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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on09/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanogo et al (US 2020/0180054) hereinafter Sanogo in view of Seabury (US 0071227).
Regarding claim 1, Sanogo shows a reciprocating saw blade (Figures 1-3) for use with a reciprocating saw, the reciprocating saw blade comprising:
a body (12, Figures 2-3) including a first end portion (where the tang 20 is in Figure 1), a second end portion (a tip of the blade) opposite the first end portion, and
a coupling edge (14, Figure 1 for coupling cutting strips 22A, 22B) extending between the first and second end portions, the body defining a longitudinal axis (X, Figure 1) extending through the first and second end portions;
an attachment portion (tang 20) coupled to the first end portion of the body, the attachment portion including a tang (20) and an aperture (see Figure 1) configured to couple with the reciprocating saw (this tang is configured to couple with the reciprocating saw);
a cutting portion coupled to the coupling edge of the body (see the strips 22A. 22B in Figure 1), the cutting portion including:
a plurality of cutting teeth (Figures 2-3), each cutting tooth (Figure 2) including a tip (32), a rake face (30), and a relief surface (34), and
a plurality of gullets (28 that is between adjacent teeth. See the discussion of gullet 28 in Para. 39), each gullet positioned between adjacent cutting teeth (see Figures 2-3); and
a plurality of slots (38, 40, Figures 2-3), each slot extending through the cutting portion to terminate within the body (as this is written, these slots are not extending into the body, therefore, the slots 38, 40 of Figures 2-3, terminate within the body 12 and meet this limitation. Also, see Figure 13A for the slots extending into the blade body),
the plurality of slots spaced along the cutting portion to separate the cutting portion into a plurality of cutting segments (22) including a proximal end segment adjacent the first end portion of the body (the segment near to the tang 20, Figure 1), a distal end segment adjacent the second end portion of the body (the segment at the blade tip, Figure 1), and a plurality of intermediate cutting segments positioned between the proximal end segment and the distal end segment (inner segments, Figure 1),
However, Sanogo fails to discuss that the proximal end segment (the segment near to the tang) is longer than each intermediate cutting segment.
Seabury shows a saw blade (Figures 1-2 below) having a plurality of slots (slots “e” extend into a body) spaced along the cutting portion to separate the cutting portion into a plurality of cutting segments (a, c, d, Figure 3) including a proximal end segment (the segment near to a tang or a handle b, Figure 1 below) adjacent a first end portion of the body, a distal end segment (see the distal end segment, Figure 1 below) adjacent the second end portion of the body, and a plurality of intermediate cutting segments (inner segments a, Figure 2) between the proximal end segment and the distal end segment, wherein the proximal end segment is longer than each intermediate cutting segment (see Figure 1 below).
Therefore, 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 plurality of cutting segments of Sanogo to have a plurality of cutting segments, as taught by Seabury, in order to allow receptacles for the sawdust while being conveyed out of the kerf and cut much more rapidly (only page, the last two paragraphs of Seabury).
Further, as the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the proximal end segment is longer than each intermediate cutting segment, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the proximal end segment is longer than each intermediate cutting segment (since it does not have a slot in the proximal end segment), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) for increasing strength of the saw blade tang.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
882
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows that the proximal end segment includes more cutting teeth than each intermediate cutting segment (see Seabury’s Figure 1 above, the proximal end segment has 4 teeth and the segment, where the reference “a”, Figure 2, has 3 teeth).
Regarding claim 3, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows that the proximal end segment is also longer than the distal end segment (see Seabury’s Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows that the distal end segment is longer than each intermediate cutting segment (see Seabury’s Figure 1 above, the distal end segment is longer than the segment, where the reference “a”, is in Figures 1-2 above).
Regarding claim 5, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows all of the limitation as stated above except that the distal end segment is shorter than each intermediate cutting segment (see Applicant’s specification; Examiner notes that it is a different embodiment from the embodiment of claim 4).
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the distal end segment is shorter than each intermediate cutting segment or any specific distal end segment size compared to each intermediate cutting segment solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, this application provides 3 different blade embodiments (10a, 10b, 10c, Figures 4-6),
Moreover, Applicant’s paragraph 40 discusses “the saw blades 10, 10a, 10b, 10c can include any number of slots 120, 120a, 120b, 120c to include any number of cutting teeth 90, 90a, 90b, 90c on the cutting segments 35, 35a, 35b, 35c”. Applicant hasn’t demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the distal end segment is shorter than each intermediate cutting segment, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, see MPEP. 2144.04, section IV.
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows that the cutting portion is formed of carbide (Para. 17 of Sanogo “The set carbide teeth”) and the body and the attachment portion are formed of low-carbon steel (Para. 37 of Sanogo “the body 12 may be composed of a metal material such as mild steel…carbon steel”).
Regarding claim 8, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows all of the limitations as stated above including the carbide cutting portion (see claims 6-7 above), however, Sanogo silently discusses that the cutting portion is formed of a high speed steel.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known to have the cutting portion being a high speed steel. Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have the cutting portion formed of a high speed steel, in order to reduce cost of the saw blade (carbide material is generally higher cost compared to the high-speed-steel material).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the cutting portion formed of a high speed steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In order to reduce manufacture cost of the saw blade and make the saw blade more affordable, in which may not provide the same level of durability and longevity as carbide material of the cutting portion. The choice between the two should be based on the specific requirements of the saw blade, including the type of material being cut, the desired finish, and the expected saw blade life.
Regarding claim 9, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows all of the limitation as stated above except that the proximal end segment includes more cutting teeth than the distal end segment.
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the proximal end segment includes more cutting teeth than the distal end segment or any specific number teeth of the distal end segment compared to any number teeth of the proximal end solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Moreover, Applicant’s paragraph 40 discusses “the saw blades 10, 10a, 10b, 10c can include any number of slots 120, 120a, 120b, 120c to include any number of cutting teeth 90, 90a, 90b, 90c on the cutting segments 35, 35a, 35b, 35c”. Applicant hasn’t demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the proximal end segment more cutting teeth than the distal end segment, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, see MPEP. 2144.04, section IV.
Regarding claim 10, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows all of the limitation as stated above except that each intermediate cutting segment includes more cutting teeth than the distal end segment.
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why each intermediate cutting segment having more cutting teeth than the distal end segment or any specific number teeth of each intermediate cutting segment compared to any number teeth of the distal end segment solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Moreover, Applicant’s paragraph 40 discusses “the saw blades 10, 10a, 10b, 10c can include any number of slots 120, 120a, 120b, 120c to include any number of cutting teeth 90, 90a, 90b, 90c on the cutting segments 35, 35a, 35b, 35c”. Applicant hasn’t demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have each intermediate cutting segment more cutting teeth than the distal end segment, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Also, see MPEP. 2144.04, section IV.
Regarding claim 11, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows all of the limitation as stated above except that each intermediate cutting segment has a width between about 0.125 inches and about 0.187 inches.
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why each intermediate cutting segment has a width between about 0.125 inches and about 0.187 inches or any specific number teeth of each intermediate cutting segment compared to any number teeth of the distal end segment solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Moreover, Applicant’s paragraph 40 discusses “the saw blades 10, 10a, 10b, 10c can include any number of slots 120, 120a, 120b, 120c to include any number of cutting teeth 90, 90a, 90b, 90c on the cutting segments 35, 35a, 35b, 35c”. Applicant hasn’t demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have each intermediate cutting segment having a width of any reasonable range including the claimed range (between about 0.125 inches and about 0.187 inches), 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. The claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges, depending on the size, shape of saw blade requirements to be manufactured. For an example, if same number of teeth of each intermediate cutting segment in a short length (or a small blade), the saw blade can smoothly cut, but it cuts slow and if same number of teeth of each intermediate cutting segment in a longer length (or a larger blade), it cuts faster. This proves that any length of each intermediate cutting segment is a known results-effective variable, and one of ordinary skill can change that length of intermediate cutting segment to affect the desired outcome.
Regarding claim 12, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows the plurality of slots is spaced along the cutting portion (see the discussion in claim 1 above) such that each intermediate cutting segment includes three rake faces (see Seabury’s figures 1-2, the inner segments a, c, d has at least 3 teeth that means at least 3 teeth have at least 3 rake faces).
Regarding claims 13-14, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows each slot is formed through a portion of a gullet of the plurality of gullets (see Sanogo’s Figure 13A and see Seabury’s 2-3 above), wherein each slot includes a first portion that is substantially straight and a second portion that is non-linear (see the slots of Sanogo’s Figure 13A, it begins is straight and curves at the bottom).
Regarding claims 15-16, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows the distal end segment extends beyond the coupling edge (see Sanogo’s figure 1, the segment at the blade tip extends beyond the blade tip), wherein one cutting tooth of the distal end segment (see the tooth, Sanogo’s Figure 3, is positioned beyond a cutting edge 14) is positioned beyond the coupling edge.
Regarding claims 17-18, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows more than one cutting tooth of the distal end segment can be positioned beyond the coupling edge (see all teeth, Sanogo’s Figure 3, is positioned beyond a cutting edge 14), and wherein the tang (20, see Sanogo’s Figure 1) is angled relative to the longitudinal axis (x) by a tang angle.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanogo et al (US 2020/0180054) hereinafter Sanogo in view of Seabury (US 0071227) and Dietz et al (US 2018/0333794).
Regarding claim 19-20, the modified saw blade of Sanogo shows all of the limitation as stated above except that the tang angle is between 2 degrees and 7 degrees or 3 degrees relative the longitudinal axis (x).
Dietz shows a tang of a saw blade (30, Figures 1-2), wherein the tang is 3 degrees relative with a longitudinal axis (94) as discussed in Para. 19 “the tang angle A can be between 3 degrees and 6.5 degrees…the tang angle A may be larger or smaller”.
Therefore, 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 tang angle relative with the longitudinal axis (x) of Sanogo to be 3 degrees, as taught by Dietz, in order to allow the saw blade to be inclinedly locked or mounted into a saw machine.
Conclusion
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 3/19/2026