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 affirmation of election of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on
07/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12/145,207 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Elliston et al. (2014/0260882 A1), hereinafter Elliston, in view of Vogel (US 2008/0121084 A1), hereinafter Vogel, and in further view of Balint (2008/005299 A1). Regarding claim 1, Elliston teaches a saw blade 10 comprising: a body 12 (blade body having a working edge and non-working edge); a plurality of teeth 16 disposed on the body and defining a cutting portion (plurality of cutting teeth arranged along the blade edge); at least one tooth of the plurality of teeth including a substrate forming a tip 26 of the at least one tooth (teeth including specialty tips such as carbide, cermet, or other hard materials forming the cutting tip); and a thin film ceramic coating overlaying at least the substrate and having a greater strength than the substrate (coatings applied via PVD or CVD processes which are harder than the underlying material. See, e.g., paragraphs [0003], [0005], and [0048] of Elliston).
Elliston does not explicitly teach that the substrate is edge prepped to refine a micro geometry of the plurality of teeth, that the thin film ceramic coating is applied after the substrate is edge prepped, or that a thickness of the thin film ceramic coating varies at locations where the substrate is edge prepped.
However, Vogel teaches modifying the tooth tip by removing material via an abrasive brushing process to refine the geometry of the tooth, including forming a rounded cutting edge with a defined radius, thereby improving cutting performance and durability (paragraphs [0017]-[0018] and [0027]-[0029], Fig. 1). Vogel further teaches that the tooth geometry is formed by the abrasive working process prior to application of the hard material coating, such that the coating is subsequently applied to the prepared tooth geometry (paragraphs [0012], [0017]-[0018], [0029], and [0042]). Thus, Vogel teaches edge preparation of the tooth substrate before application of the coating. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Elliston’s saw blade by performing the tooth-tip edge preparation taught by Vogel prior to applying Elliston’s coating, in order to provide a defined tooth geometry and rounded cutting edge and thereby improve cutting performance, service life, and durability, as taught by Vogel.
It could be argued that Elliston and Vogel do not explicitly teach that the thickness of the thin film ceramic coating varies at locations where the substrate is edge prepped. However, Balint teaches a coated saw band in which a hard material coating is applied at least to a row of teeth, including to the functional surfaces of the teeth (paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0012], and [0041]). Balint further teaches that coating thickness may differ between different regions of a saw tooth. In particular, Balint teaches an embodiment in which the layer thickness on the tool flank is greater than the layer thickness on the side faces of a saw tooth (paragraph [0012]). Balint also teaches that the appropriate coating thickness depends upon tooth division, tooth geometry, the material being worked, and the material of the coating itself, and that the coating thickness is therefore set to optimize cutting performance (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]). Thus, Balint teaches that coating thickness may be selected in consideration of the geometry and different regions of a saw tooth rather than necessarily being uniform over the entire tooth. Balint further teaches that the tips or edges of the teeth are rounded in a defined manner before the coating process (paragraphs [0024]-[0025]). Specifically, Balint teaches removing burr from the row of teeth before the coating process, including by brushing or shot-peening, and explains that such processing produces a small radius at the tooth edges (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). Balint further teaches that the tips or edges of the teeth are rounded before coating such that the radius of the tooth tip is enlarged, with particular tip radii being selected to obtain desired cutting results (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Accordingly, Balint teaches that the tooth geometry, including the geometry of the tooth tip and edges, is intentionally modified before the hard material coating is applied. Thus, Balint teaches that the coating is applied after the tooth has been subjected to an edge-preparation operation and that coating thickness may be selected based on the resulting tooth geometry and may differ between different regions of the tooth. When the tooth geometry of Elliston is modified according to the edge-preparation process of Vogel, the resulting tooth includes a modified and rounded tooth-tip region having a geometry different from the original tooth geometry. Applying Balint’s teachings to the modified tooth of Elliston and Vogel would therefore have suggested selecting the coating thickness in view of the modified tooth geometry and providing different coating thickness characteristics at different regions of the prepared tooth, including the edge-prepared tooth-tip region (paragraphs [0012], [0017]-[0018], [0024]-[0028], and [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Balint to the modified saw blade of Elliston and Vogel in order to optimize coating thickness and distribution according to the resulting tooth geometry, provide appropriate coating thickness at the functional surfaces of the tooth, improve wear resistance and cutting performance, and efficiently utilize coating material, since Balint teaches that coating thickness may differ between tooth regions and is selected in consideration of tooth geometry and the functional requirements of the saw tooth (paragraphs [0012] and [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Elliston teaches everything noted above except that the body and the plurality of teeth form a single monolithic component. However, Elliston discloses saw blades formed from a single body material with teeth formed integrally (paragraph [0003]). It is well known in the art to form saw blades as a single monolithic component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the body and teeth as a single monolithic component as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 3, Elliston teaches everything noted above except that the substrate is received by a pocket provided on the at least one tooth. However, the use of pockets to receive cutting inserts or substrates in cutting tools is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to provide a pocket to receive the substrate to facilitate securement and manufacturing.
Regarding claim 4, Elliston teaches everything noted above including that the thin film ceramic coating overlays the plurality of teeth (paragraph [0048], coating applied to cutting teeth and tips).
Regarding claim 5, Elliston teaches everything noted above including that each of the plurality of teeth includes a substrate forming a tip of each tooth, as it discloses blades having multiple specialty-tipped teeth.
Regarding claim 6, Elliston teaches everything noted above including that the thin film ceramic coating overlays the substrate on each of the plurality of teeth.
Regarding claim 7, Elliston teaches everything noted above including that the thin film ceramic coating is applied via physical vapor deposition or chemical vapor deposition (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Elliston teaches everything noted above except that the thin film ceramic coating has a thickness between approximately 3.0 micrometers and approximately 4.0 micrometers. However, Vogel teaches coating thicknesses in the micrometer range, including thin coatings on the order of a few micrometers (paragraphs [0014]-[0015]). It would have been obvious to select a coating thickness within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable (coating thickness) to achieve desired wear resistance and performance.
Regarding claim 9, Elliston in view of Vogel teaches everything noted above except that the coating thickness is approximately 3.5 micrometers. Selecting a specific value within a disclosed range is considered an obvious matter of optimization.
Regarding claim 10, Elliston teaches coating materials generally, and Vogel specifically teaches coatings comprising aluminum titanium nitride (TiAlN), aluminum chromium nitride (AlCrN), and related materials (paragraphs [0010]-[0012]). It would have been obvious to select such known coating materials for their known hardness and wear resistance.
Regarding claim 11, Elliston teaches everything noted above except that the substrate is a separate component secured onto the tooth via welding. However, Elliston discloses that specialty tips (e.g., carbide) are attached to the blade, and it is well known in the art that such tips are secured by welding, brazing, or similar techniques. Therefore, this limitation is an obvious matter of known attachment methods.
Regarding claim 12, Elliston teaches substrates such as carbide materials for tooth tips. The selection of specific carbide grades (e.g., H6F, H10F, H15F) having sub-micron grain size is a matter of material selection based on known properties and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Elliston in view of Vogel teaches everything noted above including that the thin film ceramic coating is composed of aluminum-based materials such as TiAlN or AlCrN (Vogel, paragraphs [0010]-[0012]).
Response to Arguments
6. With respect to the argument that Elliston and Vogel do not inherently disclose “a thickness of the thin film ceramic coating varies at locations where the substrate is edge prepped,” the argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely solely upon inherency to establish this limitation. Rather, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Elliston, Vogel, and Balint, which would have suggested the claimed relationship to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As discussed above, Elliston teaches a saw blade having teeth provided with a hard thin-film coating, including coatings applied by PVD or CVD processes. Vogel teaches modifying the tooth geometry by removing material from the tooth tip, including by an abrasive brushing process, to form a rounded tooth geometry before application of the coating. Thus, the combination of Elliston and Vogel provides a coated saw tooth having a substrate whose edge/tooth-tip geometry has been modified before coating.
Balint further provides an express teaching concerning the relationship between coating thickness and tooth geometry. Balint teaches that the layer thickness on the tool flank may be greater than the layer thickness on the side faces of a saw tooth (paragraph [0012]). Balint additionally teaches that the appropriate layer thickness depends upon, among other things, the tooth division and tooth geometry, as well as the material being worked and the coating material (paragraphs [0017]-[0018]). Thus, Balint does not merely disclose that coating thickness may incidentally vary as a consequence of a particular deposition process; rather, Balint teaches that coating thickness is a parameter that may be selected in consideration of the geometry and different functional regions of the tooth. Moreover, Balint expressly teaches modifying the tooth tips and edges before coating. Balint teaches that the tips of the teeth are rounded in a defined manner before the coating process (paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) and that burr may be removed from the row of teeth before coating, including by brushing or shot-peening (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). Balint further explains that the processing produces a radius at the tooth tip and that the radius is intentionally enlarged before the coating is applied (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Accordingly, Balint establishes that tooth-edge geometry is deliberately modified before coating and that coating thickness is selected with consideration of tooth geometry.
Applicant argues that Balint’s disclosure of different coating thicknesses between the tool flank and side faces is not the same as a thickness variation “along a tooth tip or a rounded-off tooth crest.” However, this argument improperly considers the teachings of Balint in isolation rather than the teachings of the applied combination. The rejection does not assert that paragraph [0012] of Balint, standing alone, expressly states that the coating thickness varies along a rounded tooth crest. Rather, Balint is relied upon for its teaching that coating thickness can differ between regions of a tooth and is selected based on tooth geometry, in combination with its express teaching that the tooth tips and edges are modified before the coating is applied (paragraphs [0012], [0017]-[0018], [0024]-[0028], and [0045]-[0046]). When these teachings are applied to the tooth of Elliston as modified according to Vogel, the resulting tooth includes an edge-prepared region having a geometry different from the unprepared tooth. Balint provides a reason for the skilled artisan to account for that modified geometry when selecting the coating thickness and distribution. In particular, Balint teaches that coating thickness is a design parameter that is selected according to tooth geometry and that different functional regions of a tooth may receive different layer thicknesses. Thus, the combined teachings would have suggested providing the coating with a thickness characteristic that varies at locations associated with the edge-prepared tooth geometry.
Applicant’s argument concerning CVD likewise does not overcome the rejection. The rejection does not require that every possible deposition technique disclosed by Elliston necessarily produce a non-uniform coating. Elliston teaches PVD or CVD coating processes, and Balint expressly teaches PVD and paCVD coating of saw teeth (paragraphs [0004], [0011], and [0024]-[0026]). The relevant inquiry under § 103 is whether the claimed arrangement would have been suggested by the combined teachings of the prior art, not whether every alternative process disclosed in Elliston necessarily produces the claimed result. The proposed modification relies on known coating techniques and Balint’s teaching of selecting coating thickness according to tooth geometry and functional tooth regions. Such a modification would have been within the ordinary skill in the art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the Applicant’s reliance on the requirement for inherency is misplaced. An obviousness rejection may be supported by an affirmative teaching or suggestion in the combined prior art; inherency is not required merely because one of the individual references does not expressly disclose every aspect of the claimed combination. The MPEP recognizes that the pertinent question is whether the combined teachings provide a reason for modifying or combining the prior art and whether the resulting modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. As stated above, Balint supplies the missing teaching: coating thickness may differ between tooth regions and is selected in consideration of tooth geometry, while the tooth tips and edges are intentionally modified before coating. Elliston supplies the coated saw blade structure, and Vogel supplies the particular edge-preparation process relied upon in the rejection. Combining these teachings would have provided a predictable way of applying the coating to the modified tooth geometry and would have allowed the coating thickness to be selected according to the resulting functional tooth regions. Accordingly, the rejection does not depend upon a finding that the alleged thickness variation necessarily occurs as an unavoidable consequence of PVD or CVD deposition.
Conclusion
7. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
8. 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) . 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
August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights