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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9), Species I (Figs. 1-
9C) and Species D (claim 8) in a reply filed on 05/21/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction requirement on the ground that the differences between Group I (claims 1-9) and Group II (claims 10-13) do not rise to the level of distinct inventions. However, as set forth in the Restriction Requirement, claims 10-13 are distinct from claims 1-9 because each group includes at least one feature that is not present in the other group. For example, Group II includes limitations directed to a first plurality of blade segments and a second plurality of blade segments alternatingly received by a hub, wherein the plurality of blade segments has a first sharpness that is sharper than a second sharpness of a cutting edge of the second plurality of blade segments. These features are not recited in Group I. Conversely, Group I includes limitations directed to a first blade segment connectable to a second blade segment such that a projection of the first blade segment is received within a slot of the second blade segment. This feature is not recited in Group II. As stated in the Restriction Requirement, each group includes at least one feature not present in the other group. Although searches for the individual groups may overlap to some extent, they do not coincide. Therefore, a search directed to elected Group I (claims 1-9) would not be sufficient to encompass the distinct features of non-elected Group II (claims 10-13). Furthermore, the text and subclass searches necessary to locate the specific features of the elected group would not necessarily identify the distinct features of the non-elected group. Because each group includes at least one distinguishing feature and occupies a separate status in the prior art, each group requires a different field of search. Accordingly, examination of all distinct groups within a single application would impose a serious search and examination burden on the Examiner and could adversely affect examination quality in view of the time constraints applicable to examination.
The requirement is therefore still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Claims 10-13 and 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to
37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It should be noted that again applicant has added new method claims 28-
30 which are distinct form apparatus claims 1-13 as shown below. Therefore,
claims 28-30 also have been withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 1-9, drawn to a composite blade system including a body having
a top edge, a bottom edge; opposing side edges extending therebetween, a slot on a second side edge of the body; a first blade segment connectable to a second blade segment such a projection of the first segment is received within the slot of the second blade segment; a void disposed near the bottom edge of the body; and the top edge of the blade segments comprises a serrated edge.
Claims 10-13, drawn to a composite blade including system including
first plurality of blade segments having a cutting edge of a first sharpness sharper than a second sharpness of a cutting edge of a second plurality of blade segments; the first and second plurality of blade segments are alternatingly received by a hub; and the hub comprising a substantially circular body defining a central hole and a plurality of extension for engaging with a distal void of the first and second plurality of blade segments.
Claims 28-31, drawn to a cutting method including the step of securing a
locking plate to a hub buy connecting the locking plate to the hub with a snap fit.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
The inventions of groups I-II are related but separately usable as
claimed. For example, invention in group 1 could be used without the features set forth in inventions of group II. Conversely, the inventions in group II could be used without the features in invention I. There is two-way patentable distinction between each group, and also each has a unique search and examination burden. See MPEP 806.05.
Inventions III and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The
inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus. i.e., that does not include a body having a top edge, a bottom edge; opposing side edges extending therebetween, a slot on a second side edge of the body; a void disposed near the bottom edge of the body; and the top edge of the blade segments comprises a serrated edge.
Inventions III and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice.
The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus that does not include, i.e., a first plurality of blade segments having a cutting edge of a first sharpness sharper than a second sharpness of a cutting edge of a second plurality of blade segments; and the first and second plurality of blade segments are alternatingly received by a hub.
6. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
In this case, the search required for each individual invention may overlap, but the searches do not coincide completely. Therefore, the search performed for the elected invention may not be sufficient to cover the non-elected inventions. Each individual invention requires a different field of search. In addition, the text and subclass searches needed to locate particular features of one invention would not necessarily identify the different features present in the other inventions due to their divergent subject matter. In other words, each invention that includes at least one distinct feature occupies a different area of the prior art and therefore requires a separate field of search.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim
24, “are replaceable” should be –is replaceable--. In claim 25, “the huh and locking plate” should be –the hub and the locking plate--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 21, 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112
(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 recites that “a first blade segment is connectable to a second blade segment.” Claim 21 further recites “a first blade segment of the 2 non-identical blade segments” and “a second blade segment of the 2 non-identical blade segments.” It is unclear whether the first blade segment and second blade segment recited in claim 21 correspond to, or are distinct from, the first blade segment and second blade segment previously recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of claim 21 is uncertain.
