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 (claims 2-4, 14 and 15),
and Species V (Fig. 6) in a reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction requirement on the ground that additional claims, including claims 1, 2, and 8-11, read on elected Species V (Fig. 6). Applicant further contends that claims 8, 9, and 11 are generic claims. First, claim 1 is the only independent claim and is the only claim that could be considered generic to more than one species. Claims 8, 9, and 11 depend from claim 1. While independent claim 1 may encompass more than one species, the dependent claims are directed to specific features that clearly distinguish different species from one another. Accordingly, examination of all sixteen species in a single application would impose a serious search and examination burden on the Examiner and could adversely affect examination quality in view of the time allotted for examination of each application. Conversely, if Applicant admits that all sixteen species obvious variants, then all of the sixteen species would be subjected to examination together only to the extent consistent with such an admission and the applicable restriction practice.
Applicant also argues that Groups I-IV should be examined together because the search for one group would substantially overlap with the search for the remaining groups. However, as explained in the Restriction Requirement, each group of inventions requires a different field of search, including different classes/subclasses and/or different search queries that are not required for the other groups. See pages 4-5 of the Restriction Requirement. It should further be noted that each group is distinct and has acquired a separate status in the art based on its divergent subject matter. As stated in the Restriction Requirement, each group includes at least one feature not present in the other groups. Although searches for the individual groups may overlap to some extent, they do not coincide. Therefore, a search directed to elected Group I (claims 2-4, 14, and 15) would not be sufficient to encompass the distinct features of the non-elected groups. Furthermore, the text and subclass searches necessary to locate the specific features of the elected group would not necessarily identify the distinct features of the non-elected groups. In other words, because each group includes at least one distinguishing feature and occupies a separate status in the art, each group requires a different field of search. Accordingly, examination of all distinct groups within a single application would impose a substantial burden on the Examiner and could adversely affect examination quality given the time constraints applicable to examination.
The requirement is therefore still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Claims 3-7 and 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37
CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It should be noted that claims 14-15, which depend from claims 3-4, are
directed to non-elected Species and are therefore withdrawn from further
consideration. In view of further consideration, claim 11, which unlick claims 12-13
does not recite the steps of manufacturing the cutting device, will be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-2 and 8-11 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 recites that the radial axis is “passing through an intersection point of the cutting edge and the backing edge.” However, the claim further recites that the cutting edge and the backing edge bound a cutting opening configured for inserting a workpiece. It is unclear from the claim language whether the cutting edge and the backing edge physically intersect, whether extensions of the cutting edge and backing edge intersect, or whether some other intersection point is intended. Because the radial axis is defined by reference to the recited intersection point, and because the angular orientation of the cutting opening is further defined relative to the radial axis, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 also recites that an angular bisector of a cutting opening angle is disposed at an angle between 70° and 110° to “a radial axis of the tool interface.” The claim further states that the radial axis is perpendicular to the oscillation axis, passes through an intersection point of the cutting edge and the backing edge, and lies in a plane perpendicular to the oscillation axis. However, the claim does not reasonably identify what the recited “radial axis” is radial to. The term “radial” ordinarily denotes a direction extending from or with respect to a center point or central axis. The claim does not recite that the radial axis passes through the oscillation axis, the center of the tool interface, the center of a mounting aperture, or any other reference point from which a radial direction may be determined. Because the radial axis serves as the reference from which the claimed angular relationship of 70° to 110° is measured, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Different radial axes satisfying the recited conditions could be selected, resulting in different measurements of the claimed angle.
Regarding claim 9, “the blade” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-2 and 8-11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Springer et al. (WO 2021/146511 A1), hereinafter Springer, provided with the IDS submitted on 06/21/2024. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Springer a cutting device for an oscillating multifunction machine tool 10 (Figs. 1-2; oscillating tool 10 including oscillation axis B and accessory holder 36), comprising at least one shearing unit (342/442; Fig. 10 and Figs. 12-14) comprising at least one base body (358/458, a cutting edge (382/482) and a backing edge (384/ 484), the cutting edge and the backing edge bounding a cutting opening (376/476), and a tool interface configured to attach the shearing unit to a tool holder of the multifunction machine tool (Figs. 2-3, attachment portion 356/456 with mounting aperture arrangement 362/462 configured to engage accessory holder 36 of oscillating tool 10), wherein the cutting edge and the backing edge are disposed rigidly relative to one another (unitary blade structure 342/442 where edges are integrally formed), and an angular bisector of a cutting opening angle of the cutting opening is disposed in a plane perpendicular to an oscillation axis of the tool interface (in Figs. 10 and 12-14, V-shaped channel 376/476 defining a bisecting line within blade plane perpendicular to oscillation axis B), at an angle between 70° to 110° to a radial axis of the tool interface, the radial axis being (i) perpendicular to the oscillation axis (in Fig. 2, oscillation axis B with blade oriented transverse thereto), (ii) passing through an intersection point of the cutting edge and the backing edge (in Figs. 10 and Figs. 12-14, region 388/488 where edges converge/intersect or meet at channel apex), and (iii) in a plane which is perpendicular to the oscillation axis (blade lies in plane perpendicular to oscillation axis B; Fig. 2, 10, and 12-14).
With regard to the recited radial axis, claim 1 does not define the radial axis as extending from or passing through the center of the tool interface, the center of the shearing unit, or the oscillation axis. Rather, claim 1 expressly defines the radial axis as a line that is perpendicular to the oscillation axis, passes through the intersection point of the cutting edge and the backing edge, and lies in a plane perpendicular to the oscillation axis. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the radial axis reads on a line passing through the apex/intersection region (388, 488) of the V-shaped cutting opening formed by elongated edges (382, 384) and (482, 484) shown in annotated Figs. 10 and 12 below. Furthermore, the angular bisector of the V-shaped cutting opening forms an angle of approximately 90° relative to such radial axis (which is clearly shown as an angle “A” in annotated Figs. 10 and 12 below), which falls within the claimed range of 70° to 110°. Therefore, Springer discloses, either expressly or inherently, the claimed angular relationship.
PNG
media_image1.png
1079
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
821
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Springer teaches everything noted above including that the shearing unit comprises at least one blade, which at least forms the cutting edge and is disposed on a lateral surface of the base body, which is substantially perpendicular to the oscillation axis ( blade 342/442 wherein body 358/458 includes cutting structure formed by elongated edge 382/482 and is oriented in plane transverse/perpendicular to oscillation axis B; Figs. 10 and 12-14).
Regarding claim 8, Springer teaches everything noted above including that the tool interface and the base body of the shearing unit are integrally connected to one another (attachment portion 356/456 and body 358/458 formed as a single unitary blade structure; Figs. 10 and 12-14).
Regarding claim 9, Springer teaches everything noted above including that the base body and the blade are integrally connected to each other (blade body 358/458 forming a monolithic structure in which cutting edges and base body are not separate components but part of a single integrated blade; Figs. 10 and 12-14).
Regarding claim 10, Springer teaches everything noted above including a multifunction machine tool comprising: the cutting device according to claim 1 (oscillating tool 10 including accessory holder 36 configured to receive blade 342/442 of Figs. 10 or Figs. 12-14).
Regarding claim 11, Springer teaches everything noted above including a method for manufacturing the cutting device according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-10 and associated description, disclosing formation of blade 342/442 including body 358/458, channel 376/476, and attachment portion 356/456 configured for oscillating tool 10).
To the degree that it could be still argued that Springer does not explicitly teach that the angle is within 70 to 110 degrees, the rejection below is applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.64
8. Claims 1-2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Springer. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Springer a cutting device for an oscillating multifunction machine tool 10 (Figs. 1-2; oscillating tool 10 including oscillation axis B and accessory holder 36), comprising at least one shearing unit (342/442; Fig. 10 and Figs. 12-14) comprising at least one base body (358/458, a cutting edge (382/482) and a backing edge (384/ 484), the cutting edge and the backing edge bounding a cutting opening (376/476), and a tool interface configured to attach the shearing unit to a tool holder of the multifunction machine tool (Figs. 2-3, attachment portion 356/456 with mounting aperture arrangement 362/462 configured to engage accessory holder 36 of oscillating tool 10), wherein the cutting edge and the backing edge are disposed rigidly relative to one another (unitary blade structure 342/442 where edges are integrally formed), and an angular bisector of a cutting opening angle of the cutting opening is disposed in a plane perpendicular to an oscillation axis of the tool interface (in Figs. 10 and 12-14, V-shaped channel 376/476 defining a bisecting line within blade plane perpendicular to oscillation axis B), at an angle between 70° to 110° to a radial axis of the tool interface, the radial axis being (i) perpendicular to the oscillation axis (in Fig. 2, oscillation axis B with blade oriented transverse thereto), (ii) passing through an intersection point of the cutting edge and the backing edge (in Figs. 10 and Figs. 12-14, region 388/488 where edges converge/intersect or meet at channel apex), and (iii) in a plane which is perpendicular to the oscillation axis (blade lies in plane perpendicular to oscillation axis B; Fig. 2, 10, and 12-14).
With regard to the recited radial axis, claim 1 does not define the radial axis as extending from or passing through the center of the tool interface, the center of the shearing unit, or the oscillation axis. Rather, claim 1 expressly defines the radial axis as a line that is perpendicular to the oscillation axis, passes through the intersection point of the cutting edge and the backing edge, and lies in a plane perpendicular to the oscillation axis. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the radial axis reads on a line passing through the apex/intersection region (388, 488) of the V-shaped cutting opening formed by elongated edges (382, 384) and (482, 484) shown in annotated Figs. 10 and 12 above. Furthermore, the angular bisector of the V-shaped cutting opening forms an angle of approximately 90° relative to such radial axis (which is clearly shown as an angle “A” in annotated Figs. 10 and 12 above), which falls within the claimed range of 70° to 110°. Therefore, Springer discloses, either expressly or inherently, the claimed angular relationship.
It could be still argued that the angle is not being explicitly disclosed to be within 70 to 110 degrees. However. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the angel within the range specified in the claim, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Springer teaches everything noted above including that the shearing unit comprises at least one blade, which at least forms the cutting edge and is disposed on a lateral surface of the base body, which is substantially perpendicular to the oscillation axis ( blade 342/442 wherein body 358/458 includes cutting structure formed by elongated edge 382/482 and is oriented in plane transverse/perpendicular to oscillation axis B; Figs. 10 and 12-14).
Regarding claim 8, Springer teaches everything noted above including that the tool interface and the base body of the shearing unit are integrally connected to one another (attachment portion 356/456 and body 358/458 formed as a single unitary blade structure; Figs. 10 and 12-14).
Regarding claim 9, Springer teaches everything noted above including that the base body and the blade are integrally connected to each other (blade body 358/458 forming a monolithic structure in which cutting edges and base body are not separate components but part of a single integrated blade; Figs. 10 and 12-14).
Regarding claim 10, Springer teaches everything noted above including a multifunction machine tool comprising: the cutting device according to claim 1 (oscillating tool 10 including accessory holder 36 configured to receive blade 342/442 of Figs. 10 or Figs. 12-14).
Regarding claim 11, Springer teaches everything noted above including a method for manufacturing the cutting device according to claim 1 (Figs. 3-10 and associated description, disclosing formation of blade 342/442 including body 358/458, channel 376/476, and attachment portion 356/456 configured for oscillating tool 10).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Rubens et al. (2018/0117687 A1), Nagy et al. (9,027,452 B2), Xu (D1,053,231 S), and Koljaka et al. (10,568,637 B2) teach a cutting device for an oscillation tool.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 on (571) . 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights