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 .
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/113432 with [evidence reference Donofrio (5,855,158)]. Please see the Figures below for Examiner added reference labels.
With regards to claim 1, WO 2013/113432 discloses the invention including a blade (Fig. 7) having an attachment portion configured to couple with an oscillating power tool (3, Fig. 1, title), a body (2) extending from the attachment portion in a direction defining a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1 shows how the axis would be drawn in Fig. 7), the body including a distal end generally opposite the attachment portion (4), the distal end of the body includes a toothed notch (n) having a plurality of teeth (t3), the distal end of the body includes a first outer group of teeth (t1) and a second outer group of teeth (t2), the first and second outer groups of teeth define a distal end plane (p), the first outer group of teeth having a first width measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (t1, Fig. 7), the second outer group of teeth having a second width measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (t2, Fig. 7), the toothed notch having a linear dimension measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis between a first end of the notch where the notch deviates from the distal end plane and a second end of the notch where the notch deviates from the distal end plane (n, p), a width of the body at the distal end includes the first width, the linear dimension, and the second width (Fig. 7), the first width terminates at the first end of the notch (Fig. 7), and the second width terminates at the second end of the notch (Fig. 7).
With regards to claims 3-8, WO 2013/113432 discloses the toothed notch converges towards the attachment portion (n), the longitudinal axis intersects the toothed notch (n, Figs. 1 and 7), the distal end plane is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (4, Fig. 7), the toothed notch is disposed between the first and second outer groups of teeth in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (t1, n, t2), each of the first and second groups of teeth are positioned along a respective straight path that extends in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (t1, t2, p, Fig. 7), the body includes first and second outer walls that are substantially straight and substantially transverse to the longitudinal axis (ow1, ow2), the outer walls are mirrored oblique walls with respect to each other converging towards the attachment portion (ow1, ow2), the body includes a first longitudinal segment (1s) and a second longitudinal segment (2s) and the segments extend substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis between a respective one of the outer walls and the distal end (Fig. 1).
However, with regards to claim 1, WO 2013/113432 fails to disclose the linear dimension is less than the first width and the second width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the linear dimension less than the first width and the second width, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the linear dimension less than the first width and the second width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). [Donofrio provides evidence that it is known in the art for blades to be “fabricated in a plurality of different shapes and sizes to accommodate various carpentry tasks” (column 4 lines 60-63)]. WO 2013/113432 discloses many different shape variations involving the cutting edge (including Figure 6 that features a smaller notch) and, in light of Donofrio, it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have modified the width of the notch especially if the performing another task would benefit from a notch with a smaller width. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of WO 2013/113432 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/113432 with [evidence reference Donofrio (5,855,158)]. Please see the Figures below for Examiner added reference labels.
With regards to claim 9, WO 2013/113432 discloses the invention including a blade (Fig. 7) having an attachment portion configured to couple with an oscillating power tool (3, Fig. 1, title), a body (2) extending from the attachment portion in a direction defining a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1 shows how the axis would be drawn in Fig. 7), the body including a distal end defining an edge (4) having a working portion (n), a first straight portion (portion having t1), and a second straight portion (portion having t2), the straight portions defines a distal end plane extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (p), the edge at the working portion is recessed from the distal end plane (n, p), the edge at the working portion includes a plurality of teeth (t3), the edge at the first straight portion includes a first outer group of teeth (t1) and the edge at the second straight portion includes a second outer group of teeth (t2), the first outer group of teeth having a first width measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (t1, Fig. 7), the second outer group of teeth having a second width measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (t2, Fig. 7), the edge at the working portion having a linear dimension measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis between a first end of the edge at the working portion where the edge deviates from the distal end plane and a second end of the edge at the working portion where the edge deviates from the distal end plane (n, p), a width of the body at the distal end includes the first width, the linear dimension, and the second width (Fig. 7), the first width terminates at the first end of the edge (Fig. 7), and the second width terminates at the second end of the edge (Fig. 7).
With regards to claims 11-14, WO 2013/113432 discloses the edge at the working portion converges towards the attachment portion (n), the longitudinal axis intersects the edge at the working portion (n, Figs. 1 and 7), the edges at the first and second straight portions are spaced from the longitudinal axis (portions having t1 and t2, Figs. 1 and 7), and the first outer group of teeth (t1), the second outer group of teeth (t2) and the teeth of the edge of the working portion (t3, n) define a continuous series of teeth along the distal end of the body (Fig. 7).
However, with regards to claim 9, WO 2013/113432 fails to disclose the linear dimension is less than the first width and the second width.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the linear dimension less than the first width and the second width, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the linear dimension less than the first width and the second width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). [Donofrio provides evidence that it is known in the art for blades to be “fabricated in a plurality of different shapes and sizes to accommodate various carpentry tasks” (column 4 lines 60-63)]. WO 2013/113432 discloses many different shape variations involving the cutting edge (including Figure 6 that features a smaller notch) and, in light of Donofrio, it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have modified the width of the notch especially if the performing another task would benefit from a notch with a smaller width. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of WO 2013/113432 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/113432 with [evidence reference Donofrio (5,855,158)] in view of Staub (9,522,432).
WO 2013/113432 discloses the invention including the notch has a shape converging towards the attachment portion (n).
However, WO 2013/113432 fails to disclose the shape is V-shaped.
Staub teaches it is known in the art of oscillating tool cutting blades to incorporate a V-shaped cutting notch (Fig. 2A, column 7 lines 4-5). Staub also teaches the V-shape (Fig. 2A) being alternative to a curved shape (Fig. 1A) that resembles the shape disclosed in WO 2013/113432. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided WO 2013/113432 with the shape, as taught by Staub, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013/113432 with [evidence reference Donofrio (5,855,158)] in view of Staub (9,522,432).
With regards to claims 15-19, please see rejections of claims 1-14 above.
However, with regards to claim 20, WO 2013/113432 in view of Staub fail to disclose the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of WO 2013/113432 in view of Staub to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
772
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-6-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the Applicant’s arguments that the claimed dimensional relationship is critical and has functional and structural significance, paragraph [0062] discloses the specific dimensions of H1 and paragraph [0065] discloses the specific dimensions of W3 and W4. These paragraphs or any of the other paragraphs directed to the elected embodiment do not appear to include any criticality disclosures. While the claims do include H1 > W3 and W4, this is only one of many options. Paragraph [0062] discloses “H1…may have other dimensions in other implementations” and [0065] discloses “W3, W4…may be different from each other in other implementations. These paragraphs list values of H1, W3, and W4 which can result in “H1 < W3 and W4”, “W4 > H1 > W3”, or “W3 > H1 >W4”. It is not understood what makes H1 > W3 and W4 critical in light of the other disclosed implementations as there is no disclosure of the claimed relationship being critical with regards to any other option. Also, there does not appear to be any disclosure linking the claimed relationship to the purpose of the invention. Since the invention appears to function as intended utilizing any of the options of paragraphs [0062] and [0065], it is unclear how H1 > W3 and W4 is critical.
It would have been obvious to have modified WO 2013/113432 because changing the shape and/or size of saw blades is known in the art to accommodate various different tasks (column 4 lines 60-63 of evidence reference Donofrio).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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, Boyer D 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.
05 May 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights