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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 23 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending, of which claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 23 October 2025.
Note also that “a cutting portion” as recited in claim 1 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because claim 1 as amended describes the structure of “a cutting edge connecting the opposing edges of the cutting portion”, and “a cutting edge” is sufficient structure for performing a cutting function.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The amended drawings filed 23 January 2026 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because newly added Fig. 6 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: newly added Fig. 6 illustrates a slit “72” that is linear throughout the entire length of the slit “72”. No blade having the configuration illustrated in newly added Fig. 6 was disclosed in the present application as originally filed. For example, each blade illustrated in the original drawings includes only slits that are not entirely linear. There is no disclosure in the present application as originally filed of an entirely linear slit. As such, newly added Fig. 6 adds new matter in the disclosure as originally filed. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
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.
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 1-4 and 6-16 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.
Claim 1 at lines 10-11 recites “a substantially constant width of the second region”. This recitation was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. First, the second region was not described in the present written description as originally filed as having “a substantially constant width”. Indeed, the word “constant” is not included in the written description as originally filed, and “substantially” is not used in the written description as originally filed in relation to the width of the second region. Second, the claims as originally filed do not describe the second region as having “a substantially constant width”. Since neither of the written description and the claims as originally filed provide support for the second region having “a substantially constant width”, the only remaining option is for the drawings as originally filed to provide support for the second region having “a substantially constant width”. At this point, is important to note that the term “substantially” is a broad term. See In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). The Applicant even uses the term “substantially” in the written description in a manner indicating that the Applicant considers “substantially” to be a broad term. In particular, the present specification as originally filed at paragraph 20 states, “Elongate body 22 is substantially T-shaped comprising elongate portion 26 and cutting portion 28”. Since the cutting portion 28 as disclosed is curved along proximal and distal sides, the elongate body 22 as disclosed in the present application is not an exact T-shape. Only with the addition of the modifier “substantially” can the body 22 as disclosed be considered as “substantially T-shaped”, such that the breadth of the term “substantially” is necessary for the elongate body 22 as disclosed to be considered “substantially T-shaped”. Since the term “substantially” is a broad term, the recitation “a substantially constant width of the second region” encompasses the second region having a range of widths, including widths that are not exactly constant. However, the present drawings only illustrate the second region 27 as having a constant width. Illustrations of a second region having a constant width are insufficient to provide written descriptive support for the second region having “a substantially constant width”, since “substantially” is a broad term such that “a substantially constant width” encompasses non-constant widths. Put another way, even though the Applicant may have written descriptive support for a recitation such as “a constant width of the second region”, in this case the Applicant has not provided support for the entire scope of “a substantially constant width of the second region”. The term “substantially” encompasses more widths of the second region than illustrated in the present drawings, such that claim 1 encompasses a range of second region configurations that were not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. As such, the recitation “a substantially constant width of the second region” as recited in claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 at line 15 recites “a substantially constant width of the elongate portion”. This recitation was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention. First, the elongate portion was not described in the present written description as originally filed as having “a substantially constant width”. Indeed, the word “constant” is not included in the written description as originally filed, and “substantially” is not used in the written description as originally filed in relation to the width of the elongate portion. Second, the claims as originally filed do not describe the elongate portion as having “a substantially constant width”. Since neither of the written description and the claims as originally filed provide support for the elongate portion having “a substantially constant width”, the only remaining option is for the drawings as originally filed to provide support for the elongate portion having “a substantially constant width”. At this point, is important to note that the term “substantially” is a broad term. See In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). The Applicant even uses the term “substantially” in the written description in a manner indicating that the Applicant considers “substantially” to be a broad term. In particular, the present specification as originally filed at paragraph 20 states, “Elongate body 22 is substantially T-shaped comprising elongate portion 26 and cutting portion 28”. Since the cutting portion 28 as disclosed is curved along proximal and distal sides, the elongate body 22 as disclosed in the present application is not an exact T-shape. Only with the addition of the modifier “substantially” can the body 22 as disclosed be considered as “substantially T-shaped”, such that the breadth of the term “substantially” is necessary for the elongate body 22 as disclosed to be considered “substantially T-shaped”. Since the term “substantially” is a broad term, the recitation “a substantially constant width of the elongate portion” encompasses the elongate portion having a range of widths, including widths that are not exactly constant. However, the present drawings only illustrate the elongate portion 26 as having a constant width. Illustrations of an elongate portion having a constant width are insufficient to provide written descriptive support for the elongate portion having “a substantially constant width”, since “substantially” is a broad term such that “a substantially constant width” encompasses non-constant widths. Put another way, even though the Applicant may have written descriptive support for a recitation such as “a constant width of the elongate portion”, in this case the Applicant has not provided support for the entire scope of “a substantially constant width of the elongate portion”. The term “substantially” encompasses more widths of the elongate portion than illustrated in the present drawings, such that claim 1 encompasses a range of elongate portion configurations that were not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. As such, the recitation “a substantially constant width of the elongate portion” as recited in claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 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.
Claim 1 at lines 8-11 recites, “the second region comprising first opposing straight edges connecting the first major side and the second major side and defining a substantially constant width of the second region”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders claim 1 indefinite. For example, it is unclear what structure is being described as “defining a substantially constant width of the second region”. The claim can be read as either of (a) the second region defining the substantially constant width of the second region and (b) the first opposing straight edges defining the substantially constant width of the second region. Either of these interpretations is consistent with the present specification (noting that as disclosed the second region and the first opposing straight edges each define a constant width). The examiner suggests amending the claim in a manner such as – the second region comprising first opposing straight edges connecting the first major side and the second major side, and the [insert structure name] defining a substantially constant width of the second region –.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the elongate portion" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously introduces two similarly named features, including “an elongate body” and “an elongation portion”. Each of these two previously introduced features has one term in common with “the elongate portion”, and one term differing from “the elongate portion”. As such, it is unclear which of these two structures is being referred to as “the elongate portion”. Alternatively, it is unclear whether “the elongate portion” intends to introduce some additional portion of the claimed blade.
Claim 1 at lines 13-15 recites, “the elongate portion comprising second opposing straight edges connecting the first major side to the second major side and defining a substantially constant width of the elongate portion”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders claim 1 indefinite. For example, it is unclear what structure is being described as “defining a substantially constant width of the elongate portion”. The claim can be read as either of (a) the elongate portion defining the substantially constant width of the elongate portion and (b) the second opposing straight edges defining the substantially constant width of the elongate portion. Either of these interpretations is consistent with the present specification (noting that as disclosed the elongate portion and the second opposing straight edges each define a constant width). The examiner suggests amending the claim in a manner such as – the elongate portion comprising second opposing straight edges connecting the first major side to the second major side, and the [insert structure name] defining a substantially constant width of the elongate portion –.
Claim 1 at line 22 recites, “at least one slit”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether an additional “at least one slit” is being introduced, noting that claim 1 at line 18 previously introduces “at least one slit”. The present application discloses embodiments having more than one slit, so there is support for claim 1 introduces more than one “at least one slit”. It is unclear, for example, whether the “at least one slit” at line 22 has to divide the elongate body into two or more resiliently flexible tongue portions as required by the earlier introduced “at least one slit”. If line 22 is referring to the same “at least one slit”, it is unclear why line 22 does not refer to – the at least one slit –.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2024/0165723 A1 to Whitty et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0230626 A1 to Puzio et al.
Regarding claim 1, Whitty, in the embodiment of Fig. 19, discloses a blade 410B for an oscillating power tool 200 (see Figs. 19 and 21, where Fig. 21 shows the tool 200 with which the blade 410B of Fig. 19 is usable; see also paragraph 66 as evidenced that the blade 410B, which has structural similarities with blade 410A of Fig. 18, is intended for use with the oscillating power tool 200), comprising:
a blade body (the blade body being the entirety of the body forming blade 410B) comprising a first major side (a side facing out of the page relative to Fig. 19) and a second major side (a side opposite the first major side, such that the second major side faces into the page relative to Fig. 19), the second major side being opposite the first major side (see Fig. 19; the second major side faces into the page while the first major side faces out of the page), wherein the first major side and the second major side define:
an attachment section comprising a first region and a second region (see the annotated Fig. below, where the attachment section is the section including the first and second regions), the first region comprising opposing curved edges (see the annotated Fig. below) and the first region including a plurality of apertures arranged in a pattern configured to allow for securing of the attachment section to the oscillating power tool (see the annotated Fig. below; see also paragraph 66), and the second region comprising first opposing straight edges (see the annotated Fig. below) and defining a substantially constant width of the second region (see the annotated Fig. below, where the second region in a left-right direction along the plane of the page has a substantially constant width between the two first opposing edges);
an elongate body fixed to the attachment section (see the annotated Fig. below, where the elongate body extends to the cutting edge), the elongate body comprising an elongation portion and a cutting portion (see the annotated Fig. below, where the ‘elongation portion’ is indicated by the ‘elongate portion’; note that the elongation portion can extend all the way from the cutting portion to the attachment section), the elongate portion comprising second opposing straight edges (see the annotated Fig. below; note that the elongate portion is permitted to further include additional edges, in view of the claim’s use of “comprising” in the phrase “comprising second opposing straight edges”) and defining a substantially constant width of the elongate portion (see the annotated Fig. below; assuming the claim is required to be interpreted as requiring that the second opposing edges are the structures that define the substantially constant width, the term “substantially” is a broad term, and the variance in widths between upper and lower portions of the second opposing straight edges is relatively small in comparison to an average width between the second opposing straight edges, such that the widths between the opposing straight edges can properly be considered as “substantially constant” even though widths vary because the variances is small in comparison to the total magnitude of the widths; alternatively, also assuming the claim is required to be interpreted as requiring that the second opposing edges are the structures that define the substantially constant width, the claim merely requires a single substantially constant width, and the width at the upper ends of the opposing straight edges is substantially constant because the blade is made from a rigid material, such that this width does not significantly vary during use of the blade, such that this single width is “a substantially constant width” during use of the blade; note that the claim does not require a plurality of widths that are all equal to the same value, since only a single substantially constant width is required; if the Applicant intends to require that more than one width is ‘substantially constant’, the examiner suggests introducing a plurality of widths, although it remains the case that ‘substantially’ is a broad term), and the cutting portion comprising opposing edges defining an increasing width of the cutting portion (see the annotated Fig. below, where the width of the cutting portion increases in a direction toward the elongate portion);
wherein the elongate body comprises at least one slit (the slit is defined jointly by portion 478B and a gullet between two teeth, such that the slit extends to the cutting edge; the slit extending to the cutting edge is what causes portion 478B to be “ a cantilever portion” per paragraph 69) that divides the elongate body into a resiliently flexible tongue portion 478B (see Fig. 18 and paragraph 67; each division is by one of the slits 430A), the tongue portion 478B defining a cutting edge connecting the opposing edges of the cutting portion (see Fig. 19, where the cutting portion includes the teeth at the bottom of the blade), the cutting edge being distal from the attachment section (see Fig. 19); and
wherein at least one slit extends from a first end of the cutting edge (see Fig. 19, where the ‘at least one slit’ is interpreted as being the same slit as described in the preceding paragraph; note that portion 478B is a cantilever portion per paragraph 69, such that the slit extends to the cutting edge; the ‘first end’ is thus a lowest end of the slit relative to Fig. 19; as further evidence that the slit extends to the cutting edge, see the embodiments at Figs. 1-17, where the slits of each of these embodiments extends to a respective cutting edge) through the cutting portion (see the annotated Fig. 19 below) and to a second end in a region of the elongate portion of the elongate body where the width is substantially constant (see the annotated Fig. 19 below; regarding the second interpretation of “a substantially constant width” explained above, where only a single width is required to be constant, this feature is satisfied because the second end is in the same ‘region’ as the constant width, given the small distance between the second end and the portion of the blade identified as having the substantially constant width).
PNG
media_image1.png
672
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Whitty discloses that the cutting edge comprises a circular arc (see Fig. 19, noting the curvature at the bottom of the blade).
Regarding claim 11, Whitty discloses that the cutting edge extends beyond the opposing edges of the cutting portion (see the annotated Fig. 19 above, where teeth of the cutting edge extend downwardly beyond the opposing edges of the cutting portion due to the arcuate shape of the cutting edge) and comprises an outer curved cutting edge (see Fig. 19, where the edge at the bottom of the cutting blade is a curved cutting edge).
Whitty fails to explicitly disclose the geometries of the side edges of the blade of Fig. 19 (e.g., Whitty fails to include one or more views of the edges of the blade of Fig. 19). As a result, at least for purposes of this rejection, Whitty fails to disclose that each of the opposed curved edges, the first opposing straight edges, and the second opposing straight edges connect the first major side and the second major side as required by claim 1 and that the two or more tongue portions are disposed in a common plane as required by claim 2. Whitty in the embodiment of Fig. 19 also only discloses a single slit that divides the elongate body into one resiliently flexible tongue portion, such that Whitty, in the embodiment of Fig. 19, also fails to disclose that the at least one slit defines the elongate body into two or more resiliently flexible tongue portions, where the two or more tongue portions together define the cutting edge as required by claim 1. Whitty, in the embodiment of Fig. 19, also fails to disclose the features of claims 6 and 7 (again, since Whitty in the embodiment of Fig. 19 only discloses a single slit that divides the elongate body into a single tongue portion).
First, Puzio teaches a blade having a blade body in the form of a plate having a uniform thickness (see Fig. 1B), where edges of the plate connect first and second major sides of the blade body (see Fig. 1B, where the first and second major sides are defined by surfaces through which holes 120a-d extend, and where the uniform thickness of the plate is evidence that the edges of the plate connect the first and second major sides). [Relevant to claim 1] Puzio also teaches that having the blade body in the form of a plate provides a cutting portion 112 that is entirety disposed in a common plane (see Fig. 1B). [Relevant to claim 2] The construction of the blade of Puzio is advantageous due to its simplicity of manufacturing. The blade body can be constructed from a single piece of sheet material via a cutting operation such as stamping or laser cutting, without the need for additional manufacturing steps such as connecting two parts to form the blade body and without any bending processes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one form the blade body of Whitty in the form of a plate having a uniform thickness in view of the teachings of Puzio. This modification is advantageous due to the simplicity of manufacturing the blade body – the blade body can be made via a simple manufacturing process including stamping or laser cutting a plate of material, thus avoiding additional manufacturing steps such as connecting two parts of the blade body together (e.g., avoiding any need to connect the attachment section to the elongate body) or such as bending the blade body. Each additional manufacturing step increases costs, so the simplicity of the structure of the blade body resulting from this modification keeps manufacturing costs low. Moreover, as a result of this modification, since the blade body of Whitty as modified is constructed from a single plate of uniform thickness, each of the opposed curved edges, the first opposing straight edges, and the second opposing straight edges of Whitty as modified connects the first major side and the second major side in the same manner as can be seen in Fig. 1B of Puzio. Also as a result of this modification, Whitty, as modified discloses that the entirety of the cutting portion, including the tongue portion, is disposed in a common plane.
Second, Whitty, in the embodiment of Fig. 18, teaches an elongate body (the elongate body including portion 414A and extending to also include end portion 438A) that comprises at least one slit 430A that devices the elongate body into two or more resiliently flexible tongue portions 478A, the two or more tongue portions 478A together defining a cutting edge (see Fig. 18, where the cutting edge includes the teeth at the bottom of the blade). [Claim 1] Whitty, also in the embodiment of Fig. 18, teaches that the two or more tongue portions 478A comprise four tongue portions 478A, and wherein the elongate body comprises three slits 430A to provide the four tongue portions 478A (see Fig. 18 – note that the claim includes ‘comprising’ language, such that the blade is permitted to include more than three slits and more than four tongue portions). [Claims 6 and 7] Whitty teaches that an elongate body can be provided with one or more than one slit and one or more than one resiliently flexible tongue portions (see paragraph 66). Whitty also teaches that a blade can be provided with a relatively large number of slits to define a relatively large number of tongue portions (see Fig. 6, where each slit extends across about two teeth of the cutting edge), or that a blade can be provided with a relatively lesser number of slits to define a relatively lesser number of tongue portions (see Fig. 7, where each slit extends across about fifteen to twenty teeth). Whitty explains at paragraphs 45-46 that the number of slits and the resulting number of tongue portions is a result effective variable, where the number of slits is small (and thus the slits are large) when a decrease in rigidity is desired such that even a small amount of force will deflect the blade.
Therefore, since Whitty teaches that a blade can be provided with one slit that forms one tongue portion (as is disclosed in the embodiment of Fig. 19) or alternatively with multiple slits forming multiple tongue portions (as is disclosed in the embodiment of Fig. 18), and since Whitty teaches that the number of slits is selected to achieve a desired stiffness of the blade (see paragraphs 45-46), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the blade of the embodiment of Fig. 19 of Whitty by providing the blade with multiples slits that define multiple tongue portions (including providing the blade with at least three slits that define at least four tongue portions) in view of the embodiment of Fig. 18 of Whitty. This modification is advantageous because the resulting blade has slits of a shorter transverse length, such that the stiffness of the blade is increased. Increasing the stiffness of the blade, in turn, is advantageous to maintain a linear cut even when a minor obstacle is encountered. If the blade lacks sufficient stiffness, the blade will deflect too easily and achieving a high-quality linear cut will be difficult. As taught by Whitty, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to select an optimal number of slits and tongue portions based on a desired stiffness of the blade. Furthermore, the fact that Whitty teaches that an oscillating saw blade can be provided with either of one slit and multiple slits indicates that either option is obviousness.
Whitty, as thus modified, discloses that the two or more tongue portions are disposed in a common plane as required by claim 2 because the entirety of the blade of Whitty, as thus modified, is disposed in a common plane, and because the blade of Whitty, as thus modified, includes two or more tongue portions, both as explained above.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitty as modified by Puzio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2002/0104421 A1 to Wurst.
Regarding claim 3, Whitty, as modified, discloses that the elongate body has a longitudinal length extending from the attachment section to the cutting edge of the cutting edge (see Fig. 19, where the longitudinal length extends to the cutting edge from the attachment section) and each of the two or more tongue portions has a length that is an undisclosed percent of the longitudinal length (relative Fig. 19, the length of each tongue portion can be measured along the slit defining the respective tongue portion, and such that the length need not be measured in the longitudinal direction).
Still, since Whitty, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose the percentage of the longitudinal length that corresponds to the lengths of the tongue portions, Whitty, as modified, fails to disclose that the length of the tongue portions is 30 to 80% of the longitudinal length as required by claim 3.
Nonetheless, Whitty discloses that the length of the tongue portions can be varied. For example, Fig. 4 illustrates an embodiment of tongue portions 78 having a greater length than tongue portions 78B in another embodiment of Fig. 6. As another example, Whitty in Fig. 19 teaches a tongue portion 478B having a greater length than the tongue portions 478A in Fig. 18. Whitty further teaches that the geometry of the slots that define the tongue portions is selected based on the desired rigidity of the tongue portions (see paragraph 46).
Furthermore, Wurst teaches a blade that widens toward the cutting edge so that the cutting edge is able to provide multiple cutting sections 12, 14, and 16, where the cutting sections 12, 14, and 16 can be designed for different types of cutting operations (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 46), thus enhancing versatility of the blade.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a length of the tongue portions of the embodiment of Whitty, as modified, to be 30 to 80% of the longitudinal length of the elongate body depending on the desired rigidity of the tongue portions. By increasing the length of the tongue portions, blade rigidity is decreased. On the other hand, by decreasing the length of the tongue portions, blade rigidity is increased. One of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the rigidity of the blade depending on the particular workpiece intended for the blade to cut, such that the length of the tongue portions is merely a result effective variable. Moreover, Wurst provides a motivation to widen the cutting portion of Whitty, as modified, in order to provide the cutting portion with multiple different sections that provide different types of cutting, thereby enhancing cutting versatility. The widening of the cutting portion increases possible lengths of the tongue portions, since there is a greater length along the cutting edge in which the tongue portions can extend. Wurst is thus evidence that the length of the cutting portion can be expanded, such that the length of the cutting portion of Whitty, as modified, is not a barrier to providing the tongue portions with a length that is 30 to 80% of the longitudinal length.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitty as modified by Puzio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 10 2013 112 888 A1 to Fabian.
Whitty, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the elongate body, and therefore fails to disclose that the elongate body comprises a thickness between the first major side and the second major side in a range from 0.5 mm to 3mm as required by claim 4.
Fabian, though, teaches providing an oscillating saw blade body with a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1 mm (see page 3 of the English translation of Fabian at the paragraph beginning, “The thickness of the saw blade …”). Fabian teaches that this thickness provides particularly advantageous cutting performance as a result of the saw blade being thin (see page 3 of the English translation of Fabian at the paragraph beginning, “It has been shown that …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the body of the saw blade of Whitty, as modified, with a thickness between the first and second major sides of 0.5 mm to 1mm in view of the teachings of Fabian. This modification is advantageous to provide a thin blade with particularly advantageous cutting performance. Moreover, when applying the teachings of Fabian to Whitty, as modified, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the thickness of Fabian to at least the elongate body of Whitty, as modified, because the elongate body of Whitty includes the tongue portions that perform cutting, and Fabian’s teachings are pertinent to the cutting portion of the blade since that is the portion of the blade responsible for cutting performance. Moreover, the selection of some thickness of a blade is known in to those of ordinary skill in the art to be a result effective variable that strikes a balance between durability and sharpness/ease of cutting. The thicker the blade, the more durable the blade. However, as the blade becomes thicker, the amount of material removed increases such that a greater cutting force is required. On the flip side, a thin blade is sharp and requires less force to initiate cutting. However, a thin blade is more susceptible to damage and dulling, since cutting forces are concentrated on a small area resulting in greater pressure. Thus, the selection of some particular blade thickness is merely a result effective variable balancing blade strength and sharpness.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitty as modified by Puzio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2015/0020671 A1 to Meindorfer.
Whitty, as modified, fails to disclose that the cutting edge comprises abrasive material as required by claim 9.
However, Meindorfer teaches an oscillating blade 1 having a cutting portion 4 that comprises abrasive material (see paragraphs 6 and 24). Meindorfer teaches that an oscillating blade can be provided as either of a saw edge having saw teeth (as is disclosed by Whitty) and an abrasive edge having abrasive materials (see paragraph 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting edge of the oscillating blade of Whitty, as modified, as an abrasive edge having abrasive material as taught by Meindorfer. For example, a manufacturer is motivated to provide both types of cutting edge depending on the intended workpiece. For users intending to cut, e.g., wood, the oscillating saw blade is provided with saw teeth. However, for users intending to cut, e.g., metal, the oscillating saw blade is provided as an abrasive edge having abrasive material. Manufacturers are motivated to offer a variety of cutting edge configurations to best match the workpiece(s) type intended to be cut to optimize cutting performance for the particular workpiece. Thus, market forces favor offering the blade of Whitty, as modified, in multiple configurations including a first option having a cutting edge with teeth when a user intends to cut wood and a second option having an abrasive cutting edge when a user cuts metal.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitty as modified by Puzio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0257010 A1 to Jones.
Whitty, as modified, fails to disclose that the blade is formed from carbon steel as required by claim 10.
However, Jones teaches forming an oscillating blade from carbon steel (see paragraph 67). Indeed, Jones teaches that carbon-steel, bi-metal, titanium, and other materials are “known in the industry for providing oscillating power tool blades” (see paragraph 67).
Therefore, since Jones teaches that carbon steel is a material known to be suitable for forming an oscillating saw blade, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select carbon steel as a material for the blade of Whitty, as modified, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitty as modified by Puzio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2014/0230626 A1 to Puzio et al.
Whitty, as modified, fails to contemplate any depth limiter in the embodiment of Fig. 19 of Whitty, and Whitty, as modified, fails to disclose the features of claims 12-15.
However, Puzio teaches an oscillating saw blade 110 (see Fig. 1B) having a first line of apertures 120a and 120d disposed in a cutting portion 112 and a second line of apertures 120b and 120c disposed in the cutting portion 112 (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 33), wherein apertures 120a-120d of the first and second lines of apertures are each configured to receive a depth stop 122 such that the first line of apertures and the second line of apertures define a plurality of depths for positioning of a cutting edge 114 (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 33). [Claim 12] Puzio teaches that the plurality of depths defined by the first line of apertures and the second line of apertures is at least 3 depths (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 33; each of the four illustrated apertures 120a-120d defines a respective depth, so the ‘plurality of depths’ taught by Puzio is four depths; note also that the claim does not prohibit two of the ‘at least 3 depths’ from having a same magnitude, such that Puzio is able to satisfy the claim even if the magnitude of the depth of aperture 120a is the same as the magnitude of the depth of aperture 120b; further still, if the cutting blade is used at an angle – i.e., at a direction non-perpendicular to the cutting edge 114 – then the apertures of Puzio are able to provide four unique depths). [Claim 13] Puzio further teaches a depth stop 122 that is attached to an elongated body of the saw 110 (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 33). [Claim 14] Puzio further teaches that the depth stop is secured to the cutting portion 112 (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 33). [Pertinent to claim 15] Puzio teaches that providing the apertures and the depth stop is advantageous because the depth stop can be attached to one of the apertures to limit the depth that the cutting portion is able to penetrate the workpiece, and thus limit the depth of the cut, where multiple apertures are provided to enable the depth stop to be positioned at different distances from the cutting edge to provide a plurality of different cut depths (see paragraph 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting portion of the blade of Whitty, as modified, with apertures in a pattern including two lines of apertures in view of the teachings of Puzio and to provide a depth stop that is attached to the blade via one of the apertures as taught by Puzio. This modification is advantageous because it allows a user to select one of the apertures into which to position the depth stop in order to set the depth of the cut to a defined limit. This modification allows a user to perform a cut to a desired depth, such as if the user does not desire to fully cut an opening within a workpiece (and instead intends merely to remove a portion of material from the workpiece), or such as if there are features behind a workpiece which the user desires to avoid cutting (e.g., to avoid cutting a pipe behind a drywell sheet being cut).
In carrying out this modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Whitty with first and second lines of apertures in the cutting portion as required by claim 12. The positions of the apertures of the first and second lines of apertures relative to the cutting edge of the blade are a result effective variable, where the spacing of each aperture from the cutting edge determines a depth of cutting permitted when the depth stop is installed in that particular aperture. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to select the cutting portion for the first and second lines of apertures when the user desires the ability to limit the cut depth to various distances that are less than a spacing between the elongate portion and the cutting edge. Indeed, the more locations of apertures that are provided in the blade, the greater number of options a user has for selecting a cutting depth limit. As such, the provision of multiple apertures in the cutting portion of the blade of Whitty, as modified, does not also preclude providing additional apertures in the elongate portion of the blade of Whitty, as modified. Put another way, if no apertures are provided in the cutting portion of the blade of Whitty, then a user is unable to limit the depth of cut to any distance less than a distance between the cutting edge and the elongate portion. In summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first and second lines of apertures in the cutting portion of Whitty in order to provide a user with multiple options for limiting the cutting depth to a distance less than the distance between the cutting edge and the elongate portion.
Furthermore, as a result of this modification, Whitty as modified discloses that the depth stop is secured to at least two tongue portions as required by claim 15 because the depth stop of Whitty as modified is secured to all of the tongue portions, since the tongue portions of Whitty are secured to the cutting portion, and since the depth stop of Whitty is secured to the cutting portion. Note that this interpretation is consistent with the present disclosure, where no single depth stop is disclosed that is directly secured directly to more than one tongue portion.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitty as modified by Puzio as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2006/0000338 A1 to Rankin, Jr. et al., US Pat. No. 4,485,696 to Bieganski, and US Pat. No. 3,768,349 to Cauffiel.
Regarding claim 16, Whitty, as modified, discloses that the depth stop (corresponding to element 122 of Puzio) comprises a central pin (corresponding to element 125 of Puzio) extending through an aperture of the elongate body (see Fig. 1B of Puzio) and wherein a pair of cylinders (corresponding to elements 124 and 126 of Puzio) are mounted on the pin on each first and second major surfaces (see Fig. 1B of Puzio, showing that the elements 124 and 126 are mounted on opposing major surfaces of the blade body).
Whitty, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose the material from which the pin is made and any material from which the cylinders are made, and thus fails to disclose that the pin is a metal pin and that the cylinders are polyurethane as required by claim 16. [However, the cylinders are components of the depth stop that contact a workpiece to limit the depth of the cut, such that the cylinders are pressed against the workpiece and oscillate against the workpiece. Moreover, the pin is a threaded structure as disclosed by Whitty, as modified.] Whitty, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose exactly which portions of the cutting portion include apertures, and thus fails to disclose that the pin extends through a tongue portion as required by claim 16.
First regarding the material of the cylinders, polyurethane is widely known across various fields of endeavor to be advantageous for contacting a workpiece without damaging the workpiece. To provide a few examples, Rankin teaches a support 12 for supporting a substrate, where the support is hard enough to support the substrate, but also does not damage the substrate, and where the support 12 can be polyurethane (see paragraph 47). As another example, Bieganski teaches pads in a wire stripper that grip a cable, where the pads can be made of polyurethane so as not to damage the cable (see col. 4, lines 22-24). As yet another example, Cauffiel discloses rolls 50 and 52 that are covered with polyurethane in order to avoid marring surfaces of a workpiece 26 (see col. 6, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select polyurethane as a material for the cylinders of Whitty, as modified. These cylinders are intended to contact a workpiece to limit a depth of the oscillating saw, and as such one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to select a material for the cylinders that will not damage the workpiece (e.g., a wood workpiece could be scratched if the cylinders are constructed from a hard material). Since polyurethane is widely known to be non-damaging when contacting a workpiece, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select polyurethane as a material for the cylinders. Moreover, this modification is obvious because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the material of the pin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the pin of Whitty, as modified, from metal. The pin of Whitty as modified is threaded (see Puzio at paragraph 33), and metal is commonly used as a material for threaded pins, such as screws and bolts. Indeed, metal is particularly suited for threaded pins due to the strength of various metals, such as steel, where threads only have a small contact area with a shaft of the pin necessitating a strong material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the threaded pin of Whitty, as modified, from a metal. Moreover, this modification is obvious because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Finally, regarding the location of the depth stop, since Whitty, as modified, seeks to provide various options for the position of the depth stop relative to the cutting edge of the blade so as to be able to vary the depth of cut (see Puzio at paragraph 33), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when providing Whitty with the apertures and depth stop of Puzio, to provide an aperture close to the cutting edge such that the aperture is through one of the tongue portions. This modification is obvious due to the combined teachings of the references. Whitty teaches that the tongue portions extend some degree rearward from the cutting edge. Puzio teaches that an aperture should be provided at a location where a user may desire to limit the cut depth. By providing an aperture through one of the tongue portions of Whitty, as modified by Puzio, a user is advantageously able to limit the blade to performing a cut of shallow depth. That is, if no apertures are provided through the tongue portions, then the minimum cut depth is constrained to be greater than the lengths of the tongue portions. As such, providing an aperture through one of the tongue portions offers additional options for the location of the depth stop. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Whitty with an aperture through one of the tongue portions, and to position the pin through the tongue portion such that the cylinders are mounted on opposing sides of the tongue portion, in view of the combined teaches of Whitty and Puzio in order to permit a user to limit the blade to performing a shallow depth cut.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, regarding newly added Fig. 6, the Applicant under the ‘Drawing Objections’ header asserts, “No new matter is added by this amendment as the claimed structure was adequately described in the specification and the new figure is consistent with that disclosure and the other depicts of the blade.” This argument is not persuasive. For example, no slit that is entirely linear was described in the specification or illustrated in any of the other figures. Therefore, newly added Fig. 6 was not fully described in the specification and is not entirely consistent with the originally presented figures. The examiner advises deleting newly added Fig. 6 and canceling or amending claim 7 to avoid claiming features not illustrated in the originally filed drawings.
Next, regarding Applicant’s arguments against claim 1 under the ‘Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103’ header, the Applicant argues against the embodiment of Fig. 18 of Whitty. These arguments are moot I view of the above rejection of claim 1, which relies on the embodiment of Fig. 19 of Whitty. Moreover, the examiner notes that the phrase “a substantially constant width” as recited in claim 1 includes the relative term ‘substantially’. The term ‘substantially’ is a broad term, such that “a substantially constant width” necessarily includes widths that are not constant. In the embodiment of Fig. 19 of Whitty, even though the widths between the opposing straight edges of the elongate portion vary, the variance between the widths is minor in comparison to the average width between the opposing straight edges of the elongate portion. As such, the variance of widths between the opposing straight edges of the elongate portion of Fig. 19 of Whitty is sufficiently small to be within the scope of “a substantially constant width”. Further still, claim 1 only requires a single width that is “substantially constant” (see claim 1 at line 15, where the width is introduced in the singular). The Applicant’s arguments are also moot because the arguments fail to contemplate the full scope of the claim, which scope encompasses a single width that remains substantially constant during use of the blade. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are moot. If the Applicant would prefer claim 1 to require that the elongate portion consists of a plurality of widths, each of the plurality of widths having a same magnitude, the examiner encourages the Applicant to explicitly introduce a plurality of widths (rather than the current recitation of a singular “width”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724