DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the Specification does not teach the second stepped portion and the third stepped portion being parallel. As best understood from the Specification, the embodiment in Fig. 5 has three stepped portions 286, 282, and 278. The original Specification does not explicitly teach two of the portions being parallel. One skilled in the art cannot tell whether portions 282 and 286 are parallel or they are 0.5 or 1 degree off the parallel orientation.
Regarding claim 7, the Specification does not teach the first stepped portion and the third stepped portion being parallel. As best understood from the Specification, the embodiment in Fig. 5 has three stepped portions 286, 282, and 278. The original Specification does not explicitly teach two of the portions being parallel. One skilled in the art cannot tell whether portions 282 and 286 are parallel or they are 0.5 or 1 degree off the parallel orientation.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Bucks et al. (2009/0145280), hereafter Bucks.
Regarding claim 1, Bucks teaches a reciprocating saw blade for use with a reciprocating saw, the reciprocating saw blade comprising:
a body having a first end and a second end, the body defining a longitudinal axis;
an attachment portion 14 coupled to the body at the first end, the attachment portion including a tang and an aperture configured to couple to the reciprocating saw;
a cutting portion 18 formed on the body, the cutting portion including a plurality of cutting teeth 22, each cutting tooth including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body;
a plunge point 16 formed at the second end of the body for initiating a plunge cut, the plunge point including a leading tooth 40 and a second tooth, the leading tooth including a tip and a rake face 44 extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a leading gullet that extends from the rake face of the leading tooth to the plurality of cutting teeth, the second tooth being positioned in the leading gullet closer to the leading tooth than to a nearest cutting tooth of the plurality of cutting teeth; and
a back portion 20 extending between the attachment portion and the plunge point on a side of the body opposite the cutting portion, the back portion including a first stepped portion (short horizontal section near shank 14) and a second stepped portion (long inclined section after the first stepped portion) that is angled relative to the first stepped portion.
See Figs. 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 2, a third stepped portion 16.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the stepped portions are best seen in Fig. 1. As to two of the stepped portions being parallel to the third stepped portion, Specification does not explicitly teach this limitation.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, claim 6 re-arranges the names of the stepped portions compare to claim 2, the Examiner interprets the stepped portions as follows to provide proper antecedent basis for claims 1 and 6: the first stepped portion is 16, the second stepped portion is the short horizontal section, and the third step portion is the long inclined section. With this interpretation, the third step portion is between the attachment portion 14 and the first stepped portion 16.
Regarding claim 8, the third stepped portion being closed to the first step portion is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the first step portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 11, the tip of the second tooth (right after first tooth 40) being spaced from plane is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 12, the second stepped portion extending at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 13, the first gullet 48 is larger than the other gullets 24 is best seen in Figs. 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 15, the second tooth smaller than the leading tooth 40 is best seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 16, a tang angle is best seen in Fig. 1.
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Grolimund (D482,945).
Regarding claim 1, Bucks teaches a reciprocating saw blade for use with a reciprocating saw, the reciprocating saw blade comprising:
a body having a first end and a second end, the body defining a longitudinal axis;
an attachment portion coupled to the body at the first end, the attachment portion including a tang and an aperture configured to couple to the reciprocating saw;
a cutting portion formed on the body, the cutting portion including a plurality of cutting teeth, each cutting tooth including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body;
a plunge point formed at the second end of the body for initiating a plunge cut, the plunge point including a leading tooth and a second tooth, the leading tooth including a tip and a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a leading gullet that extends from the rake face of the leading tooth to the plurality of cutting teeth, the second tooth being positioned in the leading gullet closer to the leading tooth than to a nearest cutting tooth of the plurality of cutting teeth; and
a back portion extending between the attachment portion and the plunge point on a side of the body opposite the cutting portion, the back portion including a first stepped portion and a second stepped portion that is angled relative to the first stepped portion.
See Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
551
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, a third stepped portion 16.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the stepped portions are best seen in Fig. 1. As to two of the stepped portions being parallel to the third stepped portion, Specification does not explicitly teach this limitation.
Regarding claims 4-5, an edge extending from the third stepped portion to the second end is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, claim 6 re-arranges the names of the stepped portions compare to claim 2, the Examiner interprets the stepped portions as shown above to provide proper antecedent basis for claims 1 and 6. With this interpretation, the third step portion is between the attachment portion and the first stepped portion 16.
Regarding claim 8, the third stepped portion being closed to the first step portion is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the first step portion extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the body is best seen in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
551
946
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the second stepped portion extending at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 13, the first gullet is larger than the other gullets is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 15, the second tooth smaller than the leading tooth 40 is best seen in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 16, a tang angle is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 19, Grolimund teaches a reciprocating saw blade for use with a reciprocating saw, the reciprocating saw blade comprising:
a body having a first end and a second end, the body defining a longitudinal axis;
an attachment portion coupled to the body at the first end, the attachment portion including a tang and an aperture configured to couple to the reciprocating saw;
a cutting portion formed on the body, the cutting portion including a plurality of cutting teeth, each cutting tooth including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a gullet, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body; and
a plunge point formed at the second end of the body for initiating a plunge cut, the plunge point including a leading tooth including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a leading gullet, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, the leading gullet having a leading gullet width that is larger than a width of each gullet defined by the plurality of cutting teeth,
wherein the second end of the body is rounded, and the relief surface of the leading tooth has a smooth transition from the tip to the second end of the body.
See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 20, Grolimund teaches a reciprocating saw blade for use with a reciprocating saw, the reciprocating saw blade comprising:
a body having a first end and a second end, the body defining a longitudinal axis;
an attachment portion coupled to the body at the first end of the body, the attachment portion including a tang and an aperture configured to couple to the reciprocating saw;
a cutting portion formed on the body, the cutting portion including a plurality of cutting teeth, each cutting tooth including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a gullet, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, each cutting tooth of the plurality of cutting teeth having a cutting tooth width measured parallel to the longitudinal axis; and
a plunge point formed at the second end of the body for initiating a plunge cut, the plunge point including
a leading tooth having a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a gullet, a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, and a leading tooth width defined between the rake face and the relief surface at a base of the leading tooth, and
a second tooth positioned within the gullet defined by the leading tooth between the leading tooth and the plurality of cutting teeth, the second tooth having a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis, a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, and a second tooth width defined between the rake face and the relief surface at a base of the second tooth,
wherein the second tooth width is smaller than the leading tooth width, and wherein the leading tooth width is smaller than the cutting tooth width.
See Figs. 1 and 6.
PNG
media_image3.png
791
829
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
8
5
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
551
946
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grolimund (D482,945).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, it appears the first stepped portion and the second stepped portion as shown being parallel. However, to the degree the Applicant would argue that they are not parallel, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make those portions parallel, 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. Or to make them parallel is an obvious matter of design choice since such modification does not change the cutting function of the blade.
Regarding claim 17, Grolimund teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the tang angle being 6.5 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the tang angle being 6.5 degrees, 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 18, Grolimund teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a ratio of a distance between the tip of the leading tooth to the tip of the nearest cutting tooth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, and a distance between the tips of adjacent cutting teeth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, being approximately 2.0. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make a ratio of a distance between the tip of the leading tooth to the tip of the nearest cutting tooth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, and a distance between the tips of adjacent cutting teeth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, being approximately 2.0, 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grolimund (D482,945) in view of Tsujimoto (2002/0184981).
Regarding claim 14, Grolimund teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for each cutting tooth having a protrusion extending from the end of the relief surface opposite from the tip.
Tsujimoto teaches a saw blade having a cutting tooth having a protrusion 5 extending from an end of a relief surface opposite from a tip 1 for preventing a breaking of a following cutting tooth. See Fig. 1A
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the cutting teeth of Grolimund having a protrusion extending from an end of a relief surface opposite from a tip as taught by Tsujimoto for preventing a breaking of a following cutting tooth.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucks et al. (2009/0145280), hereafter Bucks, in view of Tsujimoto (2002/0184981).
Regarding claim 14, Bucks teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for each cutting tooth having a protrusion extending from the end of the relief surface opposite from the tip.
Tsujimoto teaches a saw blade having a cutting tooth having a protrusion 5 extending from an end of a relief surface opposite from a tip 1 for preventing a breaking of a following cutting tooth. See Fig. 1A
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the cutting teeth of Bucks having a protrusion extending from an end of a relief surface opposite from a tip as taught by Tsujimoto for preventing a breaking of a following cutting tooth.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucks et al. (2009/0145280), hereafter Bucks.
Regarding claim 17, Bucks teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the tang angle being 6.5 degrees. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the tang angle being 6.5 degrees, 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 18, Bucks teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a ratio of a distance between the tip of the leading tooth to the tip of the nearest cutting tooth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, and a distance between the tips of adjacent cutting teeth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, being approximately 2.0. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make a ratio of a distance between the tip of the leading tooth to the tip of the nearest cutting tooth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, and a distance between the tips of adjacent cutting teeth, measured generally parallel to the longitudinal axis, being approximately 2.0, 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 20, Bucks teaches a reciprocating saw blade for use with a reciprocating saw substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, the reciprocating saw blade comprising:
a body having a first end and a second end, the body defining a longitudinal axis;
an attachment portion 14 coupled to the body at the first end of the body, the attachment portion including a tang and an aperture configured to couple to the reciprocating saw;
a cutting portion 18 formed on the body, the cutting portion including a plurality of cutting teeth 22, each cutting tooth including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a gullet, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, each cutting tooth of the plurality of cutting teeth having a cutting tooth width measured parallel to the longitudinal axis; and
a plunge point 16 formed at the second end of the body for initiating a plunge cut, the plunge point including
a leading tooth 40 having a tip, a rake face 44 extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a gullet, a relief surface 46 extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, and a leading tooth width defined between the rake face and the relief surface at a base of the leading tooth, and
a second tooth (right after the leading tooth) positioned within the gullet defined by the leading tooth between the leading tooth and the plurality of cutting teeth, the second tooth having a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis, a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, and a second tooth width defined between the rake face and the relief surface at a base of the second tooth,
wherein the second tooth width is smaller than the leading tooth width, and wherein the leading tooth width is smaller than the cutting tooth width.
See Figs. 1 and 6.
Bucks does not teach “wherein the second tooth width is smaller than the leading tooth width, and wherein the leading tooth width is smaller than the cutting tooth width.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make “wherein the second tooth width is smaller than the leading tooth width, and wherein the leading tooth width is smaller than the cutting tooth width”, 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bucks et al. (2009/0145280), hereafter Bucks, in view of Grolimund (D482,945).
Regarding claim 19, Bucks teaches a reciprocating saw blade for use with a reciprocating saw substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, the reciprocating saw blade comprising:
a body having a first end and a second end, the body defining a longitudinal axis;
an attachment portion 14 coupled to the body at the first end, the attachment portion including a tang and an aperture configured to couple to the reciprocating saw;
a cutting portion 18 formed on the body, the cutting portion including a plurality of cutting teeth, each cutting tooth including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a gullet, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body; and
a plunge point 16 formed at the second end of the body for initiating a plunge cut, the plunge point including a leading tooth 40 including a tip, a rake face extending from the tip generally toward the longitudinal axis and defining a leading gullet, and a relief surface extending from the tip generally toward the second end of the body, the leading gullet having a leading gullet width that is larger than a width of each gullet defined by the plurality of cutting teeth,
wherein the second end of the body is rounded, and the relief surface of the leading tooth has a smooth transition from the tip to the second end of the body.
See Fig. 1.
Bucks does not teach the second end being rounded.
Grolimund teaches the art equivalents between a rounded tip (Fig. 1) and a pointed tip (Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the tip in Bucks rounded since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights