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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 17 (lines 14-15), should recite “the plurality of lock points Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20180200812 to Kaye et al. in view of US Patent No. 20150266102 to Kozak.
In re claim 9, Kaye teaches an oscillating blade comprising:
a body (702) having a cutting edge (701), the cutting edge defining a first end of the oscillating blade (as shown in at least Claim 1); and
an anchor (704) coupled to the body and defining a second end of the oscillating blade, the anchor having:
a base (708) disposed at least partially in a first plane (as shown in at least Figure 6a, surface 708 lies within a first horizontal plane),
a tool arbor engagement portion (as shown in at least Figure 6a) including a side wall (712) extending away from the first plane and a cap wall (706) coupled to the side wall and disposed at least partially in a second plane (as shown in at least Figure 6a, surface 706 lies within a second horizontal plane) that is spaced apart from the first plane, the cap wall defining a plurality of apertures (730) configured to mate with connection projections on an oscillating power tool, and
a lock point (714,716) (capable of being) formed at least partially in the base (708) and located between the first end of the oscillating blade and the plurality of apertures (730).
Note, the preamble is directed to an oscillating blade, not the power tool; therefore, the plurality of apertures merely has to be capable of being configured to mate with the connection projections on an oscillating power tool. The lock point (710,712, 14) has at least one surface which extends between the base and the plurality of apertures.
In re claim 10, wherein the lock point (714,716) extends away from the first plane.
As shown in at least Figure 6A, the lock point extends in a vertical direction away from the surface of 708, which lies in the first plane.
In re claim 11, wherein the lock point (714, 716) extends toward the second plane.
As shown in at least Figure 6A, the lock point extends in a vertical direction toward the second plane in which surface 706 lie within.
In re claim 12, wherein the cap wall (706) also defines a central arbor hole (722) positioned between the plurality of apertures (730).
In re claim 13, wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures (732a, 732b, 732c) are connected to and extend radially from the central arbor hole.
In re claim 14, wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures (734a-f) are spaced apart from the central arbor hole.
In re claim 15, wherein the side wall (712) and the cap wall (706) define an arbor opening (as shown in at least Figure 6a) extending through the second end of the oscillating blade and connected to the central arbor hole.
In re claim 16, wherein the body (702) is disposed at least partially in a third plane (as shown in at least Figure 6c) that is spaced apart from the first plane (as shown in at least Figure 6a,6c, surface 708 lies within a first horizontal plane).
Regarding claim 9, Kaye teaches a lock point formed in at least partially the base, but does not teach the lock point is structurally distinct form the side wall and formed separately from the side wall.
Kozak teaches an oscillating blade having a plurality of locking apertures (220) or slots (222) form at least partially in the base (214), structurally distinct from the side wall (see Annotated Figure 1, below) and formed separately from the side wall (as shown in at least Figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the oscillating blade of Kaye with a removable lock point as taught by Kozack which is advantageous for having an open first aperture to engage and disengage a tool without having to fully remove any clamps, fasteners, or other connections elements. The arrangement allows for tools which require a fully enclosed first or main aperture to be left in that arrangement and if a tool requires a partially open first or main aperture, the removable portion can be disengaged from the side wall to allow for easier connect/disconnect of the oscillating blade from the tool (Para 0043).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, -8 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Brown et al. (EP2762276) teaches an oscillating blade having a body, a cutting edge, and an anchor. Brown teaches a plurality of embodiments with various locking points extending around a central arbor hole. The locking points are spaced from and extend symmetrical about the longitudinal axis which extends through the first end of the saw, the second end of the saw, and the central arbor hole. Brown teaches the locking points are not limited to four, but is required to be over two. Brown does not teach exactly two lock points are laterally spaced from the locking axis and wherein the plurality of lock points includes on a single lock pint offset to a first side of the longitudinal axis and only a single lock point offset to a second opposite side of the longitudinal axis. A modification of Brown to have less than two locking points would have destroyed the reference for its intended purpose.
Gundlapalli et al. (EP1882538) teaches a teaches an oscillating blade having a body, a cutting edge, and an anchor. Gundlapalli teaches various embodiments to the oscillating blade having a single locking point and a plurality of locking points. The single locking point and the plurality of locking points are symmetrical about the longitudinal axis which extends through the first end of the saw, the second end of the saw, and a central arbor hole. Gundlapalli does not teach exactly two lock points are laterally spaced from the locking axis and wherein the plurality of lock points includes on a single lock pint offset to a first side of the longitudinal axis and only a single lock point offset to a second opposite side of the longitudinal axis.
One having ordinary skill in the art would not have been led to modify the prior art to arrive at the claim invention, as this would have relied on hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
The double patenting rejection has been overcome by the amendments filed April 28, 2026. The claims in the instant application are divergent in scope with US Patents 11,344,960 and 12,070,810.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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