Regarding claim 22, claim 1 recites that “a first blade segment is connectable to a second blade segment.” Claim 22 further recites “a first blade segment of the 2 non-identical blade segments” and “a second blade segment of the 2 non-identical blade segments.” It is unclear whether the first blade segment and second blade segment recited in claim 22 correspond to, or are distinct from, the first blade segment and second blade segment previously recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 22 are unclear.
Regarding claim 27, claim 1 recites “a void disposed near the bottom edge of the body.” Claim 27 recites “a distal void” but does not provide antecedent basis for the term “distal void,” nor does the claim make clear whether the recited distal void is the same void previously recited in claim 1 or a different void. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “each of the first and second plurality of blade segments.” However, neither a “first plurality of blade segments” nor a “second plurality of blade segments” has been previously introduced in the claims. Accordingly, the terms “first plurality of blade segments” and “second plurality of blade segments” lack proper antecedent basis, rendering the scope of claim 27 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1-3, 23-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Baratta (11,351,699 B2), hereinafter Baratta ‘699. Regarding claim 1, Baratta ‘699 teaches a composite blade system 500 comprising: a plurality of blade segments (502, 800), each segment comprising: a body having a top edge, a bottom edge, and opposing side edges extending therebetween, a projection 842 (Fig. 11) on a first side edge of the body, a slot 826 a second side edge of the body opposite the first side edge, and a void (834, 836, 854) disposed near the bottom edge of the body; a hub 704 connectable (via a movable part 702 and a carrier 710) to each of the plurality of blade segments (502, 800), and a locking plate 604 connectable (via the gear system 706, 708 and locking mechanism 714) to the hub 704, the locking plate for locking a position of the plurality of blade segments (502, 800) about the hub 704, wherein a first blade segment (502, 800) is connectable to a second blade segment (502, 800) such that the projection 842 of the first blade segment is received within the slot 826 of the second blade segment. See Figs. 1-11 in Baratta ‘699.
Regarding claim 2, Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the top edge of the blade segments comprises a cutting edge 502.
Regarding claim 3, Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the top edge of the blade segments comprises a serrated edge 502. It should be noted that a saw blade inherently includes serrated edge.
Regarding claim 23, Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the plurality of blade segments (502, 800) comprises 8 segments (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 24, Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the plurality of blade segments (502, 800) are replaceable (col. 1, lines 54-60).
Regarding claim 26, Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the hub 704 comprises a plurality of ridges *defined by the recesses that edges of the recesses that receive the movable part 702) , where each ridge engages (via the movable part 702 and carrier 710) and a corresponding void (854) of the plurality of blade segments (502, 800).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the hub 704 comprises a substantially circular body defining a central hole (accommodating the arbor 514; Fig. 2) and a plurality of extensions (defined by the extension sections for reach recess which receives the movable part 702), the plurality of extensions for engaging (via the movable part 702 carrier 710) with a distal void (854) of each of the first and second plurality of blade segments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.64
13. Claims 1-3, 8-9, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baratta (22,154,944 B2), hereinafter Baratta ‘944, in view of Baratta ‘699. Regarding claim 1, Bararra ‘944 teaches a composite blade system comprising: a plurality of blade segments 300, each segment comprising: a body having a top edge, a bottom edge, and opposing side edges extending therebetween, a projection (301 M; Fig. 17A on a first side edge of the body, and a void (304, 308, 310) disposed near the bottom edge of the body; a hub 116 connectable to each of the plurality of blade segments 300 via the void (304, 308, 310); and a locking plate (112, 114) connectable to the hub 116, the locking plate for locking a position of the plurality of blade segments about the hub, wherein a first blade segment 300 is connectable to a second blade segment 300. See Figs. 1-17A in Baratta ‘944.
Baratta ‘944 does not explicitly teach that each blade section has a slot on the second side edge opposite the first side of the body; and the projection of the first blade segment is received within the slot of the second blade segment. However, Baratta ‘699 teaches a composite blade system including a plurality of blade segments (502, 800) including a body 828, a protrusion 842 on a first side of the body, a slot 826 on a second side edge of the body opposite the first side of the body, and the projection 842 of a first blade segment (502, 800) us received within the slot 826 of a second blade segment (502, 800). See Figs. 3-4 in Baratta ‘699. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the blade segments of Baratta ’944 to include the slot-and-projection interlocking configuration taught by Baratta ’699, in order to improve structural engagement and reduce relative movement between adjacent blade segments during operation.
Regarding claim 2, Baratta ’944 teaches everything noted above including that the top edge of the blade segments (300) having a cutting edge. See Fig. 17 in Baratta ‘944.
Regarding claim 3, Baratta ’944 teaches everything noted above including that the top edge pf the blade segments (300) comprises a serrated edge. See Fig. 17 in Baratta ‘944.
Regarding claim 8, Baratta ’944, as modified by Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above except that the hub and the locking plate connect with a snap fit in one embodiment. However, Examiner takes an Official Notice that the us of connection of a locking plate with the hub with a snap fit structure is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Baratta ’944, as modified by Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the plurality of blade segments (300) arranged around a hub (116), and Baratta ’699 teaches modular blade segment configurations with differing structural characteristics; however, neither reference explicitly teaches that the plurality of blade segments includes exactly two non-identical blade segments as a defined claim limitation; nevertheless, it would have been obvious to provide non-identical segments because segment variation is a known design choice used to optimize cutting performance, balance wear distribution, and tailor blade behavior for different cutting conditions.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Baratta ’944, as modified by Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the blade segments (300) with varying edge configurations along the working portion (106), and Baratta ’699 teaches different cutting geometries among adjacent segments; however, neither reference explicitly teaches a first blade segment having a serrated edge and a second blade segment having a non-serrated cutting edge within the same two-segment subset as claimed; nevertheless, it would have been obvious to provide different edge types on adjacent segments because such variation is a predictable technique used to optimize cutting performance across different material interaction zones.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Baratta ’944, as modified by Baratta ‘699 teaches everything noted above including that the blade segments (300) having varying cutting characteristics and wear properties depending on configuration, and Baratta ’699 teaches that geometry variations affect cutting performance; however, neither reference explicitly teaches assigning a first sharpness level to one blade segment and a second different sharpness level to another blade segment as a discrete structural limitation; nevertheless, it would have been obvious to vary sharpness between segments because edge sharpness is a result-effective variable routinely optimized to balance cutting speed, durability, and application-specific performance.
Regarding claim 23, Baratta ’944 teaches everything noted above including that the plurality of blade segments comprises 8 segments. However, Baratta ‘699 teaches that the composite blade system could have eight blade segments 800. See Fig. 4 in Baratta ‘699. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade composite system of Baratta’ 944 with at least each blade segments, as taught by Baratta ‘699 because the number of segments is a result-effective variable dependent on blade diameter, balance requirements, and manufacturing constraints, and is routinely optimized for performance and structural stability.
Regarding claim 24, Baratta ’944 teaches everything noted above including that each of the blade segments are replaceable. It should be noted that each of the removable segment 300 could be replaced with another segment 300.
Regarding claim 25, Baratta ’944 teaches everything noted above including that the hub 116 and locking plate (112, 114) connected through a plurality of pins 146. See Figs. 1-4 in Baratta ‘944.
Regarding claim 26, Baratta ’944 teaches everything noted above including that the hub 116 includes a plurality of ridges (defined by fingers and angled slats; Fig. 7), wherein each ridge engages a corresponding void (304, 308, 310) of the plurality of blade segments 300. See Figs. 1-7 in Baratta ‘944.
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Baratta ’944 teaches everything noted above including that the hub 116 hub comprises a substantially circular body (Fig. 7) defining a central hole (Fig. 7) and a plurality of extensions (defined by the fingers and angled slats; Fig. 7), the plurality of extensions for engaging with a distal void (304, 308, 310) of each of the first and second plurality of blade segments. See Figs. 1-7 in Baratta ‘944.
14. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Baratta ‘944 in view of Baratta ‘699 and in further view of Patil et al.
(2023/0264279 A1), hereinafter Patil. Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Baratta ’944, as modified by Baratta ‘699, teaches everything noted above except that a first blade segment of the 2 non-identical blade segments (41a) comprises a serrated edge (Fig, 1) and a second blade segment (42b) of the 2 non-identical blade segments comprises a cutting edge (as shown in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade composite system in Baratta ‘944, as modified by Baratta ‘699, with the non-identical blade segments, as taught by Patil, because such variation is a predictable technique used to optimize cutting performance across different material interaction zones.
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Baratta ’944, as modified by Patil, teaches everything noted above including a first blade segment of the 2 non-identical blade segments (42a) comprises a first sharpness and a second blade segment (42b) of the 2 non-identical blade segments comprises a second sharpness different than the first sharpness. See Figs. 5-12 in Patil.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Chen (2012/0132052 A1), Sun (4,561,156), Roberts (3,198,227), Bogsten (3,242,553), Orendi (3,938,418), Hilton (0299,142), Blanchard (1,306,741), and Stoffels (5,761,981) teach a composite blade system.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 on (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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights