figure 1, Gopi and Mann).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellmann et al. in view of Browning, and in further view of Gopi, and in further view of Mann, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20240316833 to Beljean.
In re claims 16-20, modified Fellmann teaches a second working section has a second effective cutting thickness (Fig. 1), but does not teach the second effective cutting thickness is different than a first effective cutting thickness of the first working section (claim 16), wherein the second effective cutting thickness of the second working section is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section (claim 17), wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is greater than a first material thickness of the first cutting section (claim 18), wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is substantially the same as a first material thickness of the first working section, and the second working section includes a contoured surface such that the second effective cutting thickness of the second working section is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section (claim 19), and further comprising a third working section defined along a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, wherein: the first working section has a first effective thickness, the second working section has a second effective thickness that is different than the first effective cutting thickness, and the third working section has a third effective cutting thickness that is different than the first effective thickness and the second effective cutting thickness.
Beljean teaches a circular saw (2) which has a second working section having a second effective cutting thickness with a different thickness than the first effective cutting thickness in the first working section, wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section second (Para 0049), and wherein the second working section has a second material thickness that is substantially the same as a first material thickness of the first working section (note, there are several sections along the axial cross section, which includes the first working section and the second working sections that have substantially the same mechanical thickness), and the second working section includes a contoured surface (the surface of the saw is contoured, as it extends about a circle) such that the second effective cutting thickness of the second working section is greater than the first effective cutting thickness of the first working section, and further comprising a third working section defined along a third peripheral edge portion of the plate portion, wherein: the first working section has a first effective thickness, the second working section has a second effective thickness that is different than the first effective cutting thickness, and the third working section has a third effective cutting thickness that is different than the first effective thickness and the second effective cutting thickness (as shown in Figures 2A,2C)
Note, it has been interpreted that the first working section, has a plurality of sections, in which have a different and lesser thickness than the second working section. It has further been interpreted, that along the third peripheral edge which includes the third working section, Beljean teaches a third thickness, that is different in thickness than the first and second working sections (which have a plurality of sections with differentiating thicknesses).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the blade of modified Fellamn to have a second working section having a second effective cutting thickness with a different and greater thickness than the first effective cutting thickness in the first working section and a third effective thickness different from the first and second effective thicknesses as taught by Beljean in order to impart sufficient mechanical straight to the portion (of the blade) which engages the post ((of the tool), Para 0049).
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 11,052,564 to Fellmann et al. in view of US Patent No. 4,739,745 to Browning, and in further view of Kuo.
In re claim 25, Fellmann teaches an accessory tool for a power-driven oscillating tool, the accessory tool including:
a plate portion (45) (capable of being formed) by a first material;
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) that includes a second material, the 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 (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;
a first working section has a depth that extends in a first direction from an outer extend of the accessory tool to an inner extend of the second material, wherein the first direction is transverse to the rotational axis and intersects the rotational axis;
wherein a spacing between the first front corner and a second front corner.
Note, the preamble is directed to an accessory tool, not the oscillating tool and the corner portions of Fellmann are rounded.
Regarding claim 25, Fellmann teaches the plate portion is formed of a first material and the first working section is formed from an abrasive material, but does not explicitly teach the first material is different than the second 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 25, Fellmann teaches an accessory tool having a spacing between the first a spacing between the first front corner and a second front corner for separating the cutting edges (31). Fellmann does not teach 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.
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 widths and different slot depths (with respect to the other slots, Col. 2, lines 7-26). Kuo teaches the width can be from 0.5 to 3mm and the depth from 1 to 3 mm. Based on the teachings of Kuo the width could be 3mm and the length 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 depth of the first working section as taught by Kuo to maintain removal of debris to prevent cutting interference (Col. 2, lines 8-13).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections in the Office Action mailed November 18, 2025 have been obviated by the amendments filed January 21, 2026.
The specification objection to the spacing between the corners and the depth (now claim 25) has been maintained.
After further consideration, the specification objection to claim 22, since this subject matter is shown in at least Figure 9.
The 112, first paragraph rejection to the spacing between the corners and the depth (now claim 25) has been maintained.
After further consideration, the 112, first paragraph rejection to claim 22, since this subject matter is shown in at least Figure 9.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combinations of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the spacing between the first front corner and the second front corner portion with respect to the depth per CAD is more than 2.5 times the depth of the working surface on Page 10 of the arguments filed January 21, 2026. The Attorney argues the technical benefit permits the working section to engage a corner portion of a channel while the remainder of the accessory tool can clear the corner.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s inventive concept; however, the reliance of a drawing via CAD to arrive at the spacing between the first front corner and a second corner is 2.5 times more than the depth in a response to arguments does not permit entry of this information for the purpose of examination (in other words, the Examiner cannot rely on or use this numerical value). If, in fact, if this measurement is precise, the Examiner suggest Applicant file a Declaration including the CAD illustration (and specs) to support this feature and/or a CIP including this dimension (and perhaps indicating this dimension is critical, since this concept is important to the overall invention). As stated in the above rejection, the specification does not disclose any details to the spacing between the first front corner and the second corner being greater than the depth. The Examiner is not solely permitted to rely on the drawings, per MPEP 2125, Section II. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments to proportions; however, since the drawings are not to scale, the relationship (or proportions) between the spacing and the depth is not readily clear. In this particular instance, the notch appears to be a substantially u-shaped cutout and without any specific details set forth in the disclosure to the relationship between the spacing and the depth, the drawings cannot be relied on to reasonably conclude the spacing between the corners is greater than the depth. After further consideration, the new matter objection and rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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