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:
The end of the rounded projection opposite the rake face of the cutting tooth, of claims 1, 8, and 16
The profile of a corresponding one of the tooth bodies at the second end that matches the of end of the rounded projection claims 1, 8, and 16
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not appear to disclose the “end of the rounded projection opposite the rake face matches a profile of a corresponding one of the tooth bodies at the second end of the cutting tooth” limitation and the Figures do not appear to label the “end” or the “profile”. While it is believed the Figures do show the end and that the end matches the profile of the tooth body in some way, the detailed description of the specification dedicated to the elected embodiment needs to disclose and Figures 16-20 needs to include labels that show the end of the rounded projection and the matching profile of the corresponding tooth body so the limitation is clear and is supported by the original Figures and not new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 16-17, the phrase “wherein the second forming process is a different forming process than the first forming process” is no longer needed. The first process has been amended to include stamping and the second process has been amended to include grinding which makes the processes different. The phrase is no longer needed but there is no issue with keeping the phrase in the claim. It is up to Applicant whether to remove the phrase or not.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 16 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.
With regards to claims 1, 8, and 16, the phrase “an end of the rounded projection opposite the rake face of the cutting tooth matches a profile of a corresponding one of the plurality of tooth bodies at the second end of the cutting tooth” is unclear. First, it is not clear what structure defines the “end of the rounded projection opposite the rake face”. The end is believed to be E, in the Figure below, as E is opposite rake face 438. Second, it is unclear what does and does not define the “profile” of the tooth body at the second end so it is clear how the “end” and the “profile” match. It is unclear how the “end” and the “profile” match. Portion P1 (in the Figure below) is part of a profile at the second end of the tooth body but the “end” of the rounded projection does not match portion P1 in any way. It is also unclear what exactly defines the “end” of the rounded projection. Does just the linear portion of E represent the “end” because the tooth body has a linear portion P2 but the linear portion of the end E is longer than the linear portion P2 and does not “match” in that regard. Is the end and the profile the engaging corners of E and the P2? These corners appear to align and match. Further definition is needed so it is clear what specific structures define the “end” and “profile” and what is meant by “match” so it is clear how the “end” matches the “profile”.
PNG
media_image1.png
189
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trautner et al. (2017/0120357) in view of Di Nicolantonio (6,244,152) further in view of Anderson (3,110,952).
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Trautner et al. disclose the invention including a method of manufacturing a saw blade (94) having the steps of providing (98) a saw blade body (14) having an edge (Fig. 1), forming (102, 106), with a stamping die (paragraph [0032] line 6), a plurality of tooth bodies (50) that defines a plurality of gullets in the blade body (78), the stamping die having a cutting profile such that each one of the tooth bodies defining an undercut portion positioned between two adjacent tooth bodies of the plurality of tooth bodies (82), coupling (114) a plurality of cutting members to the edge of the blade body (46), and a plurality of cutting teeth (finished 46) including a first end (Fig. 2), a rake face (38) extending from a tip at the first end of the cutting tooth (34) toward the saw blade body (Fig. 2), a relief face extending from the tip toward the second end of the cutting tooth sloped toward the blade body (top face of 46 extending from 34 towards 42).
With regards to claims 3 and 7, Trautner et al. disclose forming the tooth bodies and gullets is performed before the coupling of the plurality of cutting members to the edge (Fig. 5) and forming (110) an attachment portion including a tang (26) and an aperture (30) in the blade body (Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claim 1, Trautner et al. fail to disclose a rounded projection at the second end of the tooth and an end of the rounded projection opposite the rake face of the cutting tooth matches a profile of a corresponding one of the plurality of tooth bodies at the second end of the cutting tooth.
Di Nicolantonio teaches it is known in the saw blade teeth to incorporate teeth that define the entire top of the tooth (18) and extending from the first end to the second end (Fig. 2), have a projection at the second end of the tooth (19), and an end of the projection opposite the rake face of the cutting tooth matches a profile of a corresponding one of the plurality of tooth bodies at the second end of the cutting tooth (Fig. 2). While the projection at the second end of Di Nicolantonio is not rounded, the equivalent second end in Trautner et al. is rounded (66). Modified Trautner et al. has the cutting teeth extending from the first end to the second end and it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made that projection at the second end any reasonable shape including a rounded shape already taught by Trautner et al. Basically, Di Nicolantonio teaches it is known for the entire top to be the cutting tooth instead of just the tip at the first end as shown in Trautner et al. and it would have been obvious to have maintained the shape already taught by Trautner et al. which includes a rounded projection (66). Modified Trautner et al. has a cutting member with a rounded projection with an end opposite the rake face that matches a profile of the tooth body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Trautner et al. with the cutting tooth that defines the entire top and not just a tip, as taught by Di Nicolantonio, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claims 1 and 2, Trautner et al. in view of Di Nicolantonio fail to disclose grinding the cutting members to form the cutting teeth after the cutting members are coupled to the edge, the grinding includes forming at least the relief face and the rounded projection, and wherein each of the cutting members includes the rake face before the members are shaped into teeth.
Anderson teaches it is known in the art of blade manufacturing to incorporate grinding (column 4 lines 19-36) the cutting members to form the cutting teeth after the cutting members are coupled to the edge (Figs. 4-7 and column 3 line 61 – column 4 line 43). Anderson shows adding an incomplete member to the blade body and then completing the shaping of the members into the teeth. Trautner et al. in view of Di Nicolantonio appear to show coupling completed members/teeth to the blade body. These references create a range and it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have coupled partially completed members to the edge and then complete the shaping to form the completed teeth. Anderson explains an issue with waste when using an expensive material (column 4 lines 67-75). If it reduces waste, one skilled in the art would have pre-shaped the members to have as many of the teeth characteristics possible or at least started with members that have as many of the teeth characteristics possible. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have started with members that include the rake face and/or the tip and then form the relief face and the rounded projection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Trautner et al. in view of Di Nicolantonio with the shaping step after the coupling step, as taught by Anderson, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trautner et al. (2017/0120357) in view of and Di Nicolantonio (6,244,152) further in view of Anderson (3,110,952).
With regards to claim 8, Trautner et al. disclose the invention including a method of manufacturing a saw blade (94) having the steps of providing (98) a saw blade body (14) having an edge (Fig. 1), forming (102, 106), with a stamping die (paragraph [0032] line 6), a plurality of tooth bodies (50) that defines a plurality of gullets in the blade body (78) with a first forming process (paragraph [0032] line 6), the stamping die having a cutting profile such that each of the tooth bodies having a first end (90) and a second end (86), each of the gullets defined between the first end of one of the tooth bodies and the second end of an adjacent one of the tooth bodies (Fig. 2), at least one of the tooth bodies defining an undercut portion of a corresponding one of the gullets at the second end of the at least one body (82), coupling (114) a cutting member to the edge of the blade body (46), and a cutting tooth (finished 46) having a rake face adjacent to the first end of the at least one tooth body (38).
However, with regards to claim 8, Trautner et al. fail to disclose a rounded projection adjacent to the second end of the at least one body and an end of the rounded projection opposite the rake face of the cutting tooth matches a profile of a corresponding one of the plurality of tooth bodies at the second end of the cutting tooth.
Di Nicolantonio teaches it is known in the saw blade teeth to incorporate teeth bodies that define the entire top of the tooth (18) and extending from the first end to the second end (Fig. 2), have a projection at the second end of the tooth (19), and an end of the projection opposite the rake face of the cutting tooth matches a profile of a corresponding one of the plurality of tooth bodies at the second end of the cutting tooth (Fig. 2). While the projection at the second end of Di Nicolantonio is not rounded, the equivalent second end in Trautner et al. is rounded (66). Modified Trautner et al. has the cutting teeth extending from the first end to the second end and it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made that projection at the second end any reasonable shape including a rounded shape already taught by Trautner et al. Basically, Di Nicolantonio teaches it is known for the entire top to be the cutting tooth instead of just the tip at the first end as shown in Trautner et al. and it would have been obvious to have maintained the shape already taught by Trautner et al. which includes a rounded projection (66). Modified Trautner et al. has a cutting member with a rounded projection with an end opposite the rake face that matches a profile of the tooth body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Trautner et al. with the cutting tooth that defines the entire top and not just a tip, as taught by Di Nicolantonio, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claim 8, Trautner et al. in view of Di Nicolantonio fail to disclose grinding the cutting member with a second forming process to form the cutting tooth after the cutting members are coupled to the edge, the second process being different from the first forming process, and the grinding includes forming the rounded projection.
Anderson teaches it is known in the art of blade manufacturing to incorporate grinding (column 4 lines 19-36) the cutting member with a second forming process to form the cutting tooth after the cutting member is coupled to the edge (Figs. 4-7 and column 3 line 61 – column 4 line 43). See the rejection above for more details. Trautner et al. in view of Di Nicolantonio further in view of Anderson incorporate a stamping first forming process and a grinding second forming process which is different than stamping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Trautner et al. in view of Di Nicolantonio with the grinding step after the coupling step, as taught by Anderson, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trautner et al. (2017/0120357) in view of Di Nicolantonio (6,244,152) further in view of Anderson (3,110,952). See rejections to claims 1-3, 7, and 8 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D Ashley can be reached on (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.
19 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights