Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/544,868

CUTTING BLADE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 19, 2023
Examiner
KEENA, ELLA LORRAINE
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Disco Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
20%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
0%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 20% of cases
20%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 5 resolved
-50.0% vs TC avg
Minimal -20% lift
Without
With
+-20.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
64 currently pending
Career history
69
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.7%
+22.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 5 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed December 18th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 remain pending in the application. New claims 4-5 are also pending in the application. Claim Objections Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 introduces “an annular fixing member”. Claims 1-4 afterwards refer to this annular fixing member as “the fixing member”, and should instead read “the annular fixing member”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dienes Werke (DE 20214515 U1 – hereinafter Werke). Regarding claim 1, Werke teaches a cutting blade comprising: a hub (Fig. 1, Hub 10) having a raised portion (Fig. 1, portion of Hub 10 with a smaller outer diameter); an annular blade (Fig. 1, Circular Knife 11) having an opening with the raised portion inserted therein; and an annular fixing member (Fig. 1, Spring Ring 14) having an outer peripheral edge (Fig. 3, outer peripheral edge including outer circumference of Spring Ring 14 as well as edges defining Recess 21, Hole 23, and Cut 18) defining an entirety of an outer surface of the annular fixing member and an inner peripheral surface (Fig. 3, inner circumference of Spring Ring 14) defining an entirety of the inner surface of the annular fixing member, and a cutout portion (Fig. 3, Cut 17) extending continuously in a straight line from the outer peripheral edge to the inner peripheral surface, fixing the blade on the hub, wherein the blade is sandwiched between the hub and the fixing member that is fixed on the raised portion (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 2, Werke further teaches the cutting blade according to claim 1, wherein the raised portion includes a groove (Fig. 1, Groove 13) with the fixing member fitted therein. Regarding claim 3, Werke further teaches the cutting blade according to claim 1, wherein the fixing member is an annular resilient member having a pair of end portions (Fig. 3, end portions being the opposing surfaces on either side of Separating Cut 17), formed by the cutout portion, that are apart from each other. Regarding claim 5, Werke further teaches the cutting blade according to claim 1 wherein the inner peripheral surface is coaxial to the outer peripheral edge (Fig. 5, the inner and outer circumference of Spring Ring 14 are coaxial). 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dienes Werke (DE 20214515 U1 – hereinafter Werke) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of What are retaining rings? [online]; January 10, 2018 [retrieved 2/25/2025]; Retrieved from internet: <<u> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mCN3VSw2yQ</u>> (Year: 2018); hereinafter Rings. Regarding claim 4, Werke does not teach the cutting blade according to claim 1 further comprising a notched portion formed on the inner peripheral surface of the annular fixing member opposite the cutout portion and extending partly towards the outer peripheral edge of the fixing member. However, Rings teaches an annular fixing member (1:37 of video and Fig. 1 of attached PDF; E-Clip shown) comprising a notched portion (1:37 of video and Fig. 1 of attached PDF; notched portion containing two notches across from the cutout portion in the E-Clip shown) formed on the inner peripheral surface of the annular fixing member opposite the cutout portion and extending partly toward the outer peripheral edge of the fixing member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Werke to use the E-clip ring of Rings, which teaches the limitations of claim 4 above. Doing so is beneficial as sliding of the ring along the shaft can be avoided (Rings; 1:37 of video). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Werke cannot teach the newly added limitation of claim 1, where there is a straight-lined cutout portion extending from the inner peripheral surface of the annular fixing member to the outer peripheral edge, since there are two cuts in Werke (17 and 18), which are not together formed in a straight line and either of which individually do not pass through the entirety of the Spring Ring 14 of Werke. However, the plain meaning of the claim requires only a cut which passes in a straight line from the inner periphery to the outer periphery, which Cut 17 of Werke achieves (See the rejection of claim 1 above). 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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET. 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. /ELLA L KEENA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 19, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 18, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12539635
FOOD PRODUCT SLICING APPARATUS HAVING A PRODUCT GATE ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF OPERATING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
20%
Grant Probability
0%
With Interview (-20.0%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 5 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month