DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-42 and 45 remain pending in the application. Claims 43-44 were cancelled.
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 1-42 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemert (WO 2008079005 A2) in view of Kampert (US 3462861).
Regarding claim 1, Van Gemert teaches a blade (60, Figures 11-13) for a demolition shear, said blade comprising:
a first longitudinal side wall (top wall of 60, see Figure 11);
a second longitudinal side wall (bottom wall of 60, see Figure 11) spaced apart from said first longitudinal side wall;
a first end wall (right wall of 60, see Figure 11) extending between a first end of said first longitudinal side wall and a first end of said second longitudinal side wall (see Figure 11);
a second end wall (left wall of 60, see Figure 11) extending between the second end of said first longitudinal side wall and a second end of said second longitudinal side wall (see Figure 11); and
a front wall (bottom wall extend around the hole 63, see Figure 13) which extends between said first and second end walls and between said first and second longitudinal side walls (see Figures 11-13);
said first and second longitudinal side walls, said first and second end walls, and said front wall forming at least one cavity (63) there between;
an intersection between said first end wall and said front wall defining a first piercing tip (76); and
an intersection between said second end wall and said front wall defining a second piercing tip (76’),
said first and second longitudinal side walls said first and second end walls and said front wall being formed as a single body (see Figures 11-13); and
said blade for a demolition shear being indexable between a first position and a second position (using 76 or 76’);
wherein, in said first position, the first piercing tip is presented for piercing use and in the second position the second piercing tip is presented for piercing use (see Figure 13).
Van Gemert fails to teach characterised in that each of said first and second end walls comprises a corresponding respective convex protrusion which faces inwardly into said at least one cavity.
Kampert teaches a blade wall (wall of 16) comprises a corresponding respective convex protrusion (38) which faces inwardly into said at least one cavity (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Van Gemert to added the convex protrusion to both side wall, as taught by Kampert, in order to preventing movement of the blade (col. 2 lines 30-49 of Kampert). Examiner notes that the convex protrusion is added to both walls in order to keep the reversable function of Van Gemert.
Regarding claim 2, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first and second longitudinal side walls are arranged in parallel, directly opposite one another (see Figure 11 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 3, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first end wall has a first end wall thickness, and said second end wall has a second end wall thickness, and wherein each of said first and second longitudinal side walls, extend over a distance in a direction between said first and second end walls, which is greater than a thickness of said first end wall and greater than a thickness of said second end wall (see different thickness in Figure 13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 4, modified Van Gemert further teaches said front wall has a front wall thickness, and wherein each of said first and second longitudinal side walls extend over a distance in a direction perpendicular to a front face of said front wall, which is greater than said front wall thickness (as the thickness of the front was choose to be a thinness at the bevel, the remainer distance of the longitudinal wall is long, as shown in Figure 12 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 5, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first and said second longitudinal side walls are located opposite each other, and spaced apart from each other (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 6, modified Van Gemert further teaches the blade is indexable between a first position and a second position by rotation of the blade by 180° (see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 7, modified Van Gemert further teaches the blade is symmetrical (symmetrical about the center line from 76 to 76’, see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 8, modified Van Gemert further teaches the blade is asymmetrical (at least asymmetrical folded about a middle line between the inner radius and outer radius, see Figure 13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 9, modified Van Gemert further teaches said front wall extends continuously between said first and second end walls and continuously between said first and second longitudinal side walls (as the current front wall is the top slice of the surface, thus extend from one side to the other).
Regarding claim 10, modified Van Gemert further teaches first and second shearing edges (edge of 76 and 76’ and Figure 11 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 11, modified Van Gemert further teaches first and second guide edges (side edges see in Figure 13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 12, modified Van Gemert further teaches the front wall of the blade comprises a convex outwardly facing surface extending between said first and said second piercing tips (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 13, modified Van Gemert further teaches the front wall of the blade comprises a flat, series of flats, convex or any combination thereof outwardly facing surface extending between said first and said second piercing tips (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 14, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first longitudinal side wall comprises an inner face and said second longitudinal wall comprises an inner face (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 15, modified Van Gemert further teaches said inner face of said first longitudinal side wall and said inner face of said second longitudinal wall face each other across said at least one cavity (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 16, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first end and said second end comprise inner surfaces and respectively (space of 63, see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 17, modified Van Gemert further teaches said inner surface of the first end and said inner surface of second end face each other across said at least one cavity (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 18, modified Van Gemert further teaches the blade comprises a body comprising 8 vertices (at least 8 (on the top side where each of the four surfaces meets the corner surfaces) in the inner surface of 63).
Regarding claim 19, modified Van Gemert further teaches the blade comprises a body comprising 20 vertices (at least 8 (on the top side where each of the four surfaces meets the corner surfaces) in the inner surface of 63, then 8 more on the upper bevel of the first 8 vertices, and 4 outer vertices of 60, which sum up to be at least 20, see Figure 11 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 20, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first piercing tip comprises an edge between the first end wall and the front wall (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 21, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first piercing tip comprises a curved surface between the first end wall and the front wall (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 22, modified Van Gemert further teaches said first piercing tip comprises a flat surface between the first end wall and the front wall (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 23, modified Van Gemert further teaches said second piercing tip comprises an edge between the second end wall and the front wall (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 24, modified Van Gemert further teaches said second piercing tip comprises a curved surface between the second end wall and the front wall (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 25, modified Van Gemert further teaches said second piercing tip comprises a flat surface between the second end wall and the front wall (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 26, modified Van Gemert further teaches the blade body comprises at least one aperture (opening for 62, see Figure 11) for receiving a fixing there through for securing the blade to a tang of a moveable jaw (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 27, modified Van Gemert further teaches said at least one aperture for receiving a fixing there through is located on the first or second longitudinal side wall of the blade (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 28, modified Van Gemert further teaches said at least one aperture for receiving a fixing there through is located on the front wall of the blade body (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 29, modified Van Gemert further teaches the blade body comprises at least one aperture for receiving a fixing there through for securing the blade to a tang of a moveable jaw wherein said at least one aperture for receiving a fixing there through is threaded (thread for 72, see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 30, modified Van Gemert further teaches when fitted, the front wall encloses a majority of the lower surface, two opposing side surfaces, upper surface and bridging front surface of a tang of the moveable jaw of a demolition tool (see Figures 1 and 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 31, modified Van Gemert further teaches said body as a single machined piece, as a single casting, or by 3D printing (see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 32, modified Van Gemert further teaches a method of manufacturing a blade for a demolition shear, said blade according to any of claim 1, comprising forming said body as a single welded fabrication (see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
With respect to the limitations “single welded fabrication” these limitations are considered “product-by-process,” which are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, but only the structure implied by the steps. Thus the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, and if a product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior art product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
In claim 32, the integral structure of the element 60 can be constructed by cast or machining without affecting the structure of the apparatus. Since the element 60 has identical structure to the claimed 32, the burden shifts to applicant to provide evidence of an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Since “[t]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of patentability more difficult … it is the patentability of product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established…. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (See MPEP 2113(III) and In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 33, modified Van Gemert further teaches said at least one cavity comprises an open ended mouth portion having an inner perimeter extending around said mouth portion, which is smaller than an inner perimeter extending around a main body of said at least one cavity as viewed in a direction perpendicular to an inwardly facing surface of said front wall (see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 34, modified Van Gemert further teaches said protrusion which faces inwardly into said at least one cavity is a curved protrusion (at least at the round inner corners, see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 35, modified Van Gemert further teaches said protrusion which faces inwardly into said at least one cavity is curved, flat, a series of flats or any combination thereof (at least at the round inner corners, see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 36, modified Van Gemert further teaches each protrusion which faces inwardly into said at least one cavity is curved, flat, a series of flats, or any combination thereof (at least at the round inner corners, see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 37, modified Van Gemert further teaches the front wall of the blade comprises three flat surfaces extending between said first and said second piercing tips (front, back and right surface for 76 in Figure 13, see Figure 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 38, modified Van Gemert further teaches the front wall of the blade comprises two flat surfaces (front and back surface in Figure 13, see Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 39, modified Van Gemert further teaches said two flat surfaces are arranged at an angle into a ridge (side surface, see Figure 11 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 40, modified Van Gemert further teaches the first end comprises a series of flats (see Figure 11 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 41, modified Van Gemert further teaches the second end comprises a series of flats and a radii (curved surface at the top surface and side flat surface).
Regarding claim 42, modified Van Gemert further teaches a tang of a moveable jaw for co-operation with the blade for a demolition shear according to claim 1 (See Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Regarding claim 45, modified Van Gemert further teaches A demolition shear comprising a blade for a demolition shear according to claim 1 (See Figures 11-13 of Van Gemert).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-42 and 44-45 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.
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/3/2026