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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-11) and
Species 2 (Figs. 8A-12) in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/22/2026.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, “A blade change mechanism configured to attach to a blade to a transmission rod of a power tool” should --A blade change mechanism configured to attach a blade to a transmission rod of a power tool--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a blade retention structure, “a blade retention component,” and “a component” recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure does not clearly identify which component or components define the recited “blade retention structure.” In particular, it is unclear what elements are encompassed by the blade retention structure. For example, it is not specified whether the locking pin 336, springs 312 and 316, trigger sleeve 304 (including bar 304b), rear cam or ejection sleeve 308, and front cam 344 are part of the blade retention structure. See Fig. 8A of the current drawings.
Additionally, the disclosure does not explicitly identify which components define the “blade retention component” of the blade retention structure. It is therefore unclear what elements constitute the blade retention component. For instance, it is not specified whether the blade retention component consists solely of the locking pin 336 or whether it also includes additional components.
Furthermore, the disclosure does not clearly identify what components define the recited “a component” of the blade change mechanism. It is unclear what elements are encompassed by this component. For example, if the ejection sleeve 308 is considered to be the component, the disclosure does not explain how this component differs from the blade retention structure or the blade retention component. It is also unclear whether this component is part of the blade retention structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-5 and 10-11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kakiuchi et al. (2002/0017026 A1), hereinafter Kakiuchi, provided with the IDS filled on 11/01/2023. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kakiuchi teaches a blade change mechanism configured to attach to a blade 3 to a transmission rod 2 of a power tool 1, the blade change mechanism comprising: a support body (defined by the section at the end of the transmission rod 2; Figs. 4 and 6); a blade retention structure (defining by the blade clamping pin 18 and spring 12; Figs. 2-6) coupled to the support body and including a blade retention component 18 movable to hold the blade in a locked state in response to engagement of the blade 3 with the blade change mechanism on insertion of the blade 3; a component (defined by the blade lock operating sleeve 11, and the cam face 17; Fig. 6) movable to vary the blade retention component 18 to hold the blade 3 in the locked state, the component (11, 17) further movable to vary the blade retention component 18 to an unlocked state in which the blade retention structure (18, 12) is disengaged from the blade 3, wherein the blade retention structure (18, 12) is held in the unlocked state absent the blade being fully inserted into the blade change mechanism. See Figs. 1-12 and paragraphs [0057] to [0062] in Kakiuchi.
Regarding claim 2, Kakiuchi teaches everything noted above including that the blade retention component 18 includes a lock pin and the component (11, 17) is an eject sleeve 11 or a cam 17, and wherein rotation of the eject sleeve or the cam disengages the lock pin 18 from the blade.
Regarding claim 3, Kakiuchi teaches everything noted above including that the eject sleeve 11 or the cam 17 defines a cam surface (defined by the surface of the cam 17) configured to shift the lock pin 18 to the locked state in which the lock pin is engaged with the blade.
Regarding claim 4, Kakiuchi teaches everything noted above including that the eject sleeve 11 or the cam 17 defines a cam surface (defied by the surface of the cam 17) configured to shift the lock pin to the unlocked state in response to an unlocking force applied to the eject sleeve or the cam.
Regarding claim 5, Kakiuchi teaches everything noted above including that the blade retention structure (18, 120) includes a lock pin 18, and wherein the lock pin is configured to automatically engage the blade 3 in response to insertion of the blade 3 into the blade change mechanism.
Regarding claim 10, Kakiuchi teaches everything noted above including that the component (11, 17) includes an eject sleeve 11 and the blade change mechanism further comprises a spring 12 coupled to the eject sleeve, wherein the eject sleeve is movable against a bias force of the spring between a loaded state corresponding with the unlocked state of the blade change mechanism and a relaxed state corresponding with the locked state of the blade change mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, Kakiuchi teaches everything noted above including that the blade 3 is automatically ejected from the blade change mechanism as the blade change mechanism is transitioned from the locked state to the unlocked state.
9. Claims 1, 6 and 10-11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Marinkovich et al. (6,209,208 B1), hereinafter Marinkovich, provided with the IDS filled on 11/01/2023. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Marinkovich teaches a blade change mechanism 20 configured to attach to a blade 24 to a transmission rod 22 of a power tool 44, the blade change mechanism comprising: a support body 36; a blade retention structure 30 coupled to the support body 36 and including a blade retention component 64 movable to hold the blade in a locked state in response to engagement of the blade 24 with the blade change mechanism on insertion of the blade 24; a component 40 movable to vary the blade retention component 64 to hold the blade 24 in the locked state, the component 40 further movable to vary the blade retention component 64 to an unlocked state in which the blade retention structure 30 is disengaged from the blade 24, wherein the blade retention structure 30 is held in the unlocked state absent the blade being fully inserted into the blade change mechanism. See Figs. 1-12 in Marinkovich.
Regarding claim 6, Marinkovich teaches everything noted above including a trigger sleeve 38 and a spring 34 coupled to the trigger sleeve 38, wherein the trigger sleeve is movable against a bias force of the spring in response to insertion of the blade into the blade change mechanism to vary the blade retention structure 30 to the locked state, and wherein the trigger sleeve 38 is configured to transition the blade retention structure 30 to the unlocked state in response to movement of the component.
Regarding claim 10, Marinkovih teaches everything noted above including that the component (alternatively defied as members 38 and 40) includes an eject sleeve 38 and the blade change mechanism further comprises a spring 34 coupled to the eject sleeve 38, wherein the eject sleeve is movable against a bias force of the spring between a loaded state corresponding with the unlocked state of the blade change mechanism and a relaxed state corresponding with the locked state of the blade change mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, Marinkovich teaches everything noted above including that the blade 24 is automatically ejected from the blade change mechanism as the blade change mechanism is transitioned from the locked state to the unlocked state.
10. Claims 1-8 and 10-11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Neitzell et al. (EP 2641685 A2), hereinafter Neitzell. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Neitzell teaches a blade change mechanism configured to attach to a blade 18 to a transmission rod 16 of a power tool 14, the blade change mechanism 20 comprising: a support body 72; a blade retention structure (54, 60; Fig. 80 coupled to the support body 72 and including a blade retention component 54 movable to hold the blade 18 in a locked state in response to engagement of the blade 18 with the blade change mechanism on insertion of the blade 18; a component 66 movable to vary the blade retention component 54 to hold the blade 18 in the locked state, the component 66 further movable to vary the blade retention component 54 to an unlocked state in which the blade retention structure (54, 60) is disengaged from the blade 18, wherein the blade retention structure (54, 60) is held in the unlocked state absent the blade being fully inserted into the blade change mechanism. See Figs. 1-10 in Neitzell.
Regarding claim 2, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the blade retention component 54 includes a lock pin 54 and the component 66 is an eject sleeve or a cam, and wherein rotation of the eject sleeve or the cam disengages the lock pin 54 from the blade.
Regarding claim 3, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the eject sleeve 66 or the cam defines a cam surface 76 (defined by the surface of the eject sleeve contacting the pin 54) configured to shift the lock pin 54 to the locked state in which the lock pin is engaged with the blade.
Regarding claim 4, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the eject sleeve 66 or the cam defines a cam surface configured to shift the lock pin 54 to the unlocked state in response to an unlocking force applied to the eject sleeve or the cam.
Regarding claim 5, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the blade retention structure (54, 60) includes a lock pin 54, and wherein the lock pin is configured to automatically engage the blade 18 in response to insertion of the blade into the blade change mechanism.
Regarding claim 6, Neitzel teaches everything noted above including a trigger sleeve (70, 108) and a spring 84 coupled to the trigger sleeve (70, 108), wherein the trigger sleeve (70, 108) is movable against a bias force of the spring in response to insertion of the blade into the blade change mechanism to vary the blade retention structure (54, 60) to the locked state, and wherein the trigger sleeve (70, 108) is configured to transition the blade retention structure to the unlocked state in response to movement of the component.
Regarding claim 7, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the trigger sleeve (70, 108) includes a bar (defined by the horizontal member of the plunger 108), wherein the bar is configured to contact the blade (via the finger or vertical member of the plunger 108) on engagement of the blade 18 with the blade change mechanism, wherein the trigger sleeve (70, 108) including a generally annular body 70, and wherein the bar defines a secant (Figs. 8-9) of the trigger sleeve as viewed from an end of the trigger sleeve.
Regarding claim 8, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the trigger sleeve further includes a finger (defined by the vertical member of the plunger 108; Fig. 9) extending in a transverse direction from the bar, the finger being configured to abut a base end (Fig. 9) and a corresponding finger (defined by the fingers on both sides of the base; Fig. 9) of the blade 18.
Regarding claim 10, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the component 66 includes an eject sleeve and the blade change mechanism further comprises a spring 84 coupled to the eject sleeve 66, wherein the eject sleeve is movable against a bias force of the spring between a loaded state corresponding with the unlocked state of the blade change mechanism and a relaxed state corresponding with the locked state of the blade change mechanism.
Regarding claim 11, Neitzell teaches everything noted above including that the blade 18 is automatically ejected from the blade change mechanism as the blade change mechanism is transitioned from the locked state to the unlocked state.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. It should be noted that claim 9 is not rejected over the prior art of the record. However, in view of issues under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the allowability of claims 6-10 cannot be determined at this time.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Limberg et al. (2009/0277022 A1), Scott (8,813,373 B2), Nemazi et al. (7,040,023 B2), and Chen et al. (6,851,194 B1) teach a blade change mechanism.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
February 10, 2026