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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology such as “comprising” and “configured to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 13 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 13 recites “a cutter”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or if applicant intends for “a cutter” to be the same as in claim 1. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “the cutter” and as the same as the cutter in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lu (2022/0372874) in view of Burton (2014/0339883).
Regarding Claim 1, Lu teaches A blade (Ref. 18, Fig. 5) comprising:
a blade body (Ref. 20, Fig. 6) comprising an edge disposed around a perimeter of the blade body (Fig. 6, Examiner interprets the edge the perimeter surface of the blade);
a plurality of cutter pockets (Ref. 24, Fig. 9) each configured to receive a cutter (Ref. 22, Fig. 8), wherein each of the plurality of cutter pockets (24) is attached to the edge of the blade body (Fig. 8); and
a plurality of cutters (Ref. 22, Fig. 8) each comprising a cutter leading edge (Fig. 12, left side Ref. 22), wherein each of the plurality of cutters is attached to one of the plurality of cutter pockets (Fig. 7).
Lu teaches that the plurality of cutters forms some a plurality of back rake angles (Fig. 12) relative to the edge of the blade body (Fig. 8). Lu fails to explicitly teach wherein the blade comprises a progressive cutter layout such that two or more of the plurality of back rake angles is different and wherein each of the plurality of back rake angles comprises a first axis radial to the edge of the blade body at a location of a corresponding cutter and a second axis parallel to the cutter leading edge of the corresponding cutter. Burton teaches a cutting tool with a blade body and a plurality of cutters and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Burton teaches a blade (fig. 1A-C) with a blade body (Ref. 110, Fig. 1B-C) with cutters (Ref. 120a, Fig. 2B) that have back rake angle (Ref. theta, Fig. 2B, [0052]) wherein the blade comprises a progressive cutter layout such that two or more of the plurality of back rake angles is different ([0052] describe the back rake angles can be different across cutters and have different range of angles on the blade) wherein each of the plurality of back rake angles comprises a first axis radial to the edge of the blade body at a location of a corresponding cutter (Fig. 2B, right angled dotted line), and a second axis parallel to the cutter leading edge of the corresponding cutter (Fig. 2B, left vertical dotted line). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the back rake angles, as taught by Lu, to have two or more back rake angles that are different and each of the plurality of back rake angles comprises a first axis and a second axis, as taught by Burton, to aid in evacuating cuttings during use ([0052]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the blade body (20) is manufactured independently of the plurality of cutter pockets and the plurality of cutters (Fig. 6&8 shows the body (20), cutter pocket (24) and cutter (22) are made of separate pieces from one another);
wherein each the plurality of cutters is attached to one of the plurality of cutter pockets by way of one or more of welding or brazing ([0080] describes attaching the cutters to the pockets with brazing); and
wherein the plurality of cutter pockets is attached to the edge of the blade by way of one or more of welding or brazing ([0079]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the blade body and the plurality of cutter pockets are manufactured together as a single indivisible element ([0079] describes the blade body and cutter pocket as being welded together and is considered a manufacturing step to make a single indivisible element, if applicant intended for the blade body and cutter pocket to be monolithic such a limitations is not required);
wherein the plurality of cutters (22) is manufactured independently of the single indivisible element comprising the blade body and the plurality of cutter pockets (Fig. 8); and
wherein each of the plurality of cutters is attached to one of the plurality of cutter pockets by way of one or more of welding or brazing ([0080] describes attaching the cutters to the pockets with brazing).
Regarding Claim 4, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the plurality of cutters of the blade cuts one or more of concrete, rock, brick, or asphalt during operation ([0091]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the blade body comprises carbon steel, stainless steel, tool steel, alloy steel, cobalt, or titanium alloy ([0065] describes the blade body (20) being made of steel).
Regarding Claim 6, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the plurality of cutter pockets (24, Fig. 2) is manufactured separately from the blade body (Fig. 8 shows the body (20), and cutter pocket (24) are made of separate pieces from one another), and wherein the plurality of cutter pockets comprises one or more of carbide or polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) ([0079] describes the pocket made of carbide).
Regarding Claim 7, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the plurality of cutter pockets and the blade body are manufactured together as a single indivisible element ([0079] describes the blade body and cutter pocket as being welded together and is considered a manufacturing step to make a single indivisible element, if applicant intended for the blade body and cutter pocket to be monolithic such a limitations is not required), and wherein the single indivisible element comprising the plurality of cutter pockets and the blade body comprises is carbon steel, stainless steel, tool steel, alloy steel, cobalt, or titanium alloy ([0065&0079] describe both the cutter pocket and blade body being made of steel).
Regarding Claim 8, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the plurality of cutters comprises is one or more of carbide, diamond, or polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) ([0067] describes the cutters (22) is made of PDC).
Regarding Claim 9, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches a plurality of gullets (Ref. 32, Fig. 8) cut into the blade body (Fig. 6), wherein each of the plurality of gullets comprises an opening (Fig. 8) disposed at the perimeter of the blade body, and wherein the blade comprises a 1:1 ratio of a quantity of gullets to a quantity of the plurality of cutters (fig. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 10, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the edge of the blade body comprises an edge width (Fig. 10 shows an edge width);
wherein the edge comprises a centerline (Fig. 10 annotated below) disposed in a center of the edge width (Fig. 10 annotated below); and
wherein two or more of the plurality of cutter pockets (24) are attached to the blade body at different positions relative to the centerline of the edge width (Fig. 8&10 shows the cutter pockets are attached at different positions (angles) relative to the centerline around the perimeter of the disk).
PNG
media_image1.png
237
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the edge of the blade body comprises an edge width (Fig. 10 shows an edge width);
wherein the edge comprises a centerline (Fig. 10 annotated above) disposed in a center of the edge width (Fig. 10 annotated above); and
wherein each of the plurality of cutter pockets is attached to the blade body on the edge (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein two or more of the plurality of cutters are oriented with different cutting orientations relative to the centerline of the edge width (Fig. 10 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
237
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein at least a portion of the plurality of cutters (22) comprises a circular sector cross-sectional geometry (Fig. 11) that comprises two radii and an arc (Fig. 11 shows two different radius sizes and an arc); and
wherein a corresponding cutter pocket of the plurality of cutter pockets is configured to receive a cutter comprising the circular sector cross-sectional geometry such that the arc of the cutter is distal to a center of the blade body, relative to the two radii of the cutter (Fig. 7-8&12).
Regarding Claim 17, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein at least a portion of the plurality of cutters is machined from a cylindrical cutter using an electrical discharge machining (EDM) manufacturing technique (examiner interprets the limitation as a product by process claim and [0082] describes the cutter made of metal and it would be capable of and it would be capable of being machined from a cylindrical cutter using an electrical discharge machining (EDM) manufacturing technique).
Regarding Claim 19, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein each of the plurality of cutter pockets (24) is affixed to the edge of the blade body (fig. 8);
wherein each of the plurality of cutter pockets comprises a cross-sectional geometry configured to receive a corresponding cutter of the plurality of cutters (Fig. 7-8); and
wherein two or more of the plurality of cutter pockets (24) comprises a different cross-sectional geometry such that the two or more of the plurality of cutter pockets cause a corresponding two or more of the plurality of cutters to be oriented with different cutting orientations relative to a centerline of a width of the edge (Fig. 7&10).
PNG
media_image1.png
237
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and Lu further teaches wherein the plurality of cutters each comprise a same maximum cutter width (Fig. 8,10 &11 show a max cutter width as the diameter of the circle); and
wherein a substrate cutting width of the blade (Fig. 10 shows the width as the thickness of the blade) is greater than the maximum cutter width of the plurality of cutters due to the different cutting orientations relative to the centerline of the width of the edge (Fig. 10 shows the width of the blade is larger than the width of the cutters).
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as modified as applied to claims 1-13, 17, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Boland (2003/0150442).
Regarding Claim 14, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least a portion of the plurality of cutters comprises a three-sided cross-sectional geometry. Boland teaches a cutting tool with a cutter made of PCD and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem of the inventor of cutting a surface. Boland teaches at least a portion of the plurality of cutters (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) that comprises a three-sided cross-sectional geometry (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) and that sits within a cutter pocket (Ref. 110, Fig. 2). Boland teaches it is old and well known in the art that the cutters can be made into multiple shapes including triangles, cylinders, squares and rectangles ([0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cutter, as taught by Lu as modified, with the cutter comprises a three-sided cross-sectional geometry, as taught by Boland, to achieve the predictable result of cutting a surface and given the teachings of Boland having different shaped cutters are old and well known in the art and are obvious variants of one another ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 18, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 17, as described above, Lu further teaches wherein the cylindrical cutter comprises a circular cross-sectional geometry (if the cutter is cylindrical it will inherently have a circular cross section); and wherein the cylindrical cutter is machined to generate four or more of the cutter (Fig. 8, [0067]). Lu as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the cutter comprises a three-sided cross-sectional geometry. Boland teaches a cutting tool with a cutter made of PCD and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonable pertinent to the problem of the inventor of cutting a surface. Boland teaches a cutter (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) that comprises a three-sided cross-sectional geometry (Fig. 1, Ref. 10) and that sits within a cutter pocket (Ref. 110, Fig. 2). Boland teaches it is old and well known in the art that the cutters can be made into multiple shapes including triangles, cylinders, squares and rectangles ([0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cutter, as taught by Lu as modified, with the cutter comprises a three-sided cross-sectional geometry, as taught by Boland, to achieve the predictable result of cutting a surface and given the teachings of Boland having different shaped cutters are old and well known in the art and are obvious variants of one another ([0025]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clift (US 9,487,933).
Regarding Claim 15, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of cutter pockets comprises a five-sided cross-sectional geometry. Clift teaches a blade with a blade body, cutter pocket, and a cutter and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Clift further teaches a cutter pocket (Ref. 60, Fig. 7A-C) configured to receive a cutter (Ref. 50, Fig. 2&7), wherein the cutter pocket is attached to the blade body (Fig. 7A-C) wherein at least one of the plurality of cutter pocket comprises an a five sided cross-sectional geometry (Fig. 5, [Col 7, Lines 20-24] describes the cutter pocket (54) can be machined into any desired shape). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cutter and cutter pockets, as taught by Lu as modified, with at least one cutter and cutter pocket comprises an irregular pentagonal cross-sectional geometry, as taught by Clift, to achieve the predictable result of cutting a surface and given the teachings of Clift that the cutter pockets can be cut into any shape ([Col. 7, Lines 20-24]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Willer (US 2022/0032383)
Regarding Claim 16, Lu as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of cutter pockets comprises a six-sided cross-sectional geometry. Willer teaches a blade with a blade body, cutter pocket, and a cutter and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Willer further teaches a cutter pocket (Ref. 410, Fig. 4) configured to receive a cutter (Ref. 430 Fig. 5B), wherein the cutter pocket is attached to the blade body (Fig. 6) wherein at least one of the plurality of cutter pockets comprises a six-sided cross-sectional geometry (Ref. 5E shows a hexagonal cross sectional geometry). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cutter and cutter pockets, as taught by Lu as modified, with at least one cutter and cutter pocket comprises a six-sided cross-sectional geometry, as taught by Willer, to achieve the predictable result of cutting a surface and having cutters attached to a blade body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have been considered and examiner has withdrawn the drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been considered and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection. However, the amendments to the claim have required a new 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification are acknowledged, however, examiner has maintained an abstract objection due to legal phraseology.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 September, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in regards to the back rake angles change the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Examiner has applied Burton to Lu in the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Examiner has interpreted that a back rake angle exists as the angle formed between a tool’s cutting face and a line perpendicular to the cutting edge. Lu teaches that the plurality of cutters forms some a plurality of back rake angles (Fig. 12) relative to the edge of the blade body (Fig. 8). Burton further teaches a blade with a blade (fig. 1A-C) with a blade body (Ref. 110, Fig. 1B-C) with cutters (Ref. 120a, Fig. 2B) that have back rake angle (Ref. theta, Fig. 2B, [0052]) wherein the blade comprises a progressive cutter layout such that two or more of the plurality of back rake angles is different ([0052] describe the back rake angles can be different across cutters and have different range of angles on the blade) wherein each of the plurality of back rake angles comprises a first axis radial to the edge of the blade body at a location of a corresponding cutter (Fig. 2B, right angled dotted line), and a second axis parallel to the cutter leading edge of the corresponding cutter (Fig. 2B, left vertical dotted line). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the back rake angles, as taught by Lu, to have two or more back rake angles that are different and each of the plurality of back rake angles comprises a first axis and a second axis, as taught by Burton, to aid in evacuating cuttings during use ([0052]).
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723