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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference “216” in figure 3C is pointing to a channel, however, the reference “216” in figure 3B is pointing to a cutter (if the reference “216” is pointing to the invisible channel, the “216” should be pointing to a dashed line of the invisible channel or delete the “216” from Figure 3B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 introduces new matter with the language of "at least " twenty teeth in lines 2-3, which is not support by the original specification. The original specification does disclose an upper limit, but the claim does not claim the upper limit. See MPEP 2163.05, Section III, and the “no upper limit” discussion. Thus, the language of "at least" is new matter. Claim 21 has the same issue.
All claims dependent from claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent from rejected parent claims, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willer et al (US 2022/0032383) hereinafter Willer in view of Saats et al (US 3973455 A).
Regarding claim 1, Willer shows a saw blade (Figure 1A) comprising:
a main body (200, 300) having a plurality of teeth (where the reference “300” is in figure 1B) comprising at least twenty teeth that are spaced around a circumference of the main body (see Figure 3);
cutters (400) respectively secured to the plurality of teeth, wherein each of the cutters comprises:
a cutter main body (410, Figures 5A, 5B) by which the respective cutter is secured to a respective tooth of the plurality of teeth,
wherein each cutter main body having a bottom (412b), a rear (411), a front (412a), a top (412c) and opposing sides (see Figures 5A, 5B);
a cutter plate (420) that is secured to the front of the respective cutter main body; and
one or more cutting elements (430) that are secured to the cutter main body,
wherein the cutter main body of each cutter has a width but it is clear whether it is greater than a width of the main body (such that one or both of the opposing sides of the cutter main body extend outwardly beyond corresponding one or both sides of the main body) or not.
Saats shows a saw blade (10) having a plurality of teeth (16) having a main body (Figure 1) and a plurality of cutters (20), wherein a width of each cutter is greater than a width of the main body (Figures 2 and 4) such that both of the opposing sides of the cutter main body extend outwardly beyond corresponding both sides of the main body.
Saats also shows a second embodiment of a saw blade (50) having a cutter (52), wherein a width of the cutter is greater than a width of a tooth main body (Figure 6).
Based on both teaches, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the blade of Willer to have a width of each cutter is greater than a width of a main body of each tooth, as taught by Saats, in order to allow the cutters being stability and rigidity and to cut faster.
Further, a width of a cutter being greater than a width of a tooth main body is an old and well understood results-effective-variable. If a manufacturer wishes to maximize cutting action, the manufacturer may choose a large or a full kerf (greater width of a cutter) and the cutter is stability and rigidity and allow to cut faster, but the down side is that it is required more power to rotate the blade and generated more waste material.
If a manufacturer wished to cut a fine cutting, the manufacturer may choose a thinner kerf (lesser width of a cutter) and the cutter is deflected; it is required less power to rotate the blade and allow to cut finer (slower) and generated less waste material. Given the above, almost any width of a cutter would be considered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that the cutters are configured to cause the cutter main bodies to extend outwardly beyond alternating sides of the main body (see Figure 5 of Saats).
Regarding claims 3-4, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that at least some of the cutters include a single cutting element (Para. 35 of Willer recites “… one … cutting elements 430” which means it can be one cutting element) or multiple cutting elements (see the discussion in Para. 35 “…more cutting elements 430” and Figures 5A, B of Willer).
Regarding claim 5, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that the cutter are centered on the teeth such that each cutter main body extends outwardly both sides of the main body (see the saw blade and the cutter in Saats’s figure 6).
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified saw blade of Willer shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 3-4 above.
Regarding claim 8, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that the main body includes cutouts (311, Figure 4 of Willer) and inserts (400, Figures 5A, 5B of Willer) secured within the cutouts, each insert comprising an insert main body (410) and wear-prevention elements (420, Para. 36 of Willer “Plate 420, which may be formed of tungsten or another hard metal, primarily functions to shield cutter main body 410, including to prevent the width of cutter main body 410 from being worn away”) extending outwardly from both sides of the insert main body (Figure 6 of Willer).
Regarding claims 9-10, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that the plurality of teeth include non-elongated teeth (305, Figure 4 of Willer) and elongated teeth (310, Figure 4 of Willer) and the cutouts extend into the elongated teeth (Figure 4 of Willer), wherein the elongated teeth are positioned between sets of the non-elongated teeth (see Figure 4 of Willer, the portion 310 between the portions 305).
Regarding claim 11, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that at least some of the teeth include a base (305, Figure 4 of Willer), a projection (310a, Figure 4 of Willer) positioned rearward of the base and a recess (311, Figure 4 of Willer) positioned rearward of the projection, and wherein the recess of a leading tooth extends inwardly beyond the base of a trailing tooth (since this is a circular blade as seen in Figure 4 of Willer, the recess 311 of the first tooth extends inwardly beyond the base of a middle tooth or an adjacent tooth).
Regarding claim 12, the modified saw of Willer shows that the main body includes cuts that extend radially inwardly from at least some of the recesses (see Figure 4 of Willer below).
PNG
media_image1.png
306
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that the cutter main body of at least some of the cutters includes a channel (a recess formed two sides 412d and 411c, Figure 5A of Willer) formed in the rear of the cutter main body and the projection of the corresponding teeth insert into the channel (Figure 6 of Willer).
Regarding claim 14, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that at least some of the teeth include a base (305, Figure 4 of Willer), a projection (310) positioned rearward of the base and a shallow cleanout surface (305a, the middle tooth, Figure 4 of Willer) positioned rearward of the projection (of the 1st tooth, Figure 4 of Willer), and wherein the shallow cleanout surface of a leading tooth extends outwardly beyond the base of a trailing tooth (see the surface 305a beyond the cuts as seen in Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 15, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that the main body includes cuts (Figure 4 above) that extend radially inwardly from at least some of the shallow cleanout surfaces (305a, Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 16, the modified saw blade of Willer shows that the cutter plate (420), and one or more cutting elements (see the discussion in claims 3-4 above), and wherein the cutter plate extends outwardly beyond one or more the opposing sides of the cutter main body (see Figures 5A, 5B of Willer, the plate 420 extends outwardly beyond one or more the opposing sides of the cutter main body because each opposing side has a beveled edges 413. Another word, the plate 420 extends outwardly beyond the bevel edges).
Regarding claim 21, the modified saw blade of Willer shows a saw blade (see the discussion in claim 1 above) comprising:
“a main body having a plurality of teeth, the plurality of teeth comprising at least twenty teeth that are spaced around a circumference of the main body;
cutters secured to the plurality of teeth, wherein each of the cutters comprises:
a cutter main body by which the respective cutter is secured to a respective tooth of the plurality of teeth, each cutter main body having a bottom, a rear, a front, a top and opposing sides,
a cutter plate that is secured to the front of the respective cutter main body, and one or more cutting elements that are secured to the cutter main body”; and
“inserts secured within cutouts in the main body, each insert comprising an insert main body and wear-prevention elements extending outwardly from both sides of the insert main body” (see claim 8 above);
wherein the cutter main body of each of the cutters has a width that is greater than a width of the main body such that one or both of the opposing sides of the cutter main body extend outwardly beyond corresponding one or both sides of the main body (see claim 1 for the modification).
Regarding claim 22, the modified saw blade of Willer shows a saw blade (see claim 1 above) comprising: “a main body having a plurality of teeth spaced around a circumference of the main body;
cutters secured to the plurality of teeth, wherein each of the cutters comprises:
a cutter main body by which the respective cutter is secured to a respective tooth of the plurality of teeth, each cutter main body having a bottom, a rear, a front, a top and opposing sides,
a cutter plate that is secured to the front of the respective cutter main body, each cutter plate having a width that is greater than a width of the cutter main body such that the cutter plate extends outwardly beyond the opposing sides of the cutter main body, and one or more cutting elements that are secured to the cutter main body” (see the discussion in claim 1 above); and
inserts secured within cutouts in the main body, each insert comprising an insert main body and wear-prevention elements extending outwardly from both sides of the insert main body (see claim 8 above);
wherein the width of the cutter main body of each of the cutters is greater than a width of the main body and the cutter main body is secured to the respective tooth to cause the opposing sides of the cutter main body to extend outwardly beyond both sides of the main body(see claim 1 for the modification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new art above.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ellis (US 4214499) shows a width of a cutter being greater than a width of a blade body (Figures 1-2).
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/30/2026
Prosecution Insights