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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that considering all claims would be no undue burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the three inventions are independent and distinct as laid out in the restriction requirement. Each invention has a classification different from the others and the search and art rejections which apply to one invention do not apply to the others.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “are provided” is an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hundhausen 3,618,304.
Independent Claim 1: Hundhausen discloses a blade assembly, comprising:
a blade base (unnumbered, seen in annotated Fig. 2 below), a first boss (8) and a second boss (7) being arranged on a blade assembly surface (the bottom surface) of the blade base, a height of the first boss being a first height, and a height of the second boss being a second height (as seen in Fig. 2);
a first blade (4), provided with a first mounting hole matched with the first boss; and
a second blade (5), provided with a second mounting hole matched with the second boss;
wherein the first blade is mounted on the first boss, and the second blade is mounted on the second boss (as seen in Fig. 2), as per claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claims 2, 5-6: Hundhausen further discloses wherein the first height (of 8) is greater than the second height (of 7, as seen in Fig. 2, boss 8 extends further than boss 7 from the blade base), as per claim 2;
wherein the second boss (7) is arranged between the first boss (8) and the blade base (seen above in annotated Fig. 2), as per claim 5;
wherein a projection profile of the first boss (8) on the blade base (seen above in annotated Fig. 2) is positioned in a projection profile of the second boss (7) on the blade base (as seen above, the profile of 8 is contained with the sleeve/profile of 7), as per claim 6;
PLEASE NOTE the rejection below, also under Hundhausen, has the first and second blades reversed relative to the above rejection in order to account for the positioning limitations of the blades in dependent claims 4 and 10.
Independent Claim 1: Hundhausen discloses a blade assembly, comprising:
a blade base (unnumbered, seen in annotated Fig. 2 below), a first boss (7) and a second boss (8) being arranged on a blade assembly surface (the underside) of the blade base, a height of the first boss being a first height, and a height of the second boss being a second height (as seen in Fig. 2);
a first blade (5), provided with a first mounting hole matched with the first boss; and
a second blade (4), provided with a second mounting hole matched with the second boss;
wherein the first blade is mounted on the first boss, and the second blade is mounted on the second boss (as seen in Fig. 2), as per claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
530
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dependent Claims 4, 10: Hundhausen further discloses wherein the first blade (5) is located on the second blade (4, as seen in Figs. 1-2), and the first blade and the second blade are dislocated from each other (as seen in Fig. 3, the blades are angularly offset from each other), as per claim 4;
wherein, an edge of the blade assembly surface (the underside of the blade base seen in Fig. 2 above) of the blade base is provided with at least one supporting boss (seen in annotated Fig. 2 above), and the first blade (5) is supported on a supporting surface of the supporting boss (as seen in Figs. 1-2), as per claim 10.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hundhausen.
Dependent Claim 3: The blade assembly is disclosed as applied above. However, Hundhausen fails to disclose wherein the first height is about 5-8mm, and the second height is about 2-4mm, as per claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first height of about 5-8mm and a second height of about 2-4mm, as per claim 3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTOL-892. Specifically, Lalonde 4,292,791 shows a similar blade assembly but fails to disclose the exact structure of connection of the blades to the blade base.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alicia M. Torres whose telephone number is 571-272-6997. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-6997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca, can be reached at (571) 272-8971.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the group receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-3600. The fax number for this Group is 571-273-8300.
/Alicia Torres/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 March 21, 2026