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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 7,998,158 to Fletcher et al. in view of US Patent No. 2,534,424 to Dryden.
In re claim 1, Fletcher teaches an accessory for use with an oscillating power tool comprising:
an attachment portion (16, Para 0044) configured to be coupled to the oscillating power tool;
and
a working portion (as shown in at least Figure 1) extending along a tool axis and including a rear end portion coupled to the attachment portion (as shown in at least Figure 1), a front end portion with a cutting edge (2) opposite the rear end portion, a non-cutting first lateral edge (20a, left) extending from the rear end portion to the front end portion, and a non-cutting second lateral edge (20a, right) opposite the first lateral non-cutting edge and extending from the rear end portion to the front end portion,
wherein the cutting edge (2) includes a plurality of teeth arranged along a straight line that is generally perpendicular to the tool axis (Col. 6, lines 35-40), the plurality of teeth having a first subset of teeth including at least a plurality of first tooth teeth extending from the first lateral edge toward the tool axis (as shown in at least Figure 1), a second subset of teeth including a plurality of second teeth extending from the second lateral edge toward the tool axis (as shown in at least Figure 1), and a third subset of teeth including a plurality of third teeth disposed between the first subset of teeth and the second subset of teeth and intersecting the tool axis (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 10, wherein a first transition of spacing between the third subset of teeth (as shown in at least Figure 1) and the first subset of teeth is gradual (as shown in at least Figure 1) and a second transition of spacing between the third subset of teeth and the second subset of teeth is gradual (as shown in at least Figure 1, see Annotated Figure 1, below).
As shown in at least Annotated Figure 1, each subset of teeth are identified by letters A, B, and C, which A and C being the first and second subset of teeth. There is a gradual transition between each subset of teeth.
Regarding claim 1, Fletcher teaches an accessory, but does not teach wherein the plurality of first teeth having a course tooth pitch, the plurality of second teeth have a coarse tooth pitch, and the plurality of third teeth have a fine tooth pitch.
Dryden teaches a saw blade having a plurality of first teeth (14) and a plurality of second teeth (18) having a coarse tooth pitch and the plurality of third teeth (16) having a fine tooth pitch.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the teeth of Fletcher for the first and second plurality of teeth to have a coarse pitch and the third plurality of teeth to have a fine pitch as taught by Dryden to reduce blade breakages to a minimum and avoid particles from being lodged between the teeth (Col. 1, lines 7-12, lines 14-19).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher et al. in view of Dryden, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of WO2012166096 to Campbell et al.
In re claim 2, modified Fletcher teaches wherein the plurality of first tooth teeth and the plurality of second tooth teeth have a first size and each of the plurality of third teeth have a second size.
In re claim 3, wherein the plurality of first tooth teeth and the plurality of second teeth have a first shape and each of the at least one plurality of third tooth teeth have a second shape.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Fletcher teaches the plurality of first and second teeth have a first shape and size, but does not teach the third teeth having a shape and size different from the first and second teeth.
Campbell teaches in the art of saw blades, a blade having a plurality of teeth along a first edge which are different in shape and size from the plurality of teeth along a second edge.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the plurality of first and second teeth of modified Fletcher to have a different size and shape than the plurality of third teeth as taught by Campbell based on the desired outcome of the material being cut. Different size teeth are also advantageous for reducing vibrations and providing stability for rough and fine cutting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the three subsets of teeth as shown in at least Annotated Figure 1 are mischaracterized as “subsets” since each subset has the exact same configuration. Applicant argues Fletcher does not teach three “subsets” of based on the plain meaning of the term.
Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term “subset” is defined as a set each of whose elements is an element of an inclusive set; division, portion. Per Merriam-Webster, Fletcher teaches a blade having a plurality of blades, defining a subset per the BRI of the term. Fletcher modified by Dryden teaches a blade having a first and second subset of teeth with a coarse tooth pitch and a third subset of teeth with a fine tooth pitch, which satisfies the BRI of the term subset. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant sets forth on Page 2, [Para 0006], the first and second subsets of teeth have the same shape, size, configuration, spacing, while the third subset of teeth have a different size, shape, configuration, and/or spacing than the first and second subset of teeth. This is not a special definition of the term “subset” and the Examiner is not permitted to read limitations into the specification. If it is Applicant’s intent to define the subsets as set forth in Para [0006], the language should be incorporated into the claimed subject matter.
Applicant argues Dryden (Ernest) teaches a blade housing four subsets of teeth having a first subset of teeth having a coarse tooth pitch extending from the edge and a fourth subset of teeth having a fine course tooth pitch extending from the second edge. Applicant argues to arrive at a three-subset arrangement it would exclude the fourth subset as taught by Dryden, which relies on impermissible hindsight.
Dryden provides a teaching in the art of saws a blade having two sets of coarse tooth pitches with a set of fine tooth. Dryden also teaches modifications and changes in structure may be made without departing form the spirit and scope of the appended claims (Col. 3, lines 22-25). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize/possesses the knowledge that based on the teachings of Dryden, the blade of Fletcher could be modified to have an alternating arrangement of coarse and fine pitch teeth for ease and efficient operation and to reduce the accumulation of metal particles (Col. 3, lines 16-20). The requirement of the a 103 is not that the exact same structure has to be applied to the modification, but that the concept (in general) can be applied (and in this particular case that one having ordinary skill in the art when considering all saws would have had to knowledge to make the modification), which further supports Dryden stating modifications can be made without departing for the scope of the invention. Further, Applicant appears to state the combination would have been impermissible hindsight without taking into account knowledge of one within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "[A]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2145, Section X, Part A.
Applicant argues one having ordinary skill in the art would not look to the teachings of a hacksaw of Dryden to modify the surgical cutting blade of Fletcher, since a hacksaw is only designed to cut in one direction, whereas the cutting edge in Fletcher must cut back and forth. Applicant argues the stroke in a hacksaw blade is significantly longer and slower than that of a surgical oscillating blade.
Fletcher teaches an oscillating blade with a plurality of subsets. The blades are arranged in a pitch, but there is no explicit teaching to the blades having a coarse and/or fine pitch arrangement. One having ordinary skill in the art of saws possesses the knowledge that a blade can have a coarse pitch tooth arrangement for rapid, aggressive material removal (the material in this instance, including bone) and/or a fine pitch tooth arrangement for smooth and clean cuts. One would have been led by the teachings of Dryden to modify the blade of Fletcher to have an alternating arrangement of both coarse and fine based on the material being cut and in order to reduce blade breakages to a minimum and avoid particles from being lodged between the teeth. Modifying the blade of Fletcher with coarse and fine toothed pitches as taught by Fletcher would not jeopardize the functionality of the blade (of Fletcher) which is to cut.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights