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 without traverse of invention I (claims 1-11)
in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Masanori et al. (JP 2002370192 A), hereinafter Masanori. Regarding claim 1, Masanori teaches a blade 1, comprising: a blade body (1b) comprising a first material (carbon tool steel) having a primary elemental constituent (defined by the carbon steel); a barrier layer (1c) disposed on the blade body, the barrier layer comprising a second material (nickel alloy) that does not contain the primary elemental constituent of the first material; a carbide layer (1a) disposed on the barrier layer (1c), the carbide layer comprising a carbide material (cemented carbide particles) and a binder material (defined by the metallic binder of the cemented carbide which is typically cobalt) and the carbide layer forming a cutting edge (Fig. 3) of the blade 1; wherein the barrier layer provides continuous separation between the blade body and the carbide layer. See Figs. 1-3 in Masanori.
Regarding claim 2, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the carbide material comprises at least one of tungsten carbide, chromium carbide, titanium carbide, tantalum carbide, or niobium carbide. Masanori teaches cemented carbides as the blade material, generally composed of WC (tungsten carbide) containing Co (cobalt). This is also is evidenced by Kobayashi et al. (WO 2021256282 A1). Kobayashi teaches that cemented carbide includes tungsten carbide and cobalt. See page 3, lines 25-34 of the attached translation.
Regarding claim 3, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the binder material (1c) comprises at least one of nickel, cobalt, chromium, iron, or molybdenum. It should be noted that the barrier layer (1c) is a nickel alloy layer, which includes nickel.
Regarding claim 4, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the carbide layer (1a) comprises from 25 wt% to 95 wt% of carbide material and from 5 wt% to 75 wt% of binder material. It should be noted that Masanori discloses that the blade has 85%-95% by weight of tungsten carbide (WC) and 5-15% by weight of cobalt (Co). See page 5, lines 8-15 of the attached translation. The blade inherently includes the carbide layer (1a).
Regarding claim 5, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the first material comprises a steel alloy (carbon steel) and wherein the barrier layer (1c) comprises a cobalt alloy (or nickel alloy). See claims 1-2 of the translation.
Regarding claim 6, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the carbide layer (1a) is harder than the blade body (1b) and the blade body is harder than the barrier layer (1c; as nickel alloy . It should be noted that carbide layer or cemented carbide is much harder than the carbon tool steel or material of the blade body (1b). In addition, the carbon tool steel is harder than the barrier layer (1c), which is formed from than nickel alloy.
Regarding claim 7, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the carbide layer (1a) has a hardness in inherently in a range from 800 HV to 1500 HV. It should be noted that the hardness of the cemented carbide is approximately 1250 HV to 2000 HV, which is within the recited range, as evidenced by Kobayashi et al. (WO 2021256282 A1, abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the that the blade 1 comprising a first edge, a second edge, a first surface, and a second surface, the cutting edge being the first edge (Fig. 3) and the second edge (Fig. 1A) being on an opposite side of the blade from the first edge, wherein the first surface and the second surface each extend from the first edge to the second edge, the second surface being opposite to the first surface, and wherein the first surface and the second surface define a maximum thickness of the blade, the maximum thickness being 2 mm or less. It should be noted that the maximum thickness could be within 0.3-1.5 mm (page 4, lines 27-30 of the attached translation), which is less than 2 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the carbide layer (1a) has a thickness in a range from 0.4 mm to 1 mm. It should be noted that Masanori teaches that the thickness of the blade is in the range of 0.3-1.5 mm (page 4, lines 27-30 of the attached translation). Accordingly, the thickness of the carbide layer (1a), which is similar to the thickness of the blade 1 (shown in Fig. 3 of Masanori), falls within the claimed range of 0.4-1 mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masanori in view of Kobayashi et al. (WO 2021256282 A1), hereinafter Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 2, Masanori teaches everything noted above, but it could be argued that Masanori does not explicitly teach that the carbide material comprises at least one of tungsten carbide, chromium carbide, titanium carbide, tantalum carbide, or niobium carbide. Masanori teaches cemented carbides as the blade material, which are generally composed of WC (tungsten carbide) containing Co (cobalt). It could be argued Masanori does not explicitly teach that the carbide layer (1a) includes one of the recited wear-resistance material. However, Kobayashi teaches a blade 1 form from cemented carbide that comprises tungsten carbide, cobalt, vanadium, tantalum, chromium, and niobium. See page 3, lines 25-28 and page 4, lines 1-3 of the attached translation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any of the recited carbide materials as wear-resistant for Masanori’s cutting blade, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to adjust the characteristics such as particle size. See page 3, lines 25-28 of the attached translation in Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 7, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the carbide layer (1a) has a hardness in inherently in a range from 800 HV to 1500 HV. It should be noted that the hardness of the cemented carbide is approximately 1250 HV to 2000 HV, which is within the recited range. In addition, Kobayashi teaches that the cemented carbide hardness is between 1250 HV to 2000 HV. See the abstract in Kobayashi. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Masanori’s cemented carbide with the harness, at taught by Kobayashi, in order to ensure sufficient hardness for the blade and enhance durability.
7. Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masanori. Regarding claim 4, Masanori teaches everything noted above including that the carbide layer (1a) comprises from 25 wt% to 95 wt% of carbide material and from 5 wt% to 75 wt% of binder material. It should be noted that Masanori discloses that the blade has 85%-95% by weight of tungsten carbide (WC) and 5-15% by weight of cobalt (Co). See page 5, lines 8-15 of the attached translation. The blade inherently includes the carbide layer (1a).
It could be argued that Masanori does not explicitly teach that the carbide layer (1a) comprises from 25 wt% to 95 wt% of carbide material and from 5 wt% to 75 wt% of binder material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the ratio of carbide to binder to achieve desired hardness and toughness as described by Masanori, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Masanori teaches everything noted above except that in an alternative embodiment the carbide layer comprises about 16.5 wt% tungsten, about 15.5 wt% chromium, about 4 wt% silicon, about 3.5 wt% iron, about 2.9 wt% boron, about 2 wt% carbon, and a balance of nickel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select material and percentage of the materials as recited above for the carbide layer in Masanori in order to achieve desired wear resistance and mechanical properties. 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. In addition, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masanori in view of Wang (2019/0283262 A1) or Green (2009/0064507 A1). Regarding claim 10, Masanori teaches everything noted above except that the second edge comprises one or more notches configured to engage a blade holder of a utility knife. However, Wang teaches a utility blade 1 including a second edge having one or more notches (Fig. 1) to engage a blade holder of a utility knife. Wang also teaches that the utility blade includes a body blade 17 formed from a first material, a barrier layer 19 formed from a second material, and a harden layer 18 form from a third material (Fig. 9.). Wang also teaches that the third material is harder than first material and the first material is harder than the second material. See Figs. 1-9 in Wang. Green also teaches a utility blade 10 including a second edge 12 having one or more notches 24 to engage a blade holder of a utility knife. Green further teaches that the thickness (T) of the blade is between 0.015-0.05 inches which is less than 2 mm. See Figs. 1-9 in Green. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Masanori’s blade with the notches and dimensions, as taught by Wang or Green, in order to enable the user to use the blade with a utility knife and to facilitate handling of the blade and cutting of a desired workpiece.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Chen (CN 115216722 A), Culf (CA 2742085 A1), Skrobis et al. (2015/0328789 A1), and Alexander (2,496,840) teach a blade having at least two separate portions made from different materials.
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) 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
February 17, 2026