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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters
which are not enclosed within parentheses. Reference character “C” and an original thickness “a” are not enclosed within parentheses. In claim 2, “h,” “m,” “n,” and “b” are not eclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: ”the
rectangular elements C is starched” should be –the rectangular elements C are
starched--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Below are some of the grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “all acute angles and sides thereof” lacks proper antecedent basis. The term “thereof” does not clearly refer to a previously introduced structure, and it is unclear whether it refers to the parallelogram, the translated arrow tooth angle, or another geometric figure.
Regarding claim 1, the term “an arrow tooth angle (2)” is unclear because the claim does not identify the surfaces or edges that define the angle.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase the “rectangular elements C” is unclear because the claim inconsistently refers to both a singular rectangular element and two rectangular elements, making the required structure uncertain.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase the “an original thickness a” is unclear because the claim does not define what is meant by “original” or identify the reference configuration from which the thickness is measured.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the rectangular elements C is stretched into a parallelogram” is unclear because the claim does not specify the geometric operation by which the stretching occurs.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “keeping the height of the rectangular element C unchanged” is unclear because it is not apparent which height is being maintained unchanged.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “in a center line direction” is unclear because the direction is not objectively defined. It is not clear what direction is considered to be a central line direction.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “an included angle between a hypotenuse of the parallelogram and the center line” is unclear because a parallelogram does not inherently include a uniquely identifiable hypotenuse.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “half of an angle of the arrow tooth angle (2)” is unclear because the referenced angle is not sufficiently defined to determine its half.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “an entity figure” is unclear because the claim does not define the meaning of the term, and the term has no recognized structural meaning in the art.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “an entity figure surrounded by two parallelograms” is unclear because it is not apparent whether the figure is formed by the overlap, union, or another relationship between the parallelograms.
Regarding claim 1, the alternative limitation beginning with “or the arrow tooth angle (2) horizontally translates…” is unclear because it is uncertain whether the claim encompasses one embodiment, both embodiments, or requires both embodiments.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “horizontally translates” is unclear because the claim does not identify the reference plane relative to which the translation occurs.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “generated in a translation process” is unclear because the translation process is not sufficiently defined to determine the resulting structure.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “form the arrow tooth (1)” is unclear because it is not apparent whether the claim is directed to a method of manufacturing or to the structural characteristics of the finished arrow tooth.
Regarding claim 1, the entire claim is also unclear because it recites the claimed structure in terms of geometric construction steps rather than positively reciting the structural limitations of the claimed arrow tooth, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain.
It should be noted that the cumulative ambiguities described above prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from determining the scope of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty and, therefore, properly examine the claim.
Regarding claims 1-6, the phrase “characterized in that” is unclear because it is not apparent what additional feature or limitation is being further characterized by the phrase.
Regarding claim 2, the term “a bottom view of the arrow tooth 1” is unclear because the claim does not define the reference orientation from which the bottom view is determined.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “stretching a bottom view of the arrow tooth (1) upward” is unclear because it is not apparent whether this language describes a manufacturing step or a structural limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “along an increasing radius of a circular saw blade” is unclear because the claim does not define the reference point from which the radius increases. It is not clear what part of the circular saw has increased radius and what part of the circular saw has a decreased radius.
Regarding claim 2, the term “an arrow tooth height h” is unclear because the claim does not specify how the height is measured.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “countless gradually enlarging connecting lines” is unclear because the term “countless” is indefinite and does not provide an objective structural limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “effective length b” is unclear because the claim does not define how the effective length is measured. It is not clear what is considered to be “an effective length” of the arrow tooth.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a height of a triangle formed by a bottom view” is unclear because the claim does not define the triangle or identify its base. It is also clear how the triangle is formed.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a vertical shear resistance… decreases with the decrease of the arrow tooth angle 2” is unclear because it recites an intended mechanical property rather than a definite structural limitation.
Regarding claim 3, the term “an arrow tooth saw unit” is unclear because the structural boundaries of the unit are not defined. It is also not clear how the arrow tooth saw further includes an arrow tooth saw unit. In other words, it is clear how the arrow tooth saw further could have an arrow tooth saw unit.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “an arrow tooth disk (6)” is unclear because the claim does not define the structure or configuration of the disk.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “minimum value of a width of the arrow tooth tail (7)” is unclear because the claim does not define where the minimum width is measured.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “front and rear arrow tooth roots (8), or front, middle and rear arrow tooth roots (8)” is unclear because it is uncertain which arrangement is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “at a periphery of a side of the arrow tooth root (8)” is unclear because it is uncertain which side and which periphery are being referenced.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “at a periphery of a side of each of the arrow tooth root holes (28)” is unclear because the referenced side and periphery are not objectively defined.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “respectively welded firmly into a whole body in pairs” is unclear because the claim does not identify which components are welded together in pairs.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “one-step pressure injection and mounting” is unclear because the claim does not define the pressure injection process or the resulting structure.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “directly welded with an outermost arc or edge of the saw blade body (21)” is unclear because it is uncertain whether welding occurs to the outermost arc, the edge, or both.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “work operating direction” is unclear because the claim does not define the meaning of the term or how the direction is determined.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “only from the arrow tooth head (5) to the arrow tooth tail (7)” is unclear because the claim does not explain whether this limitation refers to cutting direction, rotation direction, feed direction, or another operational characteristic.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “unable to be mounted reversely to cause a reverse operation” is unclear because it is uncertain whether this language positively limits the claimed apparatus or merely states an intended use or desired result.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a warning mark is labeled on the saw blade body (21)” is unclear because the claim does not define the content, location, or structural significance of the warning mark, rendering it uncertain whether the limitation imparts patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claim 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2008284665 A), hereinafter Yoshihiro. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Yoshihiro discloses an arrow tooth saw having an arrow-shaped cutter tooth (3, 5), including an arrow tooth unit (3). The arrow tooth unit comprises an arrow tooth (5), an arrow tooth angle (14) (Fig. 3), an arrow tooth tip (15), arrow tooth edges (7), an arrow tooth head (5a; shown in the boxed portion of annotated Fig. 3), and an arrow tooth tail (9a; annotated Fig. 3). The top view structure of the arrow tooth satisfies the following conditions: rectangular elements (C1; annotated Fig. 3) are arranged on each side of the center line (L; annotated Fig. 3) of the arrow tooth (5a), where the length of each rectangular element (C1) corresponds to the original thickness (a) of each arrow tooth edge. The heights of the two rectangular elements (C1), perpendicular to the center line (L), define the arrow tooth width. The rectangular elements (C1) are stretched into a parallelogram while maintaining their height in the center line direction until an included angle between the hypotenuse of the parallelogram and the center line equals half of the arrow tooth angle (14), at which point the shape enclosed by the two parallelograms forms the arrow tooth (5). Alternatively, the arrow tooth angle (14) is translated horizontally along the center line by a distance equal to the original thickness (a) of one arrow tooth edge (7), and all resulting acute angles and sides formed during the translation process define the arrow tooth (5). See annotated Fig. 1 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 2-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro. Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Yoshihiro teaches everything noted above including that the arrow tooth angle 14 is acute; the arrow tooth 5 is formed by stretching a bottom view of the arrow tooth 13 upward along an increasing radius of a circular saw blade to an arrow tooth height h; widths of other portions of the arrow tooth 5 are formed in a plane by countless gradually enlarging connecting lines that are perpendicular to the center line of the arrow tooth 5 or parallel to a baseline of the arrow tooth 5 between two lines extending from the arrow tooth tip (3) to the arrow tooth tail (9a); an effective length b of the arrow tooth 5 is a height of a triangle formed by a bottom view of each arrow tooth 5; and a vertical shear resistance of the arrow tooth edges decreases with the decrease of the arrow tooth angle 14.
It could be argued that Yoshihiro does not explicitly teach that a width of the arrow tooth tail (9a) gradually shrinks from top to bottom, with a maximum value being a top width m of the arrow tooth and a minimum value being a bottom width n of the arrow tooth 5. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of an arrow tooth having a tapered width from a top surface to a bottom surface of the tooth is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Yoshihiro teaches everything noted above including an arrow tooth saw unit (2, Fig. 6), wherein the arrow tooth saw unit comprises a saw blade body, an arrow tooth disk arranged on a bottom surface of the arrow tooth 5; a minimum value of a width of the arrow tooth tail (9a) is greater than a width of the arrow tooth disk (as shown in Fig. 1); and the width of the arrow tooth disk is greater than or equal to a width of the saw blade body.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Yoshihiro teaches everything noted above including that front and rear arrow tooth roots, or front, middle, and rear arrow tooth roots, are arranged below the arrow tooth disk; a tail end of each arrow tooth root is enlarged into a cylinder or a square column; a guide edge is arranged at a periphery of a side of the arrow tooth root; arrow tooth root holes are formed in an outer edge of the saw blade body; and a guide groove is formed at a periphery of a side of each of the arrow tooth root holes.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Yoshihiro teaches everything noted above including that the arrow tooth 5, the arrow tooth disk, and the arrow tooth roots are respectively welded firmly into a whole body after being respectively processed; then all the arrow tooth roots of all the arrow teeth and all the arrow tooth root holes of the saw blade body are subjected to one-step pressure injection and mounting, or the arrow tooth disk is directly welded to the outermost arc or edge of the saw blade body. It could be argued that Yoshihiro does not explicitly teach the welding process of the parts. However, Official Notice is taken that the use of welding methods to join parts of a circular saw together is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Yoshihiro teaches everything noted above including that a work operating direction of the arrow tooth 5 is only from the arrow tooth head (5a) to the arrow tooth tail (9a); and a warning mark is labeled on the saw blade body so that the saw blade body is unable to be mounted reversely to cause a reverse operation. It could be argued that Yoshihiro does not explicitly teach the warning mark label. However, Official Notice is taken that the use of a warning mark on a saw blade to warn the user of proper installation of the tooth insert is old and well known in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Ellis (4,214,499), Krilov (WO 8501008 A), Hayden et al. (4,784,033), Kullmann et al. (4,640,172), and Iseli (4,949,599) teach an arrow tooth saw.
10. 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 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights