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 .
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 recitation of “wherein said distance (b) between adjacent weld center spots is selected such that a wave-shaped contour of the guide bar caused by wear is avoided” (claim 23) 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.
Specification
The amendment filed February 17, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claim 22, lines 1-3 reciting, “wherein said weld is performed with an energy input below a melting temperature of a material of said middle section so that said material is austenitized without melting.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL — The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 22, lines 1-3 reciting, “wherein said weld is performed with an energy input below a melting temperature of a material of said middle section so that said material is austenitized without melting.” Applicant’s disclosure only appears to provide support for the subject matter of claim 22 in combination with a guide bar that is formed as a solid bar. According to page 21, line 30 – page 22, lines 18 of Applicant’s Specification, “FIGS. 6 and 7 show embodiments of the guide bar 2 as a solid bar. Accordingly, the two side elements 30,30' and the central section 31 are realized as a single piece. The side elements 30, 30' and the central section 31 are composed of only one material. It is therefore not necessary to join the side elements 30, 30' to the central section 31. There is thus no need to weld the side elements 30, 30' to the center section 31. In the preferred embodiments, therefore, the hardness increase of the hardened regions 25 is provided by laser hardening, in particular by induction hardening. Alternatively, the hardness increase may also be effected by welds. In such an embodiment, the object of the weld would be merely to increase the hardness of the central section 31, but not to form a material bond between the side elements 30, 30' and the central section 31. If the hardness increase is achieved by welding, melting of the material is not necessary, preferably not provided, as described above. The energy input during welding is already sufficiently high below the melting temperature of the material to achieve austenitization.”
However, claim 1, lines 7-9 recite, “said guide bar having a peripheral guide groove and a middle section sandwiched between said first and second side elements to define a base of said peripheral guide groove” [emphasis added]. The recitation of “sandwiched between” suggests the middle section is a separate element with respect to the first and second side elements, i.e., like a slice of ham sandwiched between two slices of bread. Examiner interprets claim 1 as requiring three separate pieces being joined by welding that fuses the pieces together.
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 9-12 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 9 recites, “wherein said hardened region of said edge layer extends over a wear section in a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar.” As currently written, claim 9 repeats the recitation set forth in claim 1, lines 29-30 of “wherein said at least one hardened region of said edge layer extends over a wear section in a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar” as presently amended [emphasis added]. As such, claim 9 appears to introduce “a wear section in a movement direction of a saw chain” that is separate and distinct from “said at least one hardened region of said edge layer extends over a wear section in a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar” (claim 1, lines 29-30). It is unclear if Applicant intends to introduce a separate and distinct “wear section in a movement direction of a saw chain” or if Applicant intends to further define the wear section in the movement direction of the saw chain guidable on said guide bar in at least one hardened region presently introduced in claim 1, lines 29-30. Regardless, claim 9 does not appear to further limit the scope of claim 1, as set forth below in the 112(d) rejection other than directing the claim solely to “said hardened region of said edge layer” as opposed to “said at least one hardened region...” Claim 10 recites, “wherein said peripheral guide groove of said guide bar has a first groove depth (c) in said wear section…” As currently written, amended claim 1, lines 30-31 recite, “a groove depth (c).” As such, it is unclear if the recitation of “a first groove depth (c) in said wear section” in claim 10 introduces a separate and distinct “groove depth (c)” from the groove depth (c) previously introduced in claim 1. Claim 22 recites, “said weld is performed with an energy input below a melting temperature of a material of said middle section so that said material is austenitized without melting.” This appears to be an intermediate step in the process of manufacturing the guide car. It is unclear what weight should be given to this limitation because it is unclear what aspects of this process define the finished guide bar.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As currently written, claim 9 substantially repeats the recitation of “wherein … said hardened region of said edge layer extends over a wear section in a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar” that is presently amended in claim 1, lines 29-30 [emphasis added]. Claim 9 does not recite “said at least one hardened region…” [emphasis added]. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1-4, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US Patent 4,641,432) in view of Kanai et al (US Publication 2012/0129006), herein referred to as Kanai, and further in view of Jerabek (US Patent 4,408,393), Wieninger (US Patent 5,271,157) and Payne (US Patent 5,596,811). Regarding claim 1, Kume discloses a guide bar for a motor-driven chainsaw, the guide bar comprising: a clamping section (i.e., left-hand side of fig. 2 with holes 11 and slot 12); a redirection section (i.e., “forward end portion” on right-hand side of fig. 2) defining a free end of said guide bar (col. 2, lines 25-38); first and second side elements (side plates 1, 2) extending from said clamping section to said free end and conjointly forming said redirection section (e.g., fig. 2 – conjointly forming space to receive sprocket [not shown]); said guide bar having a peripheral guide groove (i.e., channel 5) and a middle section (3) sandwiched between said first (1) and second (2) side elements to define a base (annotated fig. 5B) of said peripheral guide groove (5); said middle section (3) having an edge layer (along base of peripheral guide groove 5) including at least one fusion region (along dashed line 4 in fig. 2, said at least one fusion region having width “w” and depth of fusion “d,” as represented in fig. 1, wherein width “w” is measured orthogonal to base of peripheral guide groove 5 and depth of fusion “d” is measured perpendicular to side surface of guide bar; annotated fig. 5B); said at least one fusion region (formed by weld line 4 with width “w,” annotated fig. 5B) extending from a first end (proximate to base of peripheral guide groove 5; col. 2, lines 32-34) of said at least one fusion region (4) to a second end (located radially inward from first end in a direction orthogonal to base of peripheral guide groove 5) of said at least one fusion region; said at least one fusion region (4) having a first edge layer depth (annotated fig. 5B; t1) at said first end and a second edge layer depth (annotated fig. 5B; t2) at said second end; said first edge layer depth (t1) and said second edge layer depth (t2) being measured orthogonally to said base of said peripheral guide groove (annotated fig. 5B); said first edge layer depth (t1) at said first end being less than said second edge layer depth (t2) at said second end (i.e., second end is closer to central axis of guide bar than first end; annotated fig. 5B); wherein said middle section (3) having a region inside said edge layer (annotated fig. 5B) being measured orthogonally to said base of said peripheral guide groove which is not subjected to welding by laser (9) and is not part of fused region (4); and wherein said at least one fusion region (4) extends over a wear section in a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar, and the peripheral guide groove has a groove depth (“c,” annotated fig. 5B).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Kume fails to specifically disclose the fusion region of the edge layer is at least one hardened region, and wherein said region of said middle section inside said edge layer being measured orthogonally to said base of said peripheral guide groove is unhardened relative to said edge layer. However, the following teaching is pertinent to this limitation: A. Kume states in col. 1, lines 44-46, “[i]t is known to those skilled in the laser welding art that a laser weld fuses deeply and very narrowly into the metal.” According to col. 1, lines 64-68, Kume states, “[t]he overlapping portions of the three plates are laser welded together, a continuous weld seam or path being formed substantially adjacent to the peripheral edge of the center plate.” [emphasis added]. Additionally, Kume states in col. 2, lines 32-35, “[t]he weld line 4 extends closely adjacent and substantially around the periphery of the center plate 3” [emphasis added]. The disclosure of Kume suggests the weld (4) fuses the metal plates together along a very narrow strip substantially adjacent to the peripheral edge of the center plate (i.e., middle section, as claimed). Examiner interprets the formation of the narrow weld strip at a location substantially adjacent to the peripheral edge of the middle section to correspond to an edge layer thereof. Moreover, since welding only occurs along the peripheral edge of middle plate (i.e., center plate 3), Kume suggests middle plate (3) includes a region radially inside of the fusion region that is not subjected to welding by laser source (9) and is therefore, does not appear to be materially modified by the laser welding process performed at the edge layer. B. Kanai teaches it is known in the art of welding structural parts (1) by spot welding overlapping steel sheets (2) together results in a heat affected zone (5) surrounding a weld nugget (4) formed at the location of the spot weld (within spot weld zone 3). Kanai teaches the heat affected zone (5) has an increased hardness (i.e., Vickers hardness) compared to the surrounding material (e.g., figs. 2 and 14). Kanai states in para. 0154, “the targets of spot welding were steel sheets 2, 2 but the shape of the targets could be in any shape other than plates. The example exhibited the spot welding of two steel sheets 2, but three or more plates can be welded” [emphasis added]. The teaching of Kanai suggests joining metal through welding forms at least one hardened region in the area immediately proximate to the weld location; the teaching of Kanai being applicable to the welding of three or more plates together, such as the middle section sandwiched between the first and second side elements of Kume’s guide bar. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume with the additional disclosure of Kume and the teaching of Kanai such that the fusion region of the edge layer is a hardened region and wherein said region inside said edge layer of said middle section measured orthogonally to said base of said peripheral guide groove is unhardened relative to said edge layer since the teaching of Kanai suggests it is known that welding two or more steel plates together results in a hardened region around the welding location, thereby yielding predictable results including improved strength and wear resistance of the guide bar. Moreover, since it is obvious for the fusion region at the edge layer of Kume to be a hardened region, the formation of at least one hardened region along the edge layer of the middle section (i.e., at the location of fusion 4) wherein said middle section has a region inside said edge layer being measured orthogonally to said base of said peripheral guide groove which is unhardened relative to said edge layer as the region inside the edge layer is not subjected to the welding process, the aforementioned configuration would have been a predictable result of the welding process disclosed by Kume. Note: As a result of the aforementioned modification, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes said edge layer of said middle section including at least one hardened region (i.e., the fusion region 4), wherein said at least one hardened region extends from a first end of said at least one hardened region to a second end of said at least one hardened region; said at least one hardened region having a first edge layer depth (t1) at said first end and a second edge layer depth (t2) at said second end; said first edge layer depth (t1) and said second edge layer depth (t2) being measured orthogonally to said base of said peripheral guide groove; said first edge layer depth (t1) at said first end being less than said second edge layer depth (t2) at said second end. • The modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose said second edge layer depth (t2) at said second end being greater than one mm; and said first edge layer depth (t1) at said first end of said hardened region being at most 3 mm. In other words, the modified guide bar of Kume fails to disclose t2 > 1 mm and t1 < 3 mm. However, Kume discloses the following: → In col. 1, lines 48-52, Kume states, “[a]s can be seen from FIG. 1, a fusion deeper than 2 millimeters for a weld width of about 1 millimeter is available at an optimum distance between the metal surface and the laser beam generator.” This suggests optimizing the position and/or focus of the laser beam generator to provide a weld with a fusion depth of more than 2 mm and a weld width of about 1 mm is a suitable configuration for building a guide bar. The teaching also suggests other optimizations are possible depending upon the thickness of the guide bar sections being fused together. In other words, the distance of the laser beam generator to the metal surface can be adjusted so as to optimize the fusion depth and width of the weld. Moreover, this suggests fusion depth and weld width are critical values to be taken into consideration when determining the optimal location for a weld as the full width of the desired weld size would be positioned substantially adjacent to the edge of the overlapping portions of the three plates.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
→ In col. 1, lines 64-68, Kume states, “[t]he overlapping portions of the three plates are laser welded together, a continuous weld seam or path being formed substantially adjacent the peripheral edge of the center plate” [emphasis added]. This suggests the weld is positioned at a location which positions the weld with a predetermined width “substantially adjacent” to the peripheral edge of the overlapping portions of the three plates. In turn, this positions the fused weld seam “substantially adjacent” the peripheral edge of the middle section. If the weld is positioned along the peripheral edge of the middle section, the first edge layer distance (t1) could be as low as 0 mm. → In col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 3, Kume states, “[t]he power of the laser and the distance to the plate is, of course, adjusted to obtain the necessary depth of fusion as illustrated in FIG. 1, taking into account the thicknesses of the plates.” According to col. 3, lines 4-6, “[t]he approximate overall thickness of the three plates is, for example, 4-6 mm, and the plates may have equal thicknesses.” As shown in the graph depicted in fig. 1 of Kume, a weld formed by the laser (9) may have a width of up to about 1.5 mm. If a weld with a width of 1.5 mm is located such that the entire width of the weld is positioned on the overlapping portions of the three plates and “being formed substantially adjacent the peripheral edge of the center plate,” then the first edge layer distance (t1) could be as low as 0 mm (which reads on t1 < 3 mm) and the second edge layer depth (t2) would be greater than 1 mm (i.e., t2 > 1 mm). → In col. 3, lines 11-13, Kume states, “[n]ormally both sides of the bar are subjected to the laser beam; however, if the bar thickness is relatively thin, the laser may be used on one side only of the bar.” This suggests that further optimization is possible if the thickness of the bar allows further a shallower depth of fusion, which in turn allows for variation in weld width and correspondingly weld location, thereby potentially affecting the first edge layer depth (t1) and affecting the second edge layer depth (t2). In light of the foregoing statements, Kume suggests the location and size of the weld can be optimized so as to position the first end of the hardened region within 3 mm of the base of the peripheral guide groove and the second end of the hardened region is more than 1 mm away from the base of the peripheral guide groove. If the first edge layer depth is not located at the base of the peripheral guide groove, it is still desirable to position the weld such that the first edge layer depth is “substantially adjacent” thereto. One having an ordinary skill in the art has a limited range of values at which the weld can be positioned so as to achieve a first edge layer depth that is “substantially adjacent” to the base of the peripheral guide groove. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above such that said second edge layer depth (t2) at said second end is any reasonable depth, including a depth of greater than one mm (i.e., the hardened region extends to a depth of greater than one mm); and, said first edge layer depth (t1) at said first end of said hardened region is any reasonable depth, including a depth being at most 3 mm (i.e., being located less than 3 mm away from the peripheral edge, e.g., “being formed substantially adjacent to the peripheral edge of the center plate” or at the surface of the groove with a depth t1 of 0 mm) since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) • The modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose said at least one hardened region extends over the wear section in which a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar, and groove depth (c) of said peripheral guide groove in said wear section is adapted such that drive links of the saw chain are configured to contact said base in said wear section. However, the following references provide teaching pertinent to this limitation: A. Jerabek (US Patent 4,408,393) teaches it is known in the art of chainsaw guide bars with a peripheral groove (28) to form said peripheral groove with a groove depth (c) equal to that of the drive link tooth (col. 3, lines 32-34). Jerabek states in col. 7, lines 48-52, “the depth of the groove 28 is made to correspond exactly with the depth of the drive links 20 so that there is a zero clearance between the bottoms of the drive links 20 and the bottom 41 of the groove 28.” Jerabek continues in col. 7, lines 52-56, “[b]y ensuring that there is zero clearance between the bottom of the drive links 20 and the bottom of the groove 41, the applicant ensures that all oil which enters the groove 28 is propelled around the slot by the drive links 20.” B. Wieninger [5,271,157] teaches it is known in the art of guide bars to configure a middle section (3) thereof such that a saw chain (28) contacts a base (3b) of a peripheral guide groove (34) formed by sandwiching middle section (3) between first and second side elements (2, 2’) as well as peripheral edges (2b) of said first and second side elements (2, 2’). Wieninger states in col. 5, lines 17-21, “[t]he outer peripheral edges (2a, 2b) also define the guide path for the saw chain 28 which engages with its center links in the guide groove 34 and which runs on the outer edge 3b of the center part likewise made of steel” [emphasis added]. The teaching of Wieninger suggests it is known to form middle section (3) of said guide bar with a groove depth (c) adapted such that drive links of the saw chain (28) contact said base (3b) because the saw chain 28 “runs on the outer edge 3b of the center part 3.” Examiner interprets the emphasized language (i.e., “runs on the outer edge 3b”) to mean drive links of saw chain (28) contact said base (2b) of peripheral guide groove (34) as saw chain (28) moves along said guide bar (fig. 1). C. Payne [5,596,811] teaches it is known in the art of guide bars for chain saws for the edges of the guide bar to experiences high peak forces along portions of the guide bar edge (16, 16a, 17, 17a) “where the chain part coming from the drive sprocket (not shown) first impacts the guide bar edge (16) at the attachment end (11), and wherein the saw chain, after having traversed the front end (14) while elevated and supported by the sprocket (15), settles again on the edge (17) at the front end [of the guide bar]” (col. 3, lines 17-22). Payne explains in col. 3, lines 22-24, “[w]ithin these limited regions (16, 17) the edge needs to be considerably harder than the central part (12) in order to limit wear.” The teaching of Payne suggests some areas of the guide bar receive more wear during operation than others. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Jerabek, Wieninger and Payne such that such that said at least one hardened region extends over a wear section in which a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar, and said groove depth (c) of said peripheral guide groove in said wear section is adapted such that drive links of the saw chain are configured to contact said base in said wear section in order to help reduce wear in locations where the guide bar is designed to experience increased forces due to the movement of the saw chain relative to the guide bar by distributing contact forces along peripheral surfaces of said first and second side elements as well as said peripheral surface of said middle section. Additionally, the aforementioned modification would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention because the contact between the drive links and the base of the peripheral guide groove helps to propel lubricating oil along the peripheral guide groove as the saw chain moves therethrough, further reducing wear on the guide bar. Regarding claim 2, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above discloses a hardness increase of said at least one hardened region is affected by a weld (Kume, 4) of said guide bar (as taught by Kanai).
Regarding claim 3, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the weld has a weld center spot at a distance (a) from said base of said peripheral guide groove with said distance (a) being less than 6 mm. However, Kume states in col. 2, lines 15-19, “FIG. 1 illustrates the depth of fusion and the width of a laser weld as functions of the distance, in millimeters, of the laser generator from the metal surface. The curve d represents the depth while the curve w represents the width.” Additionally, Kume states in col. 2, lines 32-34, “[t]he weld line 4 extends closely adjacent and substantially around the periphery of the center plate 3.” Moreover, Kume states in col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 3, “[t]he power of the laser and the distance to the plates is, of course, adjusted to obtain the necessary depth of fusion, as illustrated in FIG. 1, taking into account the thicknesses of the plates.” Thus, while distance “a” of the weld center spot from said base of said peripheral guide groove is not specifically defined, the disclosure of Kume suggests the location of weld center spot (i.e., along weld line 4) is a small distance and that it is desirable to confine the location of the weld center spot in a location proximate to the periphery of the middle section. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above such that the weld center spot is located at a distance (a) of any reasonable amount from said base of said peripheral guide groove, including a distance (a) of less than 6 mm, since there is a limited range of depth values for which the weld spot can be located and it would have been obvious to try any of the values within the limited range. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above such that the weld center spot is located at a distance (a) of any reasonable amount from said base of said peripheral guide groove, including a distance (a) of less than 6 mm, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 4, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above discloses said edge layer (i.e., the “hardened” fusion layer) has an edge layer depth (tR) measured orthogonally to said base (similar in value to t2). The modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose said edge layer depth (tR) being less than 50% of a maximum height (h) of the middle section (e.g., the weld is within band 8, as shown in fig. 3) and said second edge layer depth (t2) at said second end of said at least one hardened region is at most as great as said edge layer depth (t2). However, Kume depicts another embodiment (fig. 3) in which line weld (4) is positioned with band (8) which restricts the edge layer depth to the extent of the inner edge of the middle portion (3) formed by a removed central portion (7) for the purposes of reducing the weight of the guide bar (col. 2, lines 42-50). The edge layer of this embodiment appears to have a similar depth to edge portion cited above (i.e., fig. 2). In either case, the edge layer does not extend over half of the way to a longitudinally extends center line of the guide bar, which would correspond to 50% of the height of the middle section. Additionally, Kanai teaches it is known for the heat affected portion of the welded substrate to be limited to the local vicinity around the weld spot (fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Kanai such that said edge layer depth (tR) being less than 50% of a maximum height (h) of the middle section and said second edge layer depth (t2) at said second end of said at least one hardened region is at most as great as said edge layer depth (t2) in order to maintain the desired strength and resilience characteristics of the base steel substrate of the guide bar. Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above such that said edge layer depth (tR) being less than 50% of a maximum height (h) of the middle section since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 5, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes at least one of said first and second side elements and said middle section are mutually connected by a weld (Kume, col. 1, lines 55-58), said weld effecting a hardness increase of said at least one hardened region of said middle section (as set forth above in the 103 rejection of claim 1, according to the teaching of Kanai). Regarding claims 8, 17 and 18, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to disclose said weld comprises a plurality of said spot welds, one adjacent the other with each two mutually adjacent ones thereof being spaced apart by a distance (b) of at most 15 mm (as per claim 8), at most 10 mm (as per claim 17) or at most 7 mm (as per claim 18).
However, the following teaching is pertinent to these limitations: A. Kanai teaches it is known in the art of welding structural parts (1) by spot welding overlapping steel sheets (2) together results in a heat affected zone (5) surrounding a weld nugget (4) formed at the location of the spot weld (within spot weld zone 3). Kanai teaches the heat affected zone (5) has an increased hardness (i.e., Vickers hardness) compared to the surrounding material (fig. 14). Since Kume establishes the fusion of the weld is proximate to the base of the peripheral guide groove, and Kanai establishes that welding metal introduces a heat affected zone around the weld, it is desirable to maintain as much of a continuous heat affected zone as possible.
B. Wieninger teaches it is known in the art of manufacturing a guide bar for a chain saw for the plates of the guide bar to be welded together by individual spot welds (col. 8, lines 15-18). Alternatively, Wieninger teaches “[i]n lieu of individual electrowelding spots, short or continuous line welds can be made with corresponding line-shaped formed projections being provided in the side parts to simultaneously limit the actual electroweld locations and for limiting the thermal influence zones during welding” (col. 8, lines 30-35). This suggests continuous line-shaped welds and individual spot-shaped welds could be used interchangeably with one another to a certain extent depending upon the application of the guide bar and desired guide bar stiffness requirements.
With regards to the spacing of the spot welds from one another, Wieninger teaches the spot welds are located at “a spacing of approximately 30 mm in the longitudinal direction. This symmetrical arrangement of the weld spots imparts a high stability to the guide bar with the greatest possible saving of weight with the guard bar comprised of three narrow struct-like parts (2, 2’, 3)” (col. 9, lines 52-53). The teaching of Wieninger suggests 30 mm is the optimized distance for maintaining structural stability for joining the specific configuration of guide components together while emphasizing weight savings. However, an increased number of spot welds along the length of the guide bar, approaching the overall stiffness provided by a continuous line weld, but having a reduced distance between each of the spot welds (e.g., a distance less than 30 mm but not contacting the next adjacent weld spot) provides some of the benefits of the continuous line weld (i.e., reduced potential for buckling of side plates) and increased stiffness of the guide bar. The prior art suggests both welding techniques are known in the art, and one having an ordinary skill in the art could select any reasonable distance between the spot welds, the distance being greater than or less than 30 mm, respectively, so long as the desired structural integrity is achieved. Additionally, by bringing the individual spot welds closer to one another, the extent of the head affected zone remains more consistent. This is another consideration that is apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teaching of the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume with the teaching of Kanai, Wieninger and Ashmonov such that said weld comprises a plurality of said spot welds, one adjacent the other with each two mutually adjacent ones thereof being spaced apart by a distance of at most 15 mm (as per claim 8), at most 10 mm (as per claim 17) or at most 7 mm (as per claim 18), in order to maintain the desired coverage of the heat affected zone in the edge layer along the base of the peripheral guide groove since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Regarding claim 9, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes said hardened region of said edge layer extends over a wear section (along the top and bottom elongated longitudinally extending portions of the middle portion) in a movement direction of a saw chain guidable on said guide bar (as taught by Payne and Wieninger). Regarding claim 10, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes said peripheral guide groove of said guide bar has a first groove depth (c) in said wear section (Kume, annotated fig. 5B). The modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose said peripheral guide groove of said guide bar a second groove depth (d) outside of said wear section with said first groove depth (c) being reduced compared to said second groove depth (d). [[dc (in wear section) < dd (outside of wear section)]] However, the teaching of the following references is pertinent this the aforementioned limitation: A. Payne [5,596,811] teaches it is known in the art of guide bars for chain saws for the edges of the guide bar to experiences high peak forces along portions of the guide bar edge (16, 16a, 17, 17a) “where the chain part coming from the drive sprocket (not shown) first impacts the guide bar edge (16) at the attachment end (11), and wherein the saw chain, after having traversed the front end (14) while elevated and supported by the sprocket (15), settles again on the edge (17) at the front end [of the guide bar]” (col. 3, lines 17-22). Payne explains in col. 3, lines 22-24, “[w]ithin these limited regions (16, 17) the edge needs to be considerably harder than the central part (12) in order to limit wear.” B. Wieninger [5,271,157] teaches it is known in the art of guide bars for “[t]he outer peripheral edges (2a, 2b) also define the guide path for the saw chain 28 which engages with its center links in the guide groove 34 and which runs on the outer edge 3b of the center part likewise made of steel” (col. 5, lines 17-21). The teaching of Wieninger suggests it is known for the guide bar to be configured such that saw chain contacts the peripheral edges of the two side elements as well as the peripheral edge (3b) of the middle section that forms the base of the peripheral guide groove between the two side elements. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Payne and Wieninger such that said peripheral guide groove of said guide bar has a first groove depth (c) in said wear section and a second groove depth (d) outside of said wear section with said first groove depth (c) being reduced compared to said second groove depth (d) in order to allow the respective peripheral edges of the first side element, the second side element and the middle section to come into contact with, and thereby support the saw chain, in the region along the guide bar where the guide bar is known to experience the greatest amount of wear during operation. Regarding claim 11, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes the first groove depth (c) is adapted to permit drive links of a saw chain provided for the guide bar to