DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, “and a drive gear wheel (6), the drive gear wheel is connected to the saw shaft (2) in a rotationally fixed manner, the drive gear wheel is arranged between the damping mass (7) and the saw blade (3)” should be delete, as the same limitation is added to amended claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (US 20050224245 A1) in view of Miura (US 5152189) and in further view of Okumura (US 20070256300 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamimura teaches a sawing machine with a saw shaft,
a saw blade (4) mounted on the saw shaft (11), and
a damping mass (assembly in 10 in Figure 4) which is arranged next to the saw blade on the saw shaft (1) and
wherein the damping mass completely surrounds the saw shaft in a cross-section (see Figure 4), wherein torsional vibration is damped with the damping mass and wherein the damping mass is separated from the saw shaft by a gap and arranged with a clearance on the saw shaft, and wherein the gap between the damping mass and the saw shaft is filled with air and elastic member (14, see Figure 4).
Kamimura fails to teach a viscous liquid, a drive gear wheel, which is connected to the saw shaft in a rotationally fixed manner, is arranged between the damping mass and the saw blade.
Miura teaches a high torque damper that use damping mass (3) and a shaft (5), the gap (gap for 2) between the damping mass and the saw shaft is filled with a viscous liquid (2).
Examiner notes that replacing the fill material in a damping mass form the elastic member of Kamimura into the viscous liquid of Miura is considered obvious under KSR Rational B. Kamimura differs from the claimed device due to Kamimura’s damping material is elastic member, whereas Miura teaches a viscous liquid. Both Kamimura and Miura teach a damping material. Such modification will achieve the predictable result of providing securing the cap of the handle, since both technique of Kamimura and Miura are known for the same purpose in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I. (B). Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the elastic member arrangement, as taught by Kamimura into the viscous liquid, as taught by Miura, for the purpose of providing damping material.
Okumura teaches a drive gear wheel (74), which is connected to the saw shaft in a rotationally fixed manner (see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Kamimura to add/change the drive system of the device in Kamimura with a gear drive arrangement, as taught by Okumura, in order to provide a system for the driving the saw blade (see Figure 4 of Okumura).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Kamimura to have added gear drive anywhere along the shaft, including “between the damping mass and the saw blade” as claimed. Since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kamimura further teaches the damping mass is arranged with a clearance of unknown value in each cross-sectional direction on the saw shaft (as modified in claim 1, added clearance).
Modified Kamimura fails to teach the clearance is 0.01 mm + 0.005 mm.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific clearance is 0.01 mm + 0.005 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further the device of Kamimura to have the desired manufacturing clearance between the damping mass and the shaft, in order to produce the end user desired precision parts.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kamimura further teaches the saw blade (3) is mounted on one end of the saw shaft (see Figure 1), a drive gear wheel, which is connected to the saw shaft in a rotationally fixed manner, is arranged between the damping mass and the saw blade (the same way as claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kamimura further teaches a surface of the saw shaft in a longitudinal portion in which the damping mass is arranged is cylindrical and an inner wall of a bore of the damping mass is also cylindrical (as modified by Miura, see Figure 4 of Kamimura and Figures 6-7 of Miura).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kamimura further teaches the surface of the saw shaft has a profile in a longitudinal section in which the damping mass is arranged, and an inner wall of a bore of the damping mass has a corresponding profile (as modified by Miura, see Figure 4 of Kamimura and Figures 6-7 of Miura).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kamimura further teaches the profile is a meander profile and the corresponding profile is a corresponding meander profile (as modified by Miura, see Figure 4 of Kamimura and Figures 6-7 of Miura).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kamimura further teaches the damping mass has radial bores for filling the gap with the fluid (as modified by Miura, see Figure 4 of Kamimura and Figures 6-7 of Miura).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, since both Kamimura and Miura teaches a damping material for a rotation shaft. Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the elastic member arrangement, as taught by Kamimura into the viscous liquid, as taught by Miura, for the purpose of providing damping material.
In response to applicant's argument that Kamimura and Miura is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Kamimura and Miura is solving the same pertinent problem of damping a rotating shaft, thus both Kamimura and Miura are considered as analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument that the arrangement of the location of part, such as drive gear wheel, damping mass and saw blade is not trivial. Examiner disagree and note that in light of the specification, the location of each part on the shaft does not appear to be critical. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Kamimura to have added gear drive anywhere along the shaft, including “between the damping mass and the saw blade” as claimed. Since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
In response to applicant's argument that change of the specific clearance to 0.01 mm + 0.005 mm does not fall under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. The examiner disagrees and notes that current specification of the application discuss the specific clearance as an example clearance or preferable size and other numerical ranges are also conceivable (page 1 lines 9-11 and 29-33 of the specification), therefore the specific clearance to 0.01 mm + 0.005 mm is deem not critical, since 0.01 mm + 0.005 mm is not the only range that is suitable for the system. And thus the clearance fails under a "routine expedient" and not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/18/2026