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 .
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 4 and 5 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it is unclear how a radius of a curvature increases at a constant rate or a non-constant rate. A curve is a polynomial function. The disclosure does not provide any support for the constant rate or the non-constant rate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, there are unlimited constant rate or non-constant rate. It is unclear where the boundaries of the rate of change of the radii are.
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, 2, 4-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lejuene (3,850,222).
Regarding claim 1, Lejuene teaches an ultrasonic cutting blade comprising:
a first end (end of the curved section of the blade or at screw 6);
a second end (end of the curved section of the blade or at screw 6); and
a curved body that extends between the first end and the second end,
wherein: the curved body comprises a first edge that is configured to contact a workpiece for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece; and
the curved body comprises a plurality of radii of curvature that varies between a non-zero minimum radius of curvature and a maximum radius of curvature from the first end to the second end .
See Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
1243
1058
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the term “ultrasonic cutting blade”, the blade in Lejuene is capable of being used as an ultrasonic blade when an ultrasonic source is provided since it has all the structure of the claimed blade.
Regarding claim 2, the curved body being axisymmetric is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it is unclear how the radius of the curve increases with a constant rate or non-constant rate since the curve follow a polynomial function. As best understood by the Examiner, the curved section at the tip is considered varying at a constant rate or non-constant rate since the disclosure does not define those terms.
Regarding claim 6, the blade has a longitudinal axis (vertical line running through the vertex), two edges (front and back), a surface extending between the two edge and forming an oblique angle with respect to the longitudinal axis. See Fig. 1. Official noetic is taken that it is known in the art that the cutting edge has a thinner edge compare to the back edge.
Regarding claim 7, the inside curved portion of the blade defines a concave surface.
Regarding claim 8, the maximum radius of the curvature is about 2 times greater than the minimum radius of the curvature. See annotated Fig. 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, the contour of the blade makes an arcuate cut on a workpiece.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejuene (3,850,222) in view of Straits (1,631,941) or Matsunaga (2005/0034801) or Miyazaki (2014/0230984).
Regarding claim 3, Lejuene teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the curved body having a first arcuate section and a second arcuate section extending to a tip of the blade.
Straits teaches a blade having a first arcuate section 16 and a second arcuate section 16 extending to a tip of the blade. See Fig. 5.
Matsunaga teaches a groove having a first arcuate section (at the tip) and a second arcuate section (away from the tip) extending to a tip of the blade. See Fig. 1.
Miyazaki teaches a groove having a first arcuate section (at the tip) and a second arcuate section (away from the tip) extending to a tip of the blade. See Fig. 2A.
PNG
media_image2.png
808
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention the modify the blade in Lejuene such that it has a first arcuate section and a second arcuate section extending to a tip of the blade as taught by Straits or Matsunaga or Miyazaki for making the grooves having those shapes upon request of customers.
Regarding claims 4-5, Lejuene teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for radii of the curves of the blade varying with a constant rate or a non-constant rate, to provide a desire function for the increasing radius such as a constant rate or a non-constant rate would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the curve), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. In re Swain et al., 33 CCPA 1250.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejuene (3,850,222).
Regarding claims 8-12, Lejuene discloses the claimed invention except for the maximum radius of the curvature about 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 times greater than the minimum radius of the curvature. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to make the maximum radius of the curvature about 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10 times greater than the minimum radius of the curvature since such modification is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art per In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 or per demands of customers on how wide the grooves are.
Regarding claim 13, Lejuene discloses the claimed invention except for the maximum radius of the curvature about 1.5 inches and the minimum radius of the curvature about 0.25 inch. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to make the maximum radius of the curvature about 1.5 inches and the minimum radius of the curvature about 0.25 inch since such modification is within the knowledge of one skilled in the art per In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 or per demands of customers on how wide the grooves are.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejuene (3,850,222) in view of Love (2,995,183).
Lejuene teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a first shank and a second shank (the portions of the blade receiving the screws 6) of the blade being thicker than the curve body.
Love teaches a blade 302 having a first shank and the second shank being thicker than the curve body. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make thicker shanks in the blade of Lejuene as taught by Love for increasing structuring strength of the shanks.
Claim 15 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lejuene (3,850,222) in view of Straits (1,631,941) or Matsunaga (2005/0034801) or Miyazaki (2014/0230984) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view Love (2,995,183).
The modified blade of Lejuene teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a first shank and a second shank (the portions of the blade receiving the screws 6) of the blade being thicker than the curve body.
Love teaches a blade 302 having a first shank and the second shank being thicker than the curve body. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make thicker shanks in the blade of Lejuene as taught by Love for increasing structuring strength of the shanks.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (8,632,377) in view of Lejuene (3,850,222).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka teaches an ultrasonic cutting system substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
an ultrasonic cutting blade 34; and
an ultrasonic cutting tool (26, 27) that transmits ultrasonic vibrations to the ultrasonic cutting blade, wherein:
the ultrasonic cutting blade comprises:
a first end (end of the curved section of the blade or at screw 6);
a second end (end of the curved section of the blade or at screw 6); and
a curved body that extends between the first end and the second end;
the curved body comprises a first edge that is configured to contact a workpiece for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece; and
the curved body comprises a plurality of radii of curvature that varies between a non-zero minimum radius of curvature and a maximum radius of curvature from the first end to the second end.
See Fig. 5.
Lejuene teaches the claimed cutting blade for make grooves having V-shape. See the interpretation of Lejuene in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the ultrasonic cutting system of Tanaka the blade of Lejuene for making grooves having V-shape.
Regarding claim 18, the portions of the blade receiving screws 6 define the shanks of the blade and element 4 defines a tang. See Fig. 1 in Tanaka.
Regarding claim 19, a robot 12 is best seen in Fig. 1 in Tanaka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 112 Rejections of claims 4 and 5, the disclosure does not teach the radii of the curves on the blade varying with a constant rate or a non-constant rate. The blade edge varies from a small radius at the tip to a lager radius towards its ends. However, there is no teaching how the variations of the curves are linked to a constant rate or a non-constant rate.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with Lejuene, the blade in Lejuene comprises a curved tips having two curved portions and two straight portions after the curved portions. The transition points between the straight portions and the curved portions defined the two claimed ends. As shown above, the curved portions in Lejuene are on two different circles. Therefore, Lejuene reads on the claim language that the curved body having a plurality of radii of curvature.
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights