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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites, “[t]he long cutting knife of claim 2, wherein: the base metal includes a tip end face substantially flush with the flank face of the blade metal, the base metal includes a base metal joining face joined to the rear face of the blade metal.” It is unclear if Applicant intends for “a tip end face substantially flush with the flank face of the blade metal” and “a base metal joining face joined to the rear face of the blade metal” [emphasis added] to define additional “tip end face” and “base metal joining face” features that are separate and distinct from those set forth in claim 2, lines 6-9, as presently amended, or if Applicant intends for the scope of claim 8 to further limit the features now presently introduced in claim 2, lines 6-9. If the latter is the case, it is unclear what additional features the scope of claim 8 has to further limit the scope of claim 2. For purposes of examination, the scope of claim 8 will be interpreted as repeating the scope of claim 2, lines 6-9, wherein the scope of claim 8 does not further limit the scope of claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS — Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites, “[t]he long cutting knife of claim 2, wherein: the base metal includes a tip end face substantially flush with the flank face of the blade metal, the base metal includes a base metal joining face joined to the rear face of the blade metal.” However, as presently amended, claim 2, lines 6-9 have been amended to include the recitation of “wherein the base metal includes a tip end face substantially flush with the flank face of the blade metal and a base metal joining face joined to the rear face of the blade metal.” The scope of claim 8 appears to repeat, substantially word-for-word, the newly amended subject matter found in claim 2. As such, claim 8 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 2, 10, 11, and as best understood, claim 8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US Patent 5,955,208) in view of Nettles et al (US Patent 4,784,337), herein referred to as Nettles, in further view of Hu (CN108130478), Miyaji et al (JP2014087895), herein referred to as Miyaji, Nishio et al (EP 2 801 433), herein referred to as Nishio, and Gommann (FR 2 337 017), as evidenced by Gravity Cast (SAE 1074 Material Specification). Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses a long cutting knife (fig. 2) for cutting wood along an outer surface of the wood to obtain a veneer (3A), the long cutting knife comprising: a blade metal (edge steel 2) including a rake face (annotated fig. 4; front slicing portion 2a), a flank face (annotated fig. 4; back slicing portion 2b), a cutting edge (slicing edge line K) at an intersection of the rake face and the flank face (fig. 4), and a rear face (annotated fig. 4) on a side of the blade metal opposite the rake face (fig. 4); a base metal (base steel 1) joined to the rear face of the blade metal (fig. 4), wherein the base metal includes a tip end face (annotated fig. 4) substantially flush with the flank face of the blade metal (annotated fig. 4) and a base metal joining face (annotated fig. 4) joined to the rear face of the blade metal (annotated fig. 4); and a support plate (Takahashi, annotated fig. 4) is positioned adjacent to a rear end of the blade metal (i.e., at a rear end of the blade metal, Takahashi, annotated fig. 4), wherein the support plate is joined to the base metal joining face (i.e., as a continuous structure forming base metal 1; fig. 4), wherein: a yield point of the steel material of the base metal … is less than a yield point of the blade metal (col. 2, lines 52-59; i.e., the base metal is cheaper and softer, while the blade metal is more expensive and harder, requiring more energy to yield beyond deformation than the base metal, indicating a higher yield point).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Takehashi fails to disclose wherein the support plate is joined to the base metal joining face (i.e., the support plate being a separate piece of material that is joined to the base metal joining face [emphasis added]). However, Nettles teaches it is known in the art of blade mounting cassettes for elongated blade assemblies (44) to provide a blade metal (46), a base metal (70; annotated fig. 3) with a base metal joining face joined to a rear face of the blade metal (annotated fig. 3), and a support plate (retaining bar 85) that is joined to the base metal joining face (annotated fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the long cutting knife of Takehashi substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Nettles such that the support plate is joined to the base metal joining face in order to allow for modular construction of the long cutting knife during an initial assembly phase thereof before the long cutting knife is fused together, i.e., rather than machining the shape of the base metal, the shape of the base metal can be build up from individual strips of material.
• The modified long cutting knife of Takehashi substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the base metal of the long cutting knife described in the disclosure is a quenched steel material; wherein a yield strength of the quenched steel material of the base metal is greater than or equal to 390 N/mm2 and is less than a yield strength of the blade metal (i.e., a tool steel). (Note: one Newton per square millimeter is equal to one Megapascal MPa). However, the following teaching is pertinent to this limitation: A. The disclosure of Takahashi suggests it is known to manufacture the base steel of long cutting knives from a variety of steel materials; Takahashi states in col. 1, lines 15-19, “[c]onventional knives for slicers have such a such that an edge steel is brazed to a base steel. In many cases, the base steel is formed of mild steel, and the edge steel is formed of alloy tool steel such as die steel and the like” [emphasis added].
The disclosed long cutting knife of Takahashi is intended for cutting oak wood and “since the base steel is formed of ferritic stainless steel, the occurrence of rust resulting from the reaction of the base steel with the sap of [oak] wood can be prevented as well as the base steel can be held on the electromagnetic chuck by electromagnetic force when a grinding job is executed to the slicing edge because the base steel has magnetism” (col. 3, line 41 – col. 4, line 4). In col. 1, lines 15-25, Takahashi explains that oak wood contains tannic acid that oxidizes the iron in the knives for slicers steel materials. The tannic acid stains the veneer, necessitating additional treatment of the veneer with oxalic acid to remove the staining. Long cutting knives can be used to cut veneer from other types of wood that do not contain tannic acid which oxidizes the steel and thus, does not necessitate the use of the specific steel disclosed therein. Moreover, the hardness of wood depends upon the species of tree, such that harder woods require harder or stronger base metal and blade metal components, while operators may find cheaper, less expensive base metals to be suitable for their cutting applications when cutting veneers from softer woods.
In the alternative to using an electromagnetic chuck, Takahashi discloses a jig is used to mount the long cutting knife for sharpening if the base metal is not magnetic; i.e., Takahashi states in col. 2, lines 15-20, “[w]hen, for example, austenitic stainless steel[,] which is a non-magnetic body is selected as the material of the base steel, an additional fixture jig and the like are necessary because the base steel cannot be held on an electromagnetic chuck by electromagnetic force. As a result, the set-up of the grinding job is made complex.”
Takahasi states in col. 2, lines 23-26, “ferritic stainless steel is selected as the material of the base steel in consideration of the conditions that the base steel is not hardened by quenching when brazing is executed in order to secure flatness.” This suggests one having an ordinary skill in the art would have known to evaluate other known materials for the base steel in consideration of the conditions in which the long cutting knife is being operated. B. Hu (CN108130478) teaches it is known in the art of composite steel cutting blades to manufacture a long cutting knife (e.g., fig. 5) from a base metal (1) and a blade metal (2), wherein the blade metal and base metal are formed separately and then forged together before being subjected to a quenching and tempering treatment (as per Embodiment 1 on page 4 of translation). As such, Hu teaches it is known for the base metal to be a quenched steel material, wherein quenching increases the hardness of the blade and subsequent tempering reduces brittleness of the base metal and to further increase toughness thereof. By way of example, Hu teaches base metal can be made of Q235 mild steel or medium carbon steel (as described in Embodiment 3 on page 5 of translation). The yield point (i.e., yield strength) of Q235 steel is 235 MPa. While this yield point value is below the claimed value of 305 MPa, the teaching of Hu remains relevant to showing the wide range of quenched steel materials suitable for use as the base metal. C. Miyaji (JP2014087895) teaches it is known in the art of cutting tools (e.g., rotary saw blade 10) with a blade metal (as per translation, page 3, line 43, “superhard tip 14 is made of a cemented carbide alloy obtained by mixing and sintering tungsten carbide and cobalt” [emphasis added]) forming a cutting edge (e.g., see fig. 4b) and a base metal (11, 12) on which the blade metal (14) is mounted for supporting the blade metal (translation, page 3, line 60) during operation for the base metal to be a quenched steel material ( According to the translation, page 3, lines 33-35, “base metal 10a including the base 11 and the blade edge vicinity 12 is integrally formed of a steel plate material made of carbon steel or alloy tool steel such as SK85 [C 0.80-0.90%; HV 760], SKS5, SAE1074, DIN75Cr1. And in order not to deform/transform at the time of use, quenching and tempering processing is performed and it is made for hardness to become about Hv400-500” [emphasis added]. (Note: the Gravity Cast Specification Sheet for SAE 1074 steel indicates C mass% 0.700-0.800 and a minimum yield strength of 400 MPa) D. Nishio (EP 2 801 433) teaches it is known in the art of composite saw blades to manufacture a circular saw blade (10) formed from a base metal (body metal 11 and tooth base 13) and a different blade metal (e.g., cutting edge tip 21 of cemented carbide, para. 0013). Nishio teaches, “body metal 11 is a thin plate made of steel having a carbon content of 0.5 mass% or more” (para. 0012, lines 4-6). Notably, Nishio teaches in para. 0021, lines 1-7, “in above-described embodiment, the description has been given of the case of the circular saw blade as the cutting tool, but not limited thereto, and the invention can be similarly applied to a planar knife or the like. Furthermore, the material of the cutting edge tip is not limited to the cemented carbide, and may be cermet, high-speed steel, various ceramics, polycrystalline diamond or the [emphasis added]. The teaching of Nishio not only suggests the teaching of materials selected for manufacturing circular saw blades are applicable to long cutting knives, but that a variety of cutting tip materials can be selected for the blade metal (e.g., cemented carbide or high-speed steel). E. Gommann (FR 2 337 017) teaches it is known in the art of long cutting knives to form the knife from a blade metal (12) attached to a base metal (13), wherein base metal (13) is made of C15 steel, wherein the yield stress of C15 is minimally 350 N/mm2 (as per the European Search Report received on December 1, 2024). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the long cutting knife of Takahashi substantially disclosed above in light of the additional teaching set forth in Takahashi and with the teaching of Hu, Miyaji, Nishio and Gommann such that the base metal is any reasonable material, such as a quenched steel material, wherein the yield strength of the steel material of the base metal is greater than or equal to 390 N/mm2 and less than a yield strength of the blade metal because the selection of a known material (i.e., with sufficient yield strength properties) based on its suitability for its intended purpose requires only ordinary skill in the art and would have been a design choice available to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the material properties of the wood from which the veneer is being cut and the material properties of the suitable steel materials available from which to form the base metal. Furthermore, the aforementioned modification would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claimed invention are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 8, the modified long cutting knife of Takahashi substantially disclosed above includes the base metal (1) includes a tip end face (Takahashi, annotated fig. 4) substantially flush with the flank face (2b) of the blade metal (as shown in fig. 4), and the base metal (1) includes a base metal joining face (Takahashi, annotated fig. 4) joined to the rear face of the blade metal (fig. 1). Regarding claim 10, the modified long cutting knife of Takahashi substantially disclosed above includes a carbon content of the quenched steel material of the base metal is 0.32% or more (Nishio teaches in para. 0012, lines 4-6, “body metal 11 is a thin plate made of steel having a carbon content of 0.5 mass% or more”).
Regarding claim 11, the modified long cutting knife of Takahashi substantially disclosed above includes the carbon content of the quenched steel material of the base metal is less than a carbon content of the blade metal. As noted above, one having an ordinary skill in the art can selected any suitable material for either of the blade metal or the base metal. For example, Takahashi states in col. 2, lines 55-59 “[t]he edge steel 2 is formed of alloy tool steel difficult to be rusted including improved steel such as SKD 11 [[C(%) 1.4-1.6]], 12 [[C(%) 0.95 – 1.05]], etc. as die steel, high-speed tool steel including improved steel such as SKH 51 [[C(%) 0.78-0.88; 0.86-0.94; 0.80-0.88; 0.80-0.90]], 52 [[C(%) 1-1.1]], etc., a material corresponding to high-speed tool steel, and the like [emphasis added]. Alternatively, Miyaji teaches the cutting metal is made from tungsten carbide (WC) whose carbon mass% is 6.13. Conversely, Miyaji teaches SAE 1074 is a suitable material for the base metal, wherein the carbon content in SAE 1074 is 0.700-0.800.
Claims 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al (CN108130478), herein referred to as Hu, in view of Nettles (US Patent 4,784,337), and further in view of Annoura (US Publication 2007/0068010) and ASTM Steel – S45C Specification Sheet. Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses a method for forming a long cutting knife for cutting wood along an outer surface of the wood to obtain a veneer, the method comprising: providing a blade metal (shear steel 2) having a cutting edge (annotated fig. 5) formed at an edge between a rake face (annotated fig. 5) and a flank face (annotated fig. 5); attaching a rear face (annotated fig. 5) of the blade metal to a base metal joining face (as shown in fig. 5) of a base metal (cutter hub 1), wherein the rear face of the blade metal is on a side of the blade metal (2) opposite the rake face of the blade metal (as shown in fig. 5); and quenching the blade metal and the base metal (as described in Embodiment 1 on page 4 of the translation received on July 19, 2025). Hu states on page 4 of the translation, “[t]he high alloy tool steel edge steel mechanical bit shear-steel of the present embodiment trace niobium-containing can be above mentioned experiment steel, all manufacture process route is: steel smelting → shear-steel forging rolling → annealing → cutter hub blanking → smoothing → shear-steel processing flour milling → milling side → milling is slightly → cropping → cutter hub [1] channeling → shear-steel [2], cutter hub [1] assembling → fixture installation → into controlled atmosphere generator → preheating, leads to controllable gas at copper sheet body → be warming up to high temperature → soldering, quench heating → moves to cooling chamber → air blast quenching → three times tempering → smoothing and alignment → knife piece processing plane the side → milling cutter back of the body → cropping → fine grinding face → drilling (drilling, hole milling, tapping) → essence smoothing → mill slightly → quality inspection → finished product” This flow description of the manufacturing process of the disclosed long cutting knife suggests blade metal (2) and base metal (1) are formed separately, assembled together, pre-heating to a temperature suitable for soldering (with quench heating), moved to a cooling chamber and air blast quenched and tempered three times before final processing results in the finished product. As such, Hu discloses the base metal is quenched. [Note: steps related to blade metal are in bold, steps related to base metal are italicized; bolded and italicized] Hu discloses the base metal (i.e., cutter hub) is a steel material (Q235 mild steel; as per Embodiment 3 described on page 5 of the translation) having a nominal yield strength of 235 MPa, and the pre-quenching yield point of the steel material of the base metal is less than a yield point of the blade metal (the yield point of a mild steel or a medium carbon steel is less than the yield point of a high alloy tool steel).
PNG
media_image2.png
348
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hu fails to disclose attaching a support plate to the base metal joining face of the base metal such that the support plate is positioned adjacent to a rear end of the blade metal. However, Nettles teaches it is known in the art of blade mounting cassettes for elongated blade assemblies (44) to provide a blade metal (46), a base metal (70; annotated fig. 3) with a base metal joining face joined to a rear face of the blade metal (annotated fig. 3), and a support plate (retaining bar 85) that is joined to the base metal joining face (annotated fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the long cutting knife of Takehashi substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Nettles such that the support plate is joined to the base metal joining face in order to allow for modular construction of the long cutting knife during an initial assembly phase thereof before the long cutting knife is fused together, i.e., rather than machining the shape of the base metal, the shape of the base metal can be build up from individual strips of material.
• The modified method of Hu substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the steel material has a pre-quenching yield strength greater than or equal to 305 N/mm2 or more, and a post-quenching yield strength of 390 N/mm2 or more.
However, Annoura teaches it is known in the art of long cutting knives (10) designed to hold a precise sharpened cutting edge during cutting operations to be formed from a base metal (18) and an edge portion (blade metal 20) brazed together. Annoura teaches base metal (18) “is made of carbon steel for machine structural use S45C/S55C (JISG4051) or rolled steel for general structural use SS400 (JISG3101), and the material of [the blade metal] is a sintered body of high-speed steel powder HAP10 (trade name, produced by Hitachi Metals, Ltd.)… The material of the edge portion 20 is not limited to HAP10 and any high-speed steel powder sintered body having a chromium content of 8.5 weight % or less can be used as the material” (para. 0024, lines 1-12).
Additionally, the ASTM Steel S45C Specification Sheet, teaches S45C grade steel has a Carbon content is 0.42-0.48 % mass, a pre-quenching yield strength of 343 MPa (i.e., more than the claimed pre-quenching yield strength value of 305 N/mm2) and a post-quenching yield strength of 490 MPa (i.e., more than the claimed post-quenching yield strength values of 390 N/mm2).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Hu with the teaching of Annoura and the ASTM Steel S45C grade steel specification sheet, such that the base steel is formed from any suitable steel material, including S45C grade steel having a pre-quenching yield strength of 305 N/mm2 or more and a post-quenching yield strength of 390 N/mm2 or more because the selection of a known material (i.e., with sufficient yield strength properties) based on its suitability for its intended purpose requires only ordinary skill in the art and would have been a design choice available to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the material properties of the wood from which the veneer is being cut and the material properties of the suitable steel materials available from which to form the base metal. Furthermore, the aforementioned modification would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claimed invention are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Regarding claim 13, the modified method of Hu substantially disclosed above includes the pre-quenching yield point of the steel material of the base metal is less than a yield point of the blade metal (i.e., the yield point of a mild steel or a medium carbon steel is less than the yield point of a high alloy tool steel).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Hu substantially disclosed above includes the base metal is a steel material having a carbon content greater than or equal to 0.32% by mass (as evidenced by the specification sheet for S45C grade steel which indicates the Carbon content is 0.42-0.48 mass%).
Regarding claim 16, Hu discloses both the base metal (1) and the blade metal (2) are made of a steel material (as per Embodiment 2 described at bottom of page 4 of translation), and the steel material of the base metal differs from the steel material of the blade metal (i.e., base steel 1 of Embodiment 2 is made from “mild steel or medium carbon steel” and blade steel is a “high alloy tool steel,” as per line 1 of Description on page 1 of translation).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN108130478) and Annoura (US Publication 2007/0068010), as evidenced by ASTM Steel – S45C Specification Sheet, in further view of Takahashi (US Patent 5,955,208).
Regarding claim 14, the modified method of Hu substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the post-quenching yield strength of the steel material is less than a yield strength of the blade metal. However, Takahashi teaches it is known in the art of long cutting knives that “since high-speed tool steel or the material corresponding to high-speed tool steel (semi-high-speed steel) which is more durable than alloy tool steel is employed as the material of the edge steel, the durability of the edge steel can be improved as compared with the conventional knives for slicers” (col. 2, lines 27-33). This suggests that it would be beneficial to select a suitable material from which to form the blade metal so as to be more durable than the base metal, wherein it is understood that an increased yield point facilitates an increase in durability.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Hu substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Takahashi such that the post-quenching yield point of the steel material is less than a yield point of the blade metal since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claimed invention are known in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments beginning on page 6 to page 7, line 8 of the Remarks filed March 30, 2026, as well as on page 11, lines 11-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9, lines 18-24 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “Takahashi expressly teaches the base steel 1 is made of ferritic stainless steel for several distinct reasons/advantages… Applicant respectfully submits Takahashi teaches away from the proposed modification advanced in the Office Action to replace the ferritic stainless steel of the base steel 1 with a steel material that is hardened via quenching.” Applicant highlights the reasons set forth by Takahashi beginning on page 8 to page 9, line 16 of the Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. On pages 7-8 of the present Office Action, Examiner cites multiple passages from Takahashi which discuss why ferritic stainless steel is chosen over other types of metals, i.e., ferritic stainless steel mitigates the staining effects of tannic acid that is present in oak wood that reacts with the metal. Takahashi also discusses how other metals are used as base metals. If another wood is being cut, i.e., wood without tannic acid, then any other suitable steel-type material can be used. While ferritic stainless steel mitigates the staining issues, Takahashi discloses the basis of the rejection, i.e., that it is known to utilize other suitable metals depending on the workpiece material characteristics. At the very least, Takahashi discloses other base metals have at least been considered in the field. On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “replacement of the ferritic stainless steel for the base steel 1 with a steel material that is hardened via quenching would eliminate or destroy the desirable non-hardening characteristic of the ferritic stainless steel that is emphasized as important in Takahashi for flatness and ease of post-brazing processing… modification of Takahashi to employ a steel material that is hardened via quenching would impermissibly render Takahashi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and/or change principles of operation of Takahashi.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the stated improvement of Takahashi is to form the base metal from ferritic stainless steel to mitigate the staining issues, the disclosure of Takahashi establishes that it is known in the art of long cutting knives to form the base metal from other materials, such that one having an ordinary skill in the art could have utilized any suitable base metal depending on the workpiece material characteristics. At the very least, Takahashi discloses other base metals have at least been considered in the field. On page 12, line 17-20 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “Annoura treats mild steel (SS400) and medium carbon steel (S45C) as interchangeable for use in its specific brazed tool, and thus, provides no specific teaching suggestion, or motivation to change mild steel to a medium carbon steel to achieve a specific post-quenching yield strength.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Annoura teaches a blade and base metal with a similar configuration to that of the base reference. The teaching of Annoura establishes other known examples of metals that are usable in long cutting knives depending upon their intended use. On page 12, lines 22-30 of the Remarks, The Office Action assumes that substituting
the S45C steel of Annoura into the process disclosed in Hu would be a simple design choice. However, Annoura only teaches that the pre-sintered high-speed steel edge portion is "brazed to the base metal 18 with a brazing material." Annoura does not teach any quenching step, and there is no teaching in Annoura of how S45C steel behaves when subjected to simultaneous soldering and quenching. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Annoura as a reference describing a strictly brazed, unquenched assembly to find a base metal suitable for the extreme 1050°C quenching process taught by Hu.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments do not appear to take the evidence provided by the teaching of ASTM Steel S45C Specification Sheet which lists a pre-quenching yield strength of 343 MPa and a post-quenching yield strength of 490 MPa for S45C steel. This evidence suggests it is known for S45C steel to be used in applications in which the product being formed is quenched.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Basinger (US Patent 1,758,423) discloses a veneer knife with a support plate (12, 15) arranged behind a blade metal (10) on a base metal joining surface of a base metal (1). Goodman (US Patent 2,652,869) discloses a multisection veneer knife. Kajikawa (US Patent 4,494,590) discloses a veneer lathe. Puranen (US Patent 5,490,548) discloses a device for controlling the orientation of a veneer blade. Bonac (US Patent 4,794,961) discloses a veneer knife.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 June 26, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights