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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2025 and 02/07/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each case” in claim 1, the hand-held power tool in claims 12, 14 (a hand saw, a table saw , or a circular haven’t been shown as a hand-held power tool) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1, line 3 “the core zone” is unclear whether it refers to the substantially circular core zone or an inherent core zone. Claims 2-4, 7, 10 have the same issue.
Claim 1, line 4 the “basic body” is unclear what the language “basic” means in this limitation if an art has any body of a saw blade meets this “basic” body, right? Claim 10 has the same issue.
Claim 1, line 8 “each case” is unclear what the “each case” refers to? Are there many cases in the saw blade? Is each case referring a gullet between the teeth, right? Claim 5 has the same issue.
Claim 2, line 2 “the sliding coating…the hard coating” are unclear whether they refer to “the friction-reducing sliding coating…the wear-reducing hard coating” of claim 1 or inherent coatings. Claims 3-4 have the same issue.
Claim 3, the term “wherein the carbide tips are provided exclusively with the hard coating at least in certain regions” is unclear because claim 1 recites the “edge zone has a plurality of teeth…a carbide tip” and claim 1 , the last paragraph “a friction-reducing sliding coating and a wear-reducing hard coating,…are formed lying one above the other at least in certain regions” that means both coatings are overlapped at least in certain regions, and Claim 3, lines 2-3 recites “the edge zone is provided with the hard coating” that appears inherently including the carbide tip, right? Thus, the term “wherein the carbide tips are provided exclusively with the hard coating at least in certain regions” is unclear because there is friction-reducing sliding coating as required in claim 1. Claim 4, the last paragraph has similar issue above.
Claim 4, the language “only” in “the core zone is provided with the sliding coating only” is unclear. See the discussion of claim 3, both a friction-reducing sliding coating and a wear-reducing hard coating are required overlapping as claim 1. How is the core zone is provided only the sliding coating and is the core zone having the blade body right? Thus, the language “only” is confusing.
Claim 5 “each case a substantially V-shaped and radially inwardly directed slot free of coating” is unclear. See the discussion of “case’ in claim 1. The edge zone 110 has a substantially V-shaped and radially inwardly directed slot as seen in figure 4 that has coating (coatings), however, as claim is written, the substantially V-shaped and radially inwardly directed slot is free of coating that is confusing. Claim 6 has similar issues to claim 5.
Claim 7 “at least two slot arrangements free of coating are provided in the core zone” that is unclear since Applicant’s para. 34 “the core zone is provided with sliding coating 140”, therefore, the at least two slot arrangements free of coating is unclear.
Claims 11 and 14 “a hand-held power tool” is unclear since the claim body does not mention any power and any structures of the tool to be hand-held. See claim 14 “a table saw”. Is the table seen as a hand-held power tool?
Claim 13 “the transition line” lacks antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the transition line refers to.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Clanton (US 2003/0094078).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Clanton shows a circular saw blade (Figure 3) having comprising:
a substantially circular core zone (140) which is surrounded by
a body (a body of the blade) including an edge zone (150) surrounding the core zone and adjoining the core zone radially outwards in a region of a boundary line (where the reference 15 is in Figure 3),
wherein the edge zone has a plurality of teeth, each of the plurality of teeth has a
tooth face (where a tip is attached therein, Figure 3) is assigned a carbide tip (20, Para. 13) and a tooth space (between two adjacent teeth) is “in each case” a gullet formed between two teeth directly adjacent circumferentially (see Figure 3), and
wherein the circular saw blade includes a friction-reducing sliding coating (Para. 24 “ An anti-friction coating may be placed on the metallized regions, if desired, to reduce friction”) and a wear-reducing hard coating (coating 150 as discussed in Para. 22 “the band 150 of metal abrasive particles” and early Para. 17 “abrasive metal particles can be made of carbide…The molten metal particles are propelled against the blade where they adhere and harden to produce an abrasive surface layer”) which are formed lying one above the other at least in certain regions (Para. 24 “An anti-friction coating may be placed on the metallized regions, if desired, to reduce friction”).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Clanton shows that the core zone of the circular saw blade comprises a fastening opening (142 of Clanton) for a drive shaft, and the fastening opening is arranged centrically to a longitudinal center axis of the circular saw blade (see Figure 3 of Clanton).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Clanton shows that the carbide tips are fixedly connected to the respective assigned tooth face (see Clanton’s Figure 3).
Regarding claims 12, 14, as best understood, Clanton shows a hand-held power tool comprising the circular saw blade (see Clanton’s 21 “the arbor hole of a circular saw”).
Regarding claim 13, Clanton shows that a transition line is circular (see the line where the reference 150, Figure 3).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clanton (US 2003/0094078) in view of Johnson (US 5351595).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Clanton shows all of the limitations as stated above including the edge zone is provided with the hard coating and the sliding coating (see the discussion in claim 1 above). However, it is unclear whether the core zone is provided with the sliding coating or not.
Johnson shows a saw blade (Figures 1-6) having an entire of a body (11) is coated with a sliding coating as discussed in Col. 9, lines 25-40 “The finished blade may be coated with a water based lacquer, a silicone coating, a wax coating, or a polytetrafluoroethylene coating, such as TEFLON to provide a smooth appearance and provide a friction reducing coating having an anti-sticking slick surface. The silicone coating may be silicon based compound comprising a silicon polymer, co-polymer, or oil, or a silicon compound may be added as a component of a water based lacquer”.
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 sliding coating of Clanton to an entire of the blade body (extend greater than the edge zone), as taught by Johnson, in order to reduce reducing friction “…wood resin from accumulating as a sticky residue on the main blade body, and provide a lubricating effect between the blade body and the material being cut to increase the overall performance of the thin kerf blade” as discussed in Col. 9, lines 25-40 of Johnson.
Regarding claim 3, the modified saw blade of Clanton shows that the core zone is provided with the sliding coating (see the modification in claim 2 above) and the edge zone is provided with the hard coating and the sliding coating (see claim 1 above), wherein the carbide tips are provided exclusively with the hard coating (see the discussion in claim 1 above and Para. 17 of Clanton) at least in certain regions.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified saw blade of Clanton shows that the core zone is provided with the sliding coating “only” (see the modification above), a region of the edge zone with radially adjoining the core zone (where the reference 150 in Figure 3 of Clanton) includes both the hard coating and the sliding coating (see the modification above),
the plurality of teeth are provided exclusively with the hard coating, and the hard coating (see Figure 3 of Clanton) extending radially inwardly from the plurality of teeth to a transition line (where the reference “150” in Figure 3 of Clanton) extending within the edge zone,
wherein and the transition line extends radially outwards, inwards or coincides with a tooth base circle of the plurality of teeth (see Figure 3 of Clanton).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified saw blade of Clanton shows that the circular saw blade comprises in the edge zone, starting from at least two diametrically arranged tooth bases, “in each case” a substantially V-shaped and radially inwardly directed slot free of coating (a slot of Clanton between teeth that is a cavity, and it is no structure and no coating).
If one argues that the slot between teeth of Clanton is NOT a substantially V-shaped and radially inwardly directed slot, see slots (the slot 30, Figure 1 of Johnson since it recites “substantially”) and this slot is a cavity, and it is no structure and no coating.
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 blade body of Clanton to slots (30), as taught by Johnson, in order to alleviate stresses and prevent cracks in the blade as discussed in Johnson’s art.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified saw blade of Clanton shows that at least two approximately V-shaped slots (see the discussion in claim 5 above and another two slots 30) are provided in the edge zone (Figure 1 of Johnson), which are oriented “substantially” in a circumferential direction (see the portion where the reference “30-32”, Johnson’s Figure 1) and are free of coating (see the discussion in claim 5 above) and located in the edge zone.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Clanton shows all of the limitation as stated above including the core zone and the edge zone of the body (see Figure 3 of Clanton) are formed integrally with a hardened steel (Para. 12 “steel”), and the carbide tips, however, the tips are NOT formed with a tungsten carbide-cobalt carbide.
Johnson shows carbide tips of a saw blade (Figure 1) having “a carbide phase comprised predominately of tungsten carbide, a binder phase comprised predominately of a cobalt phase, and a quarternary phase comprising tungsten, cobalt, boron and carbon” or a tungsten carbide-cobalt carbide, as discussed in Col. 6, lines 15-20.
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 carbide tips of Clanton to have a tungsten carbide-cobalt carbide, as taught by Johnson, in order to provide a high, tough grade of carbide capable of providing a sharper edge that remains sharp up to five times longer than conventional tungsten carbide as discussed in Col. 6, lines 15-20 of Johnson.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clanton (US 2003/0094078) in view of Johnson (US 5351595) and Xu (CN 105216072A and Translation).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified saw blade of Clanton shows all of the limitations as stated above except at least two slot arrangements free of coating are provided in the core zone.
Xu shows a saw blade (Figure 1) having a groove (5) between adjacent teeth in an edge zone and at least two slot arrangements (noise reduction slits 8) which are free of coating (because the slits have no structures).
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 saw blade of Clanton to have slits or at least two slot arrangements, as taught by Xu, in order to allow a noise reduction during sawing.
Regarding claim 8, the modified saw blade of Clanton shows each of the at least two slot arrangements includes an approximately V-shaped circumferential slot (see the slits 8 in Xu’s Figure 1), a longer portion (from the reference “8” to an left end) of which runs substantially in the circumferential direction and the a shorter portion (from the other end of the slit 8) of which is inclined radially outwardly relative to the circumferential direction, and a shorter slot (from the reference “8” the other end portion, see Figure 1 below) is formed on the longer portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160158856 A1; US 20060107815 A1; US 5555788 have blade bodies being coated.
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 8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights