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 § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20180200812 to Kaye et al.
In re claim 1, 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; the surface of 706 lies within a second horizontal plane) that is spaced apart from the first plane, the cap wall defining a central arbor hole (722) configured to receive a power tool arbor, and
a plurality of lock points (714,716) spaced between the first end and the second end of the oscillating blade in a first direction (the first direction being in the axial direction), the plurality of lock points being laterally (as shown in at least Figure 6a, see Annotated Figure 1, below) aligned in a second direction (the second direction being a horizontal direction, as indicated by the black arrow in Annotated Figure 1, below) that is perpendicular to the first direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
552
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, wherein the central arbor hole (722) is concentric with a drive axis of the oscillating blade (C as shown in Figure 6B).
In re claim 3, wherein the plurality of lock points (714,716) includes two lock points disposed on opposite sides of a longitudinal axis (W) extending through the drive axis (C), the first end, and the second end (as shown in at least Figures 6b).
In re claim 4, wherein the cap wall (706) also defines a plurality apertures (730) configured to mate with connecting projection on an oscillating power tool.
In re claim 5, wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures (732b,732c, 733b) are connected to and extend radially from the central arbor hole (722).
In re claim 6, wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures (734a-f) are spaced apart from the central arbor hole (722).
In re claim 7, wherein the side wall (712) and the cap wall (706) define an arbor opening (720) extending through the second end of the oscillating blade and connected to the central arbor hole (722).
In re claim 8, wherein the body (702) is disposed at least partially in a third plane spaced apart from the first plane.
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).
In re claim 17, 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) 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 (706) defining a defining a central arbor hole (722) and a plurality of apertures (730) surrounding the central arbor hole, the central arbor hole and the plurality of apertures configured to receive a power tool arbor; and
a lock point (714,716) formed at least partially in the base (708) and extending away from the first plane (the lock point extends in a vertical direction away from the first plane), the lock point (714,716) positioned between the first end and the second end of the oscillating blade (as shown in at least Figure 6a).
In re claim 18, wherein the lock point (714,716) is positioned between the central arbor hole (722) and the body (702).
In re claim 19, wherein the lock point (714,716) is a first lock point (714) spaced apart from the first end and the second end of the oscillating blade in a first direction, and wherein the anchor also has a second lock point (see Annotated Figure 2, below) spaced apart from and laterally aligned with the first lock point in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
571
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 20, wherein at least some of the plurality of apertures (732a-c) are connected to and extend radially from the central arbor hole.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,3-5, 7-9, and 12-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,843,282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 1 and 3 are anticipated by claims 1 and 2 of ‘282.
Claim 1 to Churchill of US Patent No. ‘282 recites an oscillating saw blade comprising: an anchor (22) disposed at least partially in a first plane and including:
a working portion (24);
a tool arbor engagement portion (78) joined to the working portion, and the tool arbor engagement portion includes:
a side wall (50) extending away from the first plane at essentially 90°, and the side wall includes an arcuate segment;
a cap wall (52) joined to the side wall and disposed at least partially in a second plane, and the side wall and the cap wall at least partially define an arbor opening;
a first lock point (70) joined to and extending radially outwardly from the side wall; and a second lock point (70) joined to and extending radially outwardly from the side wall and spaced apart from the first lock point by an arcuate segment of the side wall, and the arcuate segment has an arc length greater than an arc length of the first lock point. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rational in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 4, 5, 7-9, and 12-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, and 28 of US Patent ‘282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are no patentably distinct from each other because application claims 4, 5, 7-9, and 12-16 are anticipated by claims 2, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21-23, and 28 of ‘282. ere, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rational in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. The chart below details the relationship between the pending claims and Patent ‘282, which are being rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
US Patent No. 10,843,283
App 18/785288
Claims 4 and 7
Claim 5
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 7
Claim 14
Claim 4
Claim 15
Claim 9
Claim 17
Claim 12
Claims 18 and 21
Claim 13
Claim 22
Claim 16
Claim 23
Claim 15
Claim 28
Claim 14
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,344,960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 2 of ‘960.
Claim 1 to Churchill of US Patent No. ‘960 recites an oscillating blade comprising:
an anchor (22) disposed at least partially in a first plane and including:
a tool arbor engagement portion (78) defining a longitudinal axis, and the tool arbor engagement portion includes: a side wall (50) extending away from the first plane;
a cap wall (52) joined to the side wall and disposed at least partially in a second plane, and the cap wall at least partially defines an arbor opening axially aligned with the longitudinal axis; and
a plurality of spaced apart lock points (70)extending radially outwardly from the side wall, and the lock points are spaced apart by an arcuate segment of the side wall having an arc length greater than an arc length of each individual lock point. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rational in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 27 of US Patent ‘960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are no patentably distinct from each other because application claims 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 16 are anticipated by claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 27 of ‘960. Here, the more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims. Following the rational in In re Goodman cited in the preceding paragraph, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific narrow invention, applicant may not obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. The chart below details the relationship between the pending claims and Patent ‘960, which are being rejected under nonstatutory double patenting.
US Patent No. 11,344,960
App 18/785288
Claims 3and 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 8
Claim 12
Claim 9
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 15
Claim 10
Claim 17
Claim 16
Conclusion
US PGPUB 20150266102 teaches an oscillating saw blade having a body and a tool arbor engagement portion with a plurality of apertures.
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