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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis (Claim 1, lines 17-18)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed October 29, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding claim 1 (lines 17-20) and claim 14 (lines 6-8), the phrase “wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis, form an obtuse angle with each other” is new matter. Paras [0004] discloses “Each blade has a first end, wherein the first end is made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis. Each blade also has a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape. Each blade also has cutting edges between the first end and second end” and Para [0006] discloses “Each blade “Yet another embodiment is directed to a blade for use with a jaw set for demolition, recycling, or material processing equipment. The blade comprises a blade longitudinal axis and a first end, where the first end is made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis. The blade also has a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which are angled to form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape. The blade also has cutting edges between the first end and second end.” Para [0005] discloses “Another embodiment is directed to a jaw set used for demolition, recycling, or material processing equipment…The front blade longitudinal axis and the rear blade longitudinal axis intersect to form an apex angle of between 100 degrees and 130 degrees. Each blade has a first end, wherein the first end is made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis. Each blade also has a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an obtuse angle with one another and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape” which is directed to the obtuse angle between second end surfaces of the blade. Based on the disclosed subject matter, the equal acute angles in Paras [0004,0006] appear to be the same/similar embodiments; however, the obtuse angle in Para [0005] appears to be a different embodiment, which is mutually exclusive from the disclosed embodiments of Paras [0004,0006]. The disclosure further does not provide any details to the equal acute angles and the obtuse angle being used in combination and Figure 6A only supports the obtuse angle between the two surfaces of the second end of the blade.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 11-14 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 (lines 17-20) and claim 11 (lines 6-9), the phrase “wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis, form an obtuse angle with each other” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that one had possession at the time of filing. Regarding claim 1 (lines 17-20) and claim 14 (lines 6-8), the phrase “wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis, form an obtuse angle with each other” is new matter. Paras [0004] discloses “Each blade has a first end, wherein the first end is made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis. Each blade also has a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape. Each blade also has cutting edges between the first end and second end” and Para [0006] discloses “Each blade “Yet another embodiment is directed to a blade for use with a jaw set for demolition, recycling, or material processing equipment. The blade comprises a blade longitudinal axis and a first end, where the first end is made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis. The blade also has a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which are angled to form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape. The blade also has cutting edges between the first end and second end.” Para [0005] discloses “Another embodiment is directed to a jaw set used for demolition, recycling, or material processing equipment…The front blade longitudinal axis and the rear blade longitudinal axis intersect to form an apex angle of between 100 degrees and 130 degrees. Each blade has a first end, wherein the first end is made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis. Each blade also has a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an obtuse angle with one another and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape” which is directed to the obtuse angle between second end surfaces of the blade. Based on the disclosed subject matter, the equal acute angles in Paras [0004,0006] appear to be the same/similar embodiments; however, the obtuse angle in Para [0005] appears to be a different embodiment, which is mutually exclusive from the disclosed embodiments of Paras [0004,0006]. The disclosure further does not provide any details to the equal acute angles and the obtuse angle being used in combination and Figure 6A only supports the obtuse angle between the two surfaces of the second end of the blade.
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, 3-6, and 11-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 (lines 17-20) and claim 14 (lines 6-8), the phrase “wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis, form an obtuse angle with each other” is indefinite. What structure forms the obtuse angle? Is the angle between the two surfaces both equal acute angles with the longitudinal axis of the blade and an obtuse angle or are there two different angles (two equal acute angles and an obtuse angle)?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 11-13 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,749,146 to Morikawa et al.
In re claim 11, Morikawa teaches a blade for a jaw set for demolition, recycling, or material processing equipment; wherein the blade comprises:
a) a blade longitudinal axis (as shown in at least Figure 17);
b) a first end, where the first end is made up of an end wall (126) that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis;
c) a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces (72), each of which are angled to form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis, form an obtuse angle with each other (see Annotated Figure 1, Pg. 8, below), and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape (as shown in at least Figure 17); and
d) cutting edges (72,70) between the first end and second end.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 12, wherein a cross-section of the blade perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis is rectangular (the cross section of blade 124 is rectangular).
