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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20140150620 to Elliston et al. in view of EP0580349 to Satou et al. or US Patent Application Publication No. 20030233927 to Johnson et al.
In re claim 1, Elliston teaches a reciprocating saw blade, comprising:
a body (12) comprising a first end (as shown in at least Figure 1), a second end (as shown in at least Figure 1) spatially disposed from the first end, a spine edge (13) extending between the first end and the second end, and a cutting edge (14) extending between the first end and the second end, the cutting edge (14) being opposite to the spine edge (13);
a plurality of teeth (16) defining a cutting portion of the cutting edge;
wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth comprises: a base (as shown in at least Figure 1) having a unitary construction with the body (12), the base comprising a first material having a first hardness (Para 0028);
a tip (20’’) welded to the base (Para 0043), the tip comprising a cemented ceramic material having a second hardness (Para 0034), the second hardness being greater than the first hardness (Para 0034);
wherein the cemented ceramic material comprises tungsten carbide particles and other particles comprising one or more cubic carbides (Para 0034).
In re claim 3, wherein the one or more cubic carbides comprise at least one of titanium carbide (TiC) (Para 0032).
In re claim 16, wherein the ceramic coating is applied via physical vapor deposition (Para 0034).
Regarding claim 1, Elliston teaches a reciprocating saw blade having a body with a tip comprising a cemented ceramic, but does not teach the tungsten carbide particles and the other particles being held together with a metal matrix material and wherein the cemented ceramic material comprises at least 10 wt% of the other particles comprising the one or more cubic carbides.
Satou teaches a saw with cutting tips of tungsten carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, and tantalum carbide. The titanium carbide, niobium carbide, and tantalum carbide are at least 31% to 44 wt % with the balance being tungsten carbide (Pg. 2, lines 13-22, Pg. 3, lines 7-18, 31-36).
Johnson teaches a saw with cutting tips (20) including a carbide material including 8.6% TiC, 12% NbC, and 9.5%Co (Para 0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the tip of Elliston to have a tungsten carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, and tantalum carbide of at least 10 wt% held in a metal matrix as taught by Satou or Johnson to provide a blade with sufficient impact resistance in order to prevent an excessively brittle blade which leads to cracking and chipping (Pg. 3, lines 11-18).
In re claim 4, modified Elliston teaches wherein the other particles comprising the one or more cubic carbides comprise up to 55 wt% of the cemented ceramic material (Pg. 2, lines 13-22, Pg. 3, lines 7-18, 31-36, Satou; Para 0015, Johnson).
In re claim 5, modified Elliston teaches wherein cemented ceramic material comprises up to 55 wt% of at least one of TiC (Pg. 2, lines 13-22, Pg. 3, lines 7-18, 31-36, Satou; Para 0015, Johnson).
In re claim 6, modified Elliston teaches wherein the cemented ceramic material comprises about 12 wt% TiC, about 2 wt% TaC, and about 11 wt% NbC (Para 0015, Johnson).
It has been interpreted, 8.6 wt% of TiC is about 12 wt%. The specification has set forth a range of values and has not designed any particular value as critical.
In re claim 7, modified Elliston teaches wherein the cemented ceramic material comprises at least 50 wt% of the tungsten carbide particles (Pg. 3, lines 13-15, Satou).
In re claim 8, modified Elliston teaches wherein the cemented ceramic material comprises about 61 wt% of the tungsten carbide (Pg. 3, lines 13-15, Satou).
Note, 60 wt% carbide is about 61 wt%.
In re claim 9, modified Elliston teaches wherein the cemented ceramic material comprises from 3 wt% to 25 wt% of the metal matrix material (Pg. 3, lines 19-23, Satou; Para 0015, Johnson).
In re claim 10, modified Elliston teaches wherein the metal matrix material comprises at least one of cobalt (g. 3, lines 19-23, Satou; Para 0015, Johnson).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliston et al. in view of Satou et al. or Johnson et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 10,462,963 to Stoffel et al. and in further view of JP2015203116 to Yasumi et al.
In re claim 2, modified Elliston teaches one or more cubic carbides comprises cubic carbides having a hardness, but does not teach the cubic carbides having a hardness of at least 1500 HV10.
Stoffel teaches a blade having cubic carbides of titanium carbide having a hardness between 1200-2500 HV, in which the claimed value falls within (Col. 1, line 67, Col. 2, lines 1-5, Col. 5, lines 35-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the cubic carbides of modified Elliston to have a hardness between 1200-2500 HV as taught by Stoffel which is advantageous to maintain sufficient wear resistance of the blade, which maintains blade sharpness and improves the life of the saw blade (Col. 1, line 67, Col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 2, modified Elliston teaches one or more cubic carbides comprises cubic carbides, but does not teach the one or more cubic carbides having a thermal conductivity of 50 W/mK or less.
Yasumi teaches a blade having cubic carbides with a thermal conductivity of 17 W/mK, which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the tip of modified Elliston to have a thermal conductivity of 17 W/mK as taught by Yasumi which is advantageous for exhibiting excellent fracture resistance Pg. 5, lines 26-28).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliston et al. in view of Satou et al. or Johnson et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Norgre, Susanne, Mechanical and Thermophysical Properties of Hardmetals at Room and Elevated Temperatures, Report Euro PM2018 [online], [retrieved on 2025-12-16]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://publica-rest.fraunhofer.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/ebd7baaf-00b9-4b62-9b15-57c27caf89df/content>.
In re claim 11, modified Elliston teaches wherein the cemented ceramic material comprises a hardness, but does not teach the hardness of at least 1000 HV10 at room temperature.
Norgre teaches a cemented ceramic material having a hardness of at least 1000 HV10 at room temperature (Pg. 4, Fig. 2a).
Based on the chart the hardness at room temperature of at least 0 degrees for various WC-Co compositions fall within the parameters of the cemented ceramic material having a of 5-15 wt% of Co.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the hard tip of modified Elliston to have a composition of WC-Co within the range of 5-20% Co to provide a hardness at room temperature of at least 1000 HV10 to ensure high hardness is retained (Pg. 5, lines 1-6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliston et al. in view of Satou et al. or Johnson et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 6,322,871 to Walz.
In re claim 12, modified Elliston teaches a reciprocating saw blade, but does not teach the other ceramic particles further comprise particles made of a nitride material.
Walz teaches in the art of saw blades a cermet having a combination of titanium carbide, titanium carbonitride in combination and with other ingredients (Col. 6, lines 31-46).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the tip of Elliston (from the ground up) with a combination of materials including titanium carbonitride which is advantageous to maintain a shaper edge up to three times as long or longer than comparable tungsten carbide (with no added material) and to withstand high temperatures (Col. 2, lines 19-23).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliston et al. in view of Satou et al. or Johnson et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 10,112,245 to Hunter.
In re claim 13, modified Elliston teaches the saw blade can have a variable on constant pitch (Para 0034, Elliston), the plurality of teeth comprises at least 4 teeth per inch along the cutting edge.
Hunter teaches a cutting blade having plurality of teeth comprises about 5 teeth per inch along the cutting edge (Col. 2, lines 35-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the teeth of modified Elliston to have a pitch of at least 4 teeth per inch as taught by Hunter which is advantageous for faster, more aggressive cuts with better chip removal.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliston et al. in view of Satou et al. or Johnson et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of WO2021016202 to Dietz et al.
In re claim 15, modified Elliston teaches a plurality of teeth comprising a ceramic coating (Paras 0012, 0034) having a thickness, but does not teach the thickness is up to 10 µm.
Dietz teaches a saw blade of tungsten carbide tip with a ceramic coating having a thickness between 3 µm to 4 µm, which is within the claimed range of up to 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide for the ceramic coating of the tip of Elliston to have a thickness of 3 µm to 4 µm as taught by Dietz which is advantageous for increasing oxidation resistance at elevated temperatures, increasing hardness, and having a high wear resistance in extreme mechanical stresses (Para 0032).
Response to Arguments
The claim objection in the Office Action mailed January 12, 2026 has been obviated by the amendments filed April 13, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13, 15, and 16 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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights