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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-6 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 12-29-2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are examined below.
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 of this title, 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20060207398 Nicolson, in view of 6035844, Otani.
Regarding Claims 1-2, Nicolson discloses:
A reciprocating saw blade (strip 10 and teeth 1 thereon, par 0030) comprising:
an elongated blade body 10 extending along a blade axis (long axis of blade) and having a rear end portion (end at which tang 22 is present, fig 9), a front end portion (far right end in fig 9, opposite to tang end), a first lateral face (face pointing out of page in fig 6 and 9), a second lateral face (face pointing into page in fig 6) opposite the first lateral face (fig 6), and a blade cutting edge (edge formed by cutting teeth) extending between the rear end portion and the front end portion (fig 6), the blade cutting edge including a plurality of teeth (combination of wall portions 13, 14, 2 and 1) and a plurality of gullets (concave rounded portion/parts between teeth);
each of the plurality of teeth comprised of an insert (parts 1 and 2) received by a tooth holder (12) coupled to the elongated blade body (figs 6-8),
a tang (22, fig 9, par 0030) coupled to the rear end portion and configured to be received in a blade holder of a powered reciprocating saw (see explanation below, with regard to intended use limitations),
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of teeth each includes a rake face (14), a relief face (see annotated fig 7, shown below), a tooth cutting edge (see annotated fig 7, shown below) at a junction between the rake face and the relief face (see annotated fig 7, shown below) at least one non-cutting edge (see annotated fig 7, shown below) extending on a first side face (see annotated fig 7, shown below) transverse to the rake face and the relief face (see annotated fig 7, shown below), a second side face (face opposite to annotated side face) opposite the first side face and transverse to the rake face and the relief face (see fig 7), a first relief-side edge at a junction between the first side face and the relief face (see annotated fig 7, shown below), a second relief-side edge (see annotated fig 7, shown below) at a junction between the second side face and the relief face (see annotated fig 7, shown below), a first modified portion (see annotated fig 7, shown below) on at least one of the first and second relief-side edges (see annotated fig 7, shown below), the first modified portion being tapered (fig 3, E.g. wider adjacent to wall 4 and narrower adjacent to wall 6; when comparing figs 3 and 7).
Examiner notes that the limitations of Claim 1 reading: "configured to be received in a blade holder of a powered reciprocating saw” (emphasis added) is considered a statement of use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. The only requirement is that the prior art reference be capable of said intended use. See MPEP 2114. In this case, the blade is said to be used to be a reciprocating saw device and the blade has a tang 22, and thus is capable of being “configured to be received in a blade holder of a powered reciprocating saw” as stated in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nicolson lacks the inserts being hard metal inserts comprising one of carbide or cermet, and the modified portion extending away from the rake face (Claim 1), and the modified portion being tapered and wider adjacent the tooth cutting edge and tapers inward to be narrower as the modified portion extends rearward (claim 2).
Otani discloses a cutting insert (fig. 14A, tip 2) for a cutting saw blade (See abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the cutting insert for a cutting saw blade tool of the present invention and discloses that such an insert includes the inserts 2 being hard metal inserts comprising one of carbide or cermet (col 7, line 1-10) in order to have the tip be made to have high strength (col 3, 35-55), and a modified portion thereof (fig 14A) the modified portion at a first relief side edge, the modified portion extending in part away from a rake face 2 (see annotated fig 14A below)(Claim 1), and the modified portion being tapered and wider adjacent the tooth cutting edge and tapers inward to be narrower as the modified portion extends rearward (see annotated fig 14A below) (claim 2), in order to have the tips have high toughness when secured, col 10, 5-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicolson by having the insert comprising one of carbide or cermet, in order to have the tip be made to have high strength, and to have the modified portion extending away from the rake face (Claim 1), and the modified portion being tapered and wider adjacent the tooth cutting edge and tapers inward to be narrower as the modified portion extends rearward (claim 2) in order to have the tips have high toughness when secured (as taught by Otani).
PNG
media_image2.png
493
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolson in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2021/016202, Dietz.
Regarding Claim 3, in Nicolson lacks the first modified portion is rounded and extends from about 10 to about 25 percent of the at least one of the first and second relief-side edges wherein the first modified portion extends rearward from the rake face and the cutting edge.
Dietz discloses a cutting insert for a cutting saw blade in the same field of endeavor as the cutting insert for a cutting saw blade tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a first modified portion (edge of substrate 44) thereof being rounded (prepped, per par 0030, to remove the sharp edges thereof) in order to reduce the stress produced during cutting, par 0030.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicolson by having the insert include a prepped/modified portion on at least one of the edges, thereof, which would in turn include a first modified portion on the side edge to be rounded in order to reduce the stress produced during cutting, as taught by Dietz.
In making the modification above the modified portion would from about 10 to about 25 percent of the at least one of the first and second relief-side edges wherein the first modified portion extends rearward from the rake face and the cutting edge, since the tip portion in Nicolson is about 10-25 percent of the whole edge of the tooth thereof see fig. 8 of Nicolson. ([see 35 USC 112b discussion above], with regards to rearward direction).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolson in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20070151430, Maclennan.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Maclennan lacks the blade/tooth having a second modified portion, of a first rake-side edge at a junction between the first side face and the rake face, and a third modified portion of a second rake-side edge at a junction between the second side face and the rake face, wherein at least one of the second and third modified portions is at least one of tapered or rounded (claim 7), and wherein at least one of the second modified portion and the third modified portion is rounded and includes two or more radii (claim 8).
Maclennan discloses a cutting insert for a cutting saw blade in the same field of endeavor as the cutting insert for a cutting saw blade tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a reversible cutting insert 210 for a saw blade, which includes a first modified portion 232 on a side edge of the insert, similar to the first modified portion of Nicolson. Additionally, Maclennan discloses that the insert also comprises the blade/tooth having a second modified portion (portion 237 on the left in fig 7), of a first rake-side edge 235 at a junction between a first side face (230, on the left in fig 7) and a rake face 236, and a third modified portion (portion 237 on the right in fig7) of a second rake-side edge at a junction between a second side face (230 on the right in fig 7) and the rake face 236, wherein at least one of the second and third modified portions is rounded (fig 7) (claim 7), and wherein at least one of the second modified portion and the third modified portion is rounded and includes two or more radii (par 0078 which discloses “The raking edges 237 of the saw tooth 210 are curved and more particularly define a continuous curve having a substantially constant radius. Alternatively, the curve may not be constant in radius, or may comprise two or more substantially constant radii.”, emphasis added) (claim 8) and further discloses that the shape of the outer edges between a side and a rake edge of the inserts may take the form of many different shapes, par 0067.
It would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicolson by having the insert include a second modified portion, of a first rake-side edge at a junction between the first side face and the rake face, and a third modified portion of a second rake-side edge at a junction between the second side face and the rake face, wherein at least one of the second and third modified portions is at least one of tapered or rounded (claim 7), and wherein at least one of the second modified portion and the third modified portion is rounded and includes two or more radii (claim 8), in view of the teachings of Maclennan that these edges may take the form of different shapes including the claimed multi radius shape.
In addition, it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicolson by having the insert include a second modified portion, of a first rake-side edge at a junction between the first side face and the rake face, and a third modified portion of a second rake-side edge at a junction between the second side face and the rake face, wherein at least one of the second and third modified portions is at least one of tapered or rounded (claim 7), and wherein at least one of the second modified portion and the third modified portion is rounded and includes two or more radii (claim 8), as taught by Maclennan (see discussion above), since the changing of a shape of an element of an invention was held to be in the realm of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), and MPEP 2144.04-IV.B, and since such a structure and shape is shown in an analogous a saw insert assembly in Maclennan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 5-12-26, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of the claims as the claims have been amended have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Otani.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5-12-26, with respect to 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims in line with Examiner’s recommendations rendering the rejections moot. The 35 USC 112 rejections has been withdrawn.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 4173914 3576061 6276249 3104562 6883412 3133533 and 4889025 disclose state of the art saw blade inserts with formations thereon. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights