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Claims 4-6 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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, 7-8, and 10 – 11 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of Claim 1, reading: “the first modified portion being tapered and extending rearward from the rake face” is indefinite. For example, looking at fig 7B, the modified portion 790 tapers and extends from the rake face toward edge C at a front of the tooth. This interpretation of forward and rearward direction is supported by the disclosure of fig 1 and of par 0041 and 0042, which disclose that the portion 107 is the rear end portion and that portion 106 is the front end portion. Thus, comparing the direction of the teeth and gullets in fig 1 to those shown in fig 7B, the gullets face the rear end portion of the blade, and thus rear appears to be a direction from for example, parts C to A. In accordance with this interpretation of “rearward” it is not clear how the modified portion 790 extends rearward of the rake face. (See annotated fig 7B below). Alternatively, looking at figure 5, an arrow shows a cutting direction, which may be considered a forward direction. In such a case, the tapering shown in fig 7B may be considered to extend in a rearward direction to the cutting direction. For purposes of advancing prosecution both of these interpretations will be attributed to the claim limitation since both appear to be supported by the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
412
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPUB 20060207398 Nicolson.
Regarding Claim 1, 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 (122) and a plurality of gullets (124);
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 (4), a relief face (top portion of tooth, adjacent to face 4 and formation 9), a tooth cutting edge (see annotated fig 3, shown below) at a junction between the rake face and the relief face ((see annotated fig 3, shown below) at least one non-cutting edge (see annotated fig 3, shown below) extending on a first side face (5) transverse to the rake face and the relief face (fig 3), a second side face (face opposite to face 5) opposite the first side face and transverse to the rake face and the relief face (see fig 3), a first relief- side edge at a junction between the first side face and the relief face (see annotated fig 3, shown below), a second relief-side edge (see annotated fig 3, shown below) at a junction between the second side face and the relief face (see annotated fig 3, shown below), a first modified portion (9) on at least one of the first and second relief-side edges (fig 3), the first modified portion being tapered (fig 3, E.g. wider adjacent to wall 4 and narrower adjacent to wall 6) and extending rearward from the rake face (4) (e.g. rearward being in a direction opposite to a cutting direction, e.g. rearward being from part 4 toward part 6 of the tooth, [see 35 USC 112b discussion above]).
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.
Regarding Claim 2, in Nicolson the first modified portion is tapered (E.g. wider adjacent to wall 4 and narrower adjacent to wall 6) and is wider adjacent the tooth cutting edge (fig 3, annotated above) and tapers inward to be narrower as the modified portion extends rearward (e.g. rearward being in a direction opposite to a cutting direction, e.g. rearward being from part 4 toward part 6 of the tooth, [see 35 USC 112b discussion above]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolson 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 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 4784033, Hayden.
Regarding Claims 10-11, Nicolson also includes each of the teeth having an insert (parts 1 and 2) received by a tooth holder 12 coupled to the elongated body of the reciprocating saw blade (fig 6-8).
However, Nicolson lacks the inserts being hard metal insert (Claim 10), and
the hard metal insert comprises one of carbide (Claim 11).
Hayden 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 the inserts being hard metal insert (col 4, lines 25-30, “tungsten carbide”) (Claim 10), and the hard metal insert comprises carbide (See Col. 4, lines 25-30, which discloses that the tips are made of a combination of “tungsten carbide” and an interlayer of ductile metal at the connecting part) (Claim 11) in order to provide hardness for cutting and also provide “energy absorption characteristics which prevent failure of the brazed joint due to stress under dynamic load conditions” (col 4, 23-35).
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 inserts be hard metal inserts (Claim 10), and the hard metal insert comprises one of carbide (and a ductile joint portion) (Claim 11) in order to provide hardness for cutting and also provide energy absorption characteristics which prevent failure of the brazed joint due to stress under dynamic load conditions, as taught by Hayden.
In addition, it would also have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the inserts being hard metal insert (Claim 10), and
the hard metal insert comprises one of carbide (Claim 11), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, Hayden, as discussed above, discloses that an insert in a saw assembly be inserts being hard metal insert (Claim 10), and the hard metal insert comprises one of carbide (Claim 11) as such, it is known that such a material is suitable for the purpose of providing cutting insets to a saw assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 4214499 20210237180 3615309 2637355 20150190871 5249485 20180369941 20050056135 20060207398 6834573 20130133500 0067369 3615309 11401770 0540065 20070151430 6321618 8234961 5992204 20070151430 6321618 0067369 5249485 20090126712 3104562 2946359 20230398617 6321618 and 20220134455 disclose state of the art saw blade inserts with formations thereon, while international documents EP 1053814 A2 CN 1867431 A CN 102421559 A EP 4316712 A1 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