In re claim 13, further including at least one bore (62) extending through the blade configured to accept bolts to secure the blade to the jaw.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,749,146 to Morikawa et al. in view of US Patent No. 10,252,356 to Jacobson et al.
In re claim 1, as best understood, Morikawa teaches a jaw of a jaw set used for demolition, recycling, or material processing equipment, wherein the jaw is adapted for relative rotation with another jaw about a pivot and is comprised of a jaw body having:
a) a tip (as shown in at least Figure 10a and Annotated Figure 2, on Page 10, below) spaced from the pivot (6); wherein a shear region (as shown in at least Figure 9) is defined between the pivot (6) and the tip and has:
b) a front segment (as shown in at least Figure 9) within the shear region proximate to the pivot (6);
c) a front blade (64) mounted in the front segment having a front blade longitudinal axis (as shown in at least Figure 9);
d) a rear segment (as shown in at least Figure 9) within the shear region proximate to the tip;
e) a rear blade (124) mounted in the rear segment having a rear blade longitudinal axis (as shown in at least Figure 9);
f) wherein the front blade longitudinal axis and the rear blade longitudinal axis intersect to form an apex obtuse angle;
g) wherein at least one blade has:
1) a first end (as shown in at least Figure 101a), where the first end is made up of an end wall (126) that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis;
2) a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis, form an obtuse angle with each other (as shown in at least Figure 10a) and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape (as shown in at least Figure 10a); and
3) cutting edges (72,70) between the first end and second end;
h) wherein the front blade and the rear blade abut with one another at surfaces (as shown in at least Figures 9 and 10a).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 6, Morikawa teaches a jaw set used for demolition, recycling, or material processing equipment, wherein the jaw set has:
a) a first jaw (56) which is movable about a pivot pin (6) in the jaw set;
b) a second jaw (58) opposing the first jaw to allow relative rotation between the first jaw and second jaw;
c) wherein the first jaw (56) is comprised of a jaw body having:
1) a tip spaced from the pivot (see Annotated Figure 1, above); wherein a shear region is defined between the pivot and the tip and has:
2) a front segment (as shown in at least Figure 9) within the shear region proximate to the pivot (6);
3) a front blade (64) mounted in the front segment having a front blade longitudinal axis (as shown in at least Figure 9);
4) a rear segment (as shown in at least Figure 9) within the shear region proximate to the tip;
5) a rear blade (124) mounted in the rear segment having a rear blade longitudinal axis (as shown in at least Figure 9);
6) wherein the front blade longitudinal axis and the rear blade longitudinal axis intersect to form an apex obtuse angle;
7) wherein at least one blade has:
i) a first end (as shown in at least Figure 10a), where the first end is made up of an end wall (126) that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis;
ii) a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the second end is made up of two surfaces (see Annotated Figure 2, below), each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis, form an obtuse angle with each other (as shown in at least Figure 10a) and intersect with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape (as shown in at least Figure 10a); and
iii) cutting edges (72,70) between the first end and second end;
8) wherein the front blade and the rear blade abut with one another at surfaces on their second ends (as shown in at least Figures 9 and 10a).
d) wherein the second jaw (58) has blades (66,68) with cutting edges to act in opposition to the shear region of the first jaw.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Morikawa teaches a tip, but does not teach a tip spaced from the pivot for piercing material.
Jacobson teaches a jaw of a jaw set having a tip (610) spaced from the pivot for piercing material in order to reduce nose wear and to resist retract forces on the piercing tip insert in jamming situations and in the event of snagging of the piercing tip insert (Para 0001).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate Morikawa with a piercing tip as taught by Jacobson in order to reduce nose wear and to resist retract forces on the piercing tip insert in jamming situations and in the event of snagging of the piercing tip insert (Para 0001).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Morikawa teaches the rear blade longitudinal axis intersect to form an apex obtuse angle and that the front blade has a rectangular shape, but does not teach each blade (the front and the rear) has a first end made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis and the second end is made up of two surfaces which form an equal acute angles with the blade longitudinal axis and intersects with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape.
Referring to an alternative embodiment, Morikawa teaches a third shearing blade, which may have a rectangular or polygonal outline is added inward of the front blade (Col. 8, lines 24-28). Morikawa discloses various polygonal shaped blade, which fall within the scope of the pending application set forth in Figures 13-18. Based on the disclosed subject matter, Morikawa teaches a blade has a first end made up of an end wall that is perpendicular (Figure 17) to the blade longitudinal axis and the second end is made up of two surfaces which form an equal acute angle (Figure 17, see Annotated Figure 1, on Pg. 8, above) with the blade longitudinal axis and intersects with one another along the blade longitudinal axis to form an arrow shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Morikawa with a third polygonal blade inward of the front blade, as taught by alternative embodiment to Morikawa to maintain a vertical step between the blades, whereby a time delay is provided between shearing at various longitudinal positions between the upper and lower jaws (Col. 3, lines 33-37). The blade orientation would further maintain a relief edge to unload shearing forces to permit full shearing force to be directed to the rectangular shearing blade during a final stage of shearing a sheet of material (Col. 3, lines 44-56).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Morikawa teaches wherein the front blade longitudinal axis and the rear blade longitudinal axis intersect to form an apex obtuse angle, but does not teach the angle is between 100 and 130 degrees and does not teach the apex angle equals the obtuse angle of the blade.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the two blades surfaces and the front blade longitudinal axis and the third longitudinal axis of modified Morikawa to form an obtuse angle in order to maintain a vertical step between the blades, whereby a time delay is provided between shearing at various longitudinal positions between the upper and lower jaws (Col. 3, lines 33-37). The blade orientation would further maintain a relief edge to unload shearing forces to permit full shearing force to be directed to the rectangular shearing blade during a final stage of shearing a sheet of material (Col. 3, lines 44-56). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The combination of modified Morikawa would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to orient the surfaces of the blade and the longitudinal axes of the first and third blades of Morikawa at an obtuse angle in order to maintain a vertical step between the blades, whereby a time delay is provided between shearing at various longitudinal positions between the upper and lower jaws. The orientation between the blades also maintains a relief edge to unload shearing forces to permit full shearing force to be directed to the rectangular shearing blade during a final stage of shearing a sheet of material, which are design needs based in the art of shearing blades.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized that Morikawa provided a teaching of an obtuse angle between the longitudinal axes of the front and rear blades and the two front surfaces of the blade. Based on the teachings of Morikawa, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the apex angle, to perform the intended shearing operation. The teachings of Morikawa of an obtuse angle formed between the two front surfaces and the longitudinal axes would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various values above 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees before arriving at the apex which allows the integrity of the shearing blade to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Morikawa, that the modified blades of Morikawa could have an apex obtuse angle between the front two surfaces and the first and third longitudinal axes (of the first and third blades), since this would not jeopardize the intended shearing purpose of the blade. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of angling the front and third longitudinal axes of the blades to form an obtuse apex angle would still permit the blade to perform its intended shearing operation.
(4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Morikawa teaches the front two surfaces and longitudinal axis of the front and rear blades form an obtuse angle, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various surface orientation and blade orientations of the longitudinal axes of the first and third blades above 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees as taught by Morikawa, himself, to find the apex angle that did not jeopardize the integrity of the blade while still providing a blade shears
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. in view of Jacobson et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20140331843 to Hall.
In re claims 3 and 8, modified Morikawa teaches a blade, but does not teach the blade is indexable and interchangeable to provide four distinct cutting surfaces.
Hall teaches a jaw having a plurality of indexable and interchangeable cutting blades providing eight cutting edges (Paras 0009,0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the blades of modified Morikawa to have a plurality of cutting edges to be indexable and interchangeable as taught by Hall to maximize the utility of each individual indexable cutting portion prior to maintenance (Para 0019).
In re claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, modified Morikawa teaches a jaw, but does not teach further including an additional blade adjacent to the end wall of the first end of the rear blade, wherein the additional blade has a square shape.
Hall teaches a jaw having an additional blade (206) adjacent an end wall of the first end of the rear blade (206, the rear blade is adjacent 205) in which the additional blade has a square shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Morikawa with an additional square blade adjacent an end wall of the rear blade as taught by Hall depending on the particular cutting need and/or physical/chemical/structural properties of the mechanical shear (Para 0033).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al. in view of US Patent No. 8,646,709 to Ramun et al.
In re claim 14, Morikawa teaches a blade, but does not teach wherein there are recesses along the length of the cutting edges.
Ramun teaches a blade having recesses (115a-d) along the length of the cutting edge to provide a serrated edge.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the blade of Morikawa with a plurality of recesses along the length (providing a serrated blade) as taught by Ramun which is advantageous for cutting tough, soft, and slippery materials.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections in the Office Action mailed July 29, 2025 has been obviated by the amendments filed October 29, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Morikawa does not teach the limitations “a blade having a second end is made up of two surfaces, each of which form an equal acute angle with the blade longitudinal axis and form an obtuse angle with each other.” Applicant argues the angle formed by edges 72 is acute, and not obtuse.
Per the newly introduced claimed subject matter in the amendments filed 10/29/2025 and the term “and” which combines the two limitations in the arguments, the argued phrase is new matter. As set forth in the Office action above, the disclosure provides support for what appears to be two embodiments, the first embodiment being drawn to a blade with two side surfaces forming equal acute angles with respect to the longitudinal axis of the blade and a second embodiment is drawn to a blade having two side surfaces forming an obtuse angle between the sides. The specification has not set forth any details to the embodiments being usable together and the Figures only support the embodiment to the blade having the obtuse angle. As best understood, due to the new matter, Morikawa teaches a blade having two surfaces with an obtuse angle disposed between the surfaces and is modified to teach equal acute angles.
Applicant argues Morikawa does not teach the obtuse angle formed by the two surface of the second end of the blade is identical to the apex angle formed by the front longitudinal axis and the rear blade longitudinal axis, and specifically argues Morikawa does not teach the apex angle. Applicant further argues the motivation to modify Morikawa to have an obtuse apex angle is not an object of the present application. Applicant argues the apex angle allows for, at least in part, the functionality of increased strength of the jaws and blades with the specific blade shape by orienting the blades and supporting jaws material (D) to improved the distribution of mechanical stress on the blades and the jaw, as set forth in Paras [0021,0024].
As set forth in the above Morikawa teaches third shearing blade, which may have a rectangular or polygonal outline is added inward of the front blade (Col. 8, lines 24-28). Morikawa discloses various polygonal shaped blade, which fall within the scope of the pending application set forth in Figures 13-18. Based on the disclosed subject matter, Morikawa teaches a blade has a first end made up of an end wall that is perpendicular to the blade longitudinal axis and the second end is made up of two surfaces which form an obtuse angle. Modifying Morikawa will provide two blades with arrow shaped ends arranged in an abutting relationship. Morikawa teaches in at least Figure 9, that the jaw (56) will aid in supporting the blade in a desired orientation to permit full and active shearing. The vertices of the blade will meet where the jaw extends to the blade surfaces, providing support. The modified blade of Morikawa to have an obtuse angle will still permit the main and auxiliary shearing blades to be active while the blade is in use. As stated in the above arguments having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to try various obtuse angles of the two surfaces of the blades and the orientations of the blades relative to one another before arriving at the advantage of equal angles. Applicant is reminded that the introduction of the obtuse angle in conjunction with the previous claimed equal acute angles, is new matter.
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