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 .
Detailed Action
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Fig.3) in the reply filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-11 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 1, line 12, “a plurality of teeth” is vague. Is it in addition to “a plurality of teeth” cited at line 7 of the claim?
(2) In claim 26, line 4, “the attachment” has no antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the attachment part--. Note line 2 of claim 24.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
2. Claim limitation “driving mechanism” (cited in claims 11 and 19) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder “driving mechanism” coupled with functional language “configured to reciprocate the blade receiving part” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The terms “driving mechanism” is a generic placeholder and is not recognized as the name of a structure but is merely a substitute for the term "means".
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claims 11 and 19 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see paragraph [0027], line 1) that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-11 and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampton et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,343,229, hereinafter “Hamopton”) in view of Nagano et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0162526, hereinafter “Nagao”).
Regarding claim 1, Hampton discloses a blade (10, see Fig.1) for a reciprocating saw comprising:
an elongated body (12) configured so that one end in a length direction of the elongated body (12) is detachably attachable to the reciprocating saw (see column 4, lines 1-3); and
wherein:
the elongated body (12) includes a cutting edge part (18) having a plurality of teeth (20) arranged along the length direction and a back part (19) extending along the length direction on the side opposite to the cutting edge part (18) in a width direction, which is orthogonal to the length direction;
the cutting edge part (18) includes at least one curved part (2, see column 6, lines 3-4); and
the curved part(s) is (are each) configured so that a cutting edge line (B), which is a line connecting tips of a plurality of teeth (20) included in the curved part(s), curves in a concave manner toward the back part (19, see column 5, lines 55-59) substantially as claimed except Hampton’s tips (22) are not separately formed and having a greater hardness than the elongated bod (12) and are bonded to the plurality of teeth (20).
lacks at least one hard tip having a greater hardness than the elongated body (formed of carbon steel, see column 4, lines 40-41) and being bonded to at least one of the plurality of teeth of the elongated body.
Nagano shows a reciprocating saw blade (1) comprising an elongated body (3) and a plurality of hard tips (11,13,15, made of “cemented carbide”, see paragraph [0033], lines 5-6) having a greater hardness than the elongated body (3, formed of steel, see paragraph [0031], lines 1-4) and being bonded (by welding, see paragraph [0033], lines 5-7) to a plurality of teeth (5,7,9) of the elongated body (3).
In view of Nagano’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Hampton by having the tooth tips (22) formed of a harder material such as Nagano’s cemented carbide) and bonded to the teeth (20) to increase the blade wear resistance thus enhancing cutting performance of the blade (10).
Regarding claim 2, Hampton’s curved part(s) has (each have) a first end in the length direction and a second end that is at the end opposite to the first end in the length direction (note the entirety of the cutting edge part 18 can be curved, see column 2, lines 57-58); and in the width direction, a point on the cutting edge line (B) at which a maximum distance (hmax) exists between the cutting edge line (B) of the curved part (2) or at least one of the curved parts, and a straight line segment (A), which connects the first end and the second end of the curved part(s), is less than 15 mm (e.g., within the range of about 0.030 inch to about 0.200 inch or about 0.762 mm to about 5.08 mm, see column 6, lines 15-17) from the point.
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Hampton as modified has the plurality of hard tips (22) respectively bonded to all of the plurality of teeth (20) of the cutting edge part (18).
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Hampton’s elongated body (12) is made of steel (e.g., carbon steel, see column 4, lines 40-41) but does not explicitly mention the carbon steel being “medium” or “high” carbon steel, however, the choice of carbon steel either “medium” or “high” depends more upon a workpiece to be cut by the saw blade than on any inventive concept.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Hampton discloses a reciprocating saw (see column 4, lines 1-3) comprising: a blade receiving part (e.g., a chuck or a clamping device, see column 4, lines 5-6); and the blade (10) according to claims 1 and 25, respectively, detachably attached to the blade receiving part.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Hampton’s reciprocating saw can be driven by a motor as well-known in the art and admitted by Hampton (see column 1, lines 30-31). While Hampton fails to mention a drive mechanism, however, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Hampton by providing the reciprocating saw with a drive mechanism as well-known in the art (as evidenced by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0227844 which shows a drive mechanism 40 operatively coupled to a motor 20 and a blade receiving part 12 of a reciprocating saw 10 for reciprocating the blade receiving part 12, thus, a saw blade 26 attached thereof) to facilitate reciprocating the saw blade (10). In Hampton, the length direction of the blade (10) attached to the blade receiving part (e.g., a chuck or a clamping device of the reciprocating saw) is inclined with respect to the first direction (e.g. due to the tang angle “TA” of the blade 10).
Regarding claims 20 and 23, in Hampton, the point is at least 0.2 mm or at least 0.4 mm (e.g., the lowest range of hmax is about 0.030 inch or 0.762 mm, see column 6, line 16) from the straight line segment (A).
Regarding claim 24, Hampton’s elongated body (12) further includes an attachment part (S,15, see Fig.1 as annotated below) having a pair of parallel surfaces (S) that are spaced apart in the width direction and an engagement hole (15) disposed between the parallel surfaces (S).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Nagano shows the hard tips (11,13,15) are smaller than the respective teeth (5,7,9), and the hard tips (11,13,15) are welded or brazed to the respective teeth (5,7,9, see paragraph [0033], lines 3-7). Hampton thus modified also possesses such characteristics.
Regarding claim 26, in Hampton, the length direction of the blade (10) attached to the blade receiving part (e.g., a chuck or a clamping device of the reciprocating saw) is inclined at an angle of 3-6° (see column 5, lines 53-54, e.g., within the claimed range 5-25°) with respect to the first direction; and the reciprocating saw further includes a slot (e.g., of the chuck) and a locking pin (see column 4, line 18), the attachment part (S,15) being disposed in the slot and the locking pin engaging the engagement hole (15) in the blade (10).
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 11,278,975 shows a reciprocating saw blade (30) comprising a plurality of teeth (54, see Fig.3) having each having a carbide hard tip (106) bonded thereto.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0006017 shows a reciprocating saw blade (1) is curved for improving cutting performance.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0235799 shows a blade (10, see Fig.5) attached to a blade receiving part (110) such that a length direction of the blade (10) is inclined with respect to a first direction in which the blade receiving part (100) reciprocates.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0181546 teaches fixing inserts of cemented ceramic material (101, see Fig.5) against bases of teeth and welding (102) inserts to bases of the teeth.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724