DETAILED ACTION
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
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities and should be corrected as follows: “A tip saw having a disc-shape and comprising cutting blade pieces and a base metal, wherein the cutting blade pieces are disposed on blade edges of the tip saw, and each of the cutting blade pieces extends to a reverse rotation side of the each of the cutting blade pieces along an outer side of the tip saw, the cutting blade pieces comprise a first cutting blade piece and a second cutting blade piece, the first cutting blade piece and the second cutting blade piece are adjacent to each other, the each of the cutting blade pieces extends to at least a half of a distance between the first cutting blade piece and the second cutting blade piece, the cutting edge portion and the support portion have a same thickness--,-- and[[,]] the thickness of the cutting edge portion and the support portion is larger than a thickness of the base metal, the cutting edge portion and the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces are made of different materials from each other, and the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces is made of a wear resistant material.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haycock (US Patent 2,546,503) in view of Douglas (US Patent 431,510), and further in view of Sprague (US Patent 3,133,533).
Regarding claim 1, Haycock discloses a tip saw (fig. 1) comprising cutting blade pieces (3) and a base metal (1), wherein the cutting blade pieces (3) are disposed on blade edges (2) of the tip saw, and each of the cutting blade pieces (3) extends to a reverse side of the each of the cutting blade pieces (each cutting blade piece extends rearwardly from outer end face 4 with cutting edge 5) along an outer side of the tip saw (col. 1, lines 24-29), two of the cutting blade pieces (3) adjacent to each other partially overlap along the outer side of the tip saw (annotated fig. 1), the each of the cutting blade pieces(3) has a cutting edge portion (annotated fig. 1) on a frontward side of the each of the cutting blade pieces [i.e., in the cutting direction] and a support portion (annotated fig. 1) on the reverse side of the each of the cutting blade pieces, the cutting edge portion and the support portion have a same thickness (col. 1, lines 39-40, “[e]ach rod 3 is of uniform cross-section throughout its length…”) and, the thickness of the cutting edge portion and the support portion is larger than a thickness of the base metal (col. 1, lines 49-41, “[e]ach rod 3 is of … slightly larger diameter than the thickness of the blade members 2”), and the support portion (annotated fig. 1) of the each of the cutting blade pieces is made of a wear resistant material (metal is wear resistant).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• The embodiment of Haycock cited above fails to disclose the tip saw is a disc-shape, such that each of the cutting blade pieces extend to a reverse rotation side of the each of the cutting blade pieces along the outer side of the tip saw, wherein two of the cutting blade pieces adjacent to each other partially overlap in a circumferential direction along the outer side of the tip saw, and the cutting edge portion of each of the cutting blade pieces is on a rotation side thereof and the support portion of each of the cutting blade pieces is on the reverse rotation side thereof [emphasis added]. However, the following teaching is pertinent to the aforementioned limitations: A. Haycock states in col. 1, lines 22-24, “[r]eferring to Figures 1 and 2, 1 is a saw blade, which may be of the circular, band, hand, or chain saw type.” As such, the Haycock disclosure teaches the configuration of the cutting blade pieces depicted on the band saw could be applied to blade edges of a disc-shaped tip saw, such that each of the cutting blade pieces (3) extends to a reverse rotation side of the each of the cutting blade pieces along an outer side of the tip saw, adjacent cutting blade pieces partially overlap in a circumferential direction along the outer side of the tip saw, wherein the cutting edge portion of each cutting blade piece is on a rotation side thereof and the support portion of each cutting blade piece is on the reverse rotation side thereof. B. Douglas teaches it is known in the art of tip saws with cutting blade elements formed at the blade edges of the tip saw that tips saws can come in a variety of forms, including elongated band saw form (fig. 8) and disc-blade form (page 1, lines 22-24, “[f]igures 1 and 2 are side elevations of segments of circular saws…”). The arrangement of the cutting blade elements taught by Douglas are not bodily incorporated in the disc-shape tip saw of Haycock; rather the teaching of Douglas shows how one having an ordinary skill in the art would translate the position of cutting blade pieces with a certain configurations from a linearly moving saw blade to a circular, rotationally moving saw blade. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the tip saw of Haycock with the teaching of Douglas such that the tip saw is a disc-shape, such that each of the cutting blade pieces extend to a reverse rotation side of the each of the cutting blade pieces along the outer side of the tip saw, wherein two of the cutting blade pieces adjacent to each other partially overlap in a circumferential direction along the outer side of the tip saw, and the cutting edge portion of each of the cutting blade pieces is on a rotation side thereof and the support portion of each of the cutting blade pieces is on the reverse rotation side thereof since Haycock acknowledges the teeth depicted and disclosed in their disclosure can be applied to straight band saws or circular saws and it would have been obvious to try applying the saw teeth configuration to a circular saw blade. • The modified tip saw of Haycock substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the cutting edge portion and the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces are made of different materials from each other. However, Sprague teaches it is known in the art of cutting blade pieces for tip saws including a cutting edge portion (34) and a support portion (30) to be made of different materials from each other. In col. 2, lines 1-40, Sprague describes the structures that form the cutting blade pieces. Sprague notes cutting edge portion (cutting tip 34) is “of suitable abrasive material, such as Carborundum, or bonded diamond dust, for instance” (col. 2, lines 18-20). Elsewhere, Sprague describes the flanges (20, 30) provided along the outer side of the tip blade, specifically noting gullet flange (20) is made from steel (col. 2, line 2) and that leading and trailing surfaces of support portion flange (30) are formed as continuations of gullet flange (col. 2, lines 25-33). Sprague does not appear to specifically state support portion flange (30) is made from steel but does state “holder flanges 30 may be secured to disc 10 by welding” (col. 2, lines 30-31). At the very least, it is readily apparent support flange (30) is not made from the same material as cutting edge portion (34). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the tip saw of Haycock substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Sprague such that the cutting edge portion and the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces are made of different materials from each other in order to minimize the amount of ultra hard cutting material is used to make the tip saw, the remaining portions of the cutting blade pieces being formed from suitably strong materials, such as steel, so as to reduce the overall cost of manufacture.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haycock (US Patent 2,546,503), Douglas (US Patent 431,510) and Sprague (US Patent 3,133,533) in view of Turfitt (US Patent 6,883,412). Regarding claim 2, the modified tip saw of Haycock substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces is made of a cemented carbide. However, Turfitt teaches it is known in the art of tip saws to utilize multiple materials in forming the blade edges and cutting blade pieces for tip saws. For example, Turfitt states in col. 6, lines 25-27, “[t]he cutting tip consists of a slab of ultrahard material 150 (for example PCD or CBN) bonded to a slab of carbide 160.” Further, Turfitt teaches “cemented carbide” is “[t]he most common material used for “cutting tools]” (col. 1, lines 15-17). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the tip saw of Haycock substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Turfitt such that the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces is made from any reasonable material, including cemented carbide, to help reduce stress at the joints between the various materials as the cutting edge portion engages with a workpiece (Turfitt, col. 4, lines 55-56).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (US Patent 431,510) in view of Sprague (US Patent 3,133,533).
Regarding claim 3, Douglas (US Patent 431,510) discloses a tip saw (fig. 1) having a disc-shape (fig. 1 depicts a section of the disc-shaped circular saw blade) and comprising cutting blade pieces (annotated fig. 1) and a base metal (annotated fig. 1), wherein the cutting blade pieces (a) are disposed on blade edges of the tip saw (i.e., the outer edges thereof), and each of the cutting blade pieces extends to a reverse rotation side of the each of the cutting blade pieces along an outer side of the tip saw (i.e., the peripheral edge), the cutting blade pieces comprise a first cutting blade piece (annotated fig. 1) and a second cutting blade piece (annotated fig. 1), the first cutting blade piece and the second cutting blade piece are adjacent to each other (along the outer side of the tip saw), the each of the cutting blade pieces extends to at least a half of a distance between the first cutting blade piece and the second cutting blade piece (annotated fig. 1, dashed double-ended arrow indicating distance between cutting edge of cutting edge portion of adjacent cutting blade pieces; thicker, solid double-ended arrow indicating the length or extending distance of each cutting blade piece), the each of the cutting blade pieces has a cutting edge portion (annotated fig. 1, “CEP”) on a rotation side of the each of the cutting blade pieces and a support portion (annotated fig. 1, “SP”) on the reverse rotation side of the each of the cutting blade pieces, the cutting edge portion and the support portion have a same thickness (page 1, lines 46-49), and the thickness of the cutting edge portion and the support portion is larger than a thickness of the base metal (page 1, lines 46-49; fig. 4), and the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces is made of a wear resistant material (metal is wear resistant).
PNG
media_image2.png
471
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Douglas fails to disclose the cutting edge portion and the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces are made of different materials from each other. However, Sprague teaches it is known in the art of cutting blade pieces for tip saws including a cutting edge portion (34) and a support portion (30) to be made of different materials from each other. In col. 2, lines 1-40, Sprague describes the structures that form the cutting blade pieces. Sprague notes cutting edge portion (cutting tip 34) is “of suitable abrasive material, such as Carborundum, or bonded diamond dust, for instance” (col. 2, lines 18-20). Elsewhere, Sprague describes the flanges (20, 30) provided along the outer side of the tip blade, specifically noting gullet flange (20) is made from steel (col. 2, line 2) and that leading and trailing surfaces of support portion flange (30) are formed as continuations of gullet flange (col. 2, lines 25-33). Sprague does not appear to specifically state support portion flange (30) is made from steel but does state “holder flanges 30 may be secured to disc 10 by welding” (col. 2, lines 30-31). At the very least, it is readily apparent support flange (30) is not made from the same material as cutting edge portion (34). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the tip saw of Douglas with the teaching of Sprague such that the cutting edge portion and the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces are made of different materials from each other in order to minimize the amount of ultra hard cutting material is used to make the tip saw, the remaining portions of the cutting blade pieces being formed from suitably strong materials, such as steel, so as to reduce the overall cost of manufacture.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (US Patent 431,510) and Sprague (US Patent 3,133,533) in view of Turfitt (US Patent 6,883,412). Regarding claim 4, the modified tip saw of Douglas substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces is made of a cemented carbide. However, Turfitt teaches it is known in the art of tip saws to utilize multiple materials in forming the blade edges and cutting blade pieces for tip saws. For example, Turfitt states in col. 6, lines 25-27, “[t]he cutting tip consists of a slab of ultrahard material 150 (for example PCD or CBN) bonded to a slab of carbide 160.” Further, Turfitt teaches “cemented carbide” is “[t]he most common material used for “cutting tools]” (col. 1, lines 15-17). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the tip saw of Douglas substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Turfitt such that the support portion of the each of the cutting blade pieces is made from any reasonable material, including cemented carbide, to help reduce stress at the joints between the various materials as the cutting edge portion engages with a workpiece (Turfitt, col. 4, lines 55-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 September 30, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
