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, 3-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,196,106 to Kurelek et al. in view of US Patent No. 12,515,267 to Brigger et al.
In re claim 1, Kurelek teaches a blade comprising:
a body (5) having an untoothed distal edge (see Annotated Figure 1, Pg. 3, above, the end of the saw is distal relative to hub (4)), wherein a plurality of recesses (8) are recessed from distal ends of the untoothed distal edge, wherein each recess is separated from adjacent recesses by protrusions (see Annotated Figure 1, Pg. 3, above) forming a portion of the body, wherein each protrusion has a distal end and partially defines two adjacent recesses (as shown in at least Figure 3), and wherein the distal ends of the protrusions collectively define the untoothed distal edge (as shown in at least Figure 3); and
a plurality of carbide tips (3, Col. 6, lines 59-63) attached to the body to form a toothed portion configured to perform a cutting operation, each of the carbide tips (is capable of being) shaped (and capable of performing) to perform the cutting operation in both directions during rotational oscillating motion, wherein each of the carbide tips is received in a respective one of the recesses (8), wherein each of the carbide tips substantially fills the respective one of the recesses (as shown in at least Figure 4).
Note, the preamble is directed to a blade. The blade has a plurality of carbide tips which merely have to be shaped to perform the cutting operation in both directions.
In re claim 3, wherein the distal ends are disposed between the carbide tips (3), and wherein the distal ends are substantially linear (as shown in at least Figure 3).
In re claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of carbide tips (3) is provided discretely from the others (as shown in at least Figure 3).
In re claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of carbide tips (3) forms a single tooth of the toothed portion (Col. 6, lines 59-63).
In re claim 6, wherein the plurality of carbide tips (3) are brazed to the body (Col. 6, lines 59-63).
In re claim 7, wherein at least one of the plurality of carbide tips (3) is pie shaped.
Note, the circumference of the carbide tips are “pie” shaped.
In re claim 9, wherein each of the plurality of carbide tips (3) includes a root (see Annotated Figure 2, below) disposed in the recess and a tip (see Annotated Figure 2, below) protruding from the body.
In re claim 10, wherein each of the recesses defines a wall of the body having a shape corresponding to a shape of the root of the carbide tip received therein (as shown in at least Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kurelek teaches a saw blade having a plurality of tips and each of the carbide tips (capable of being) shaped (and capable of performing) to perform the cutting operation in both directions during rotational oscillating motion; however, in the event on may argue, Brigger teaches a saw blade having a plurality of carbide tips which are shaped to perform cutting in both directions during rotational oscillation motion (Col. 26, lines 39-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade of Kurelek with a carbide tip and recess arrangement as taught by Brigger to perform cutting in both directions which is advantageous for fast and clean cuts.
Regarding claim 1, Kurelek teaches a saw blade having a plurality of carbide tips, but does not teach wherein adjacent carbide tips are spaced apart such that the blade has between 5 and 22 teeth per inch.
Brigger teaches a saw blade having a plurality of cutting tips (14a) having teeth per inch of at least 12, which falls within the claimed range of 5 and 22 teeth per inch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the teeth of Kureleck to have at least 12 teeth per inch as taught by Brigger which is advantageous for providing smooth, precise, and clean cuts.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurelek et al. in view of Brigger et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20150190871 to Dexter.
In re claim 8, modified Kurelek teaches a plurality of carbide tips, but does not teach wherein at least one of the plurality of carbide tips is cylindrical.
Dexter teaches a blade having a plurality of cylindrical tips (72) attached to a corresponding recess (Para 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the saw blade of Kurelek to have a plurality of cylindrical tips and corresponding recesses to have a cylindrical shape as taught by Dexter which are advantageous for being less prone to chipping during cutting. It has been held that a change in shape of the carbide bits is an obvious matter of design choice based on the intent of the cut. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurelek et al. in view of DE102013212594 to Meindorfer et al.
In re claim 18, Kureleck teaches a multi-tool comprising:
a blade (Figure 1);
an attachment portion (4) configured to be driven in a rotational oscillating motion by an oscillating multi-tool;
a body (5) extending from the attachment portion, the body including a plurality of protrusions (see Annotated Figure 1, above) and being formed without gullets, and
a plurality of carbide tips (3, Col. 6, lines 59-63) attached to the body and received within a plurality of recesses (8) defined between the plurality of protrusions to form a toothed portion configured to perform a cutting operation, wherein each of the plurality of carbide tips (3) is disposed discretely from the others, wherein the body is untoothed (as shown in at least Figure 2), and wherein each carbide tip forms an entire tooth of the blade (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 20, wherein the plurality of recesses are formed in a distal edge of the body (as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1, below).
Regarding claim 18, Kurelek teaches a multi-tool having a blade, but does not teach an oscillating multi-tool comprising an oscillating multi-tool blade.
Meindorfer teaches a multi-tool (10a) comprising an oscillating multi-tool blade (Pg. 2, lines 9-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the blade of Kurelek as an oscillating blade attachable to an oscillating multi-tool as taught by Meindorfer which is advantageous for performing highly precise cuts in a confined space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Baez (US 3945289) teaches a saw blade that is rotatable in both the clockwise and counterclockwise direction for performing cutting in both directions. The blade has a plurality of recesses receiving a plurality of cutting inserts with protrusions projecting between immediately adjacent carbide tips. Beaz teaches against using carbide tips, due to the brittleness of the material.
Meindorfer et la. (DE1020132125994) teaches a saw blade having a plurality of carbide inserts. As best shown in at least Figure 12, there are a plurality of recesses which transition into a protrusion. The protrusions are cutting teeth and do not project between immediately adjacent carbide tips.
Steliff (US Patent Application Publication No. 20050178264) teaches a saw blade rotatable in both a clockwise and counterclockwise direction to perform cutting in both directions. The saw blade has a plurality of inserts located on each side of the protrusion and does not teach a top received in a recess such that each protrusion projects between immediately adjacent carbide teeth.
One having ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Beaz with a carbide tip, since Beaz teaches against the modification. Any other modifications to the prior art would have relied on hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the teeth of Kurelek do not substantially fill the sockets (8). Applicant argues each tooth (3) has a gullet (7) which results in each tooth (3) leaving a majority of a corresponding socket unfilled.
The limitation recites “wherein each carbide tips substantially fills the respective one of the recesses.” The Examiner acknowledges the special definition to the phrase “substantially filled” in Para [41] on Page 9. Per the special definition, Kurelek teaches a removable tooth (3) which is entirely filled…having the appearance of being substantially filled as used by one or ordinary skill in the art using the naked eye using ordinary reasonable judgement. This is best shown in at least Figures 3 and 4 of Kurelek. Col. 6, lines 28-33 sets forth details that the tooth has a female recess which receives the male key portion to ensure proper alignment of the tooth. It has been interpreted, each carbide tip substantially files the receptive one of the recesses.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the combination of references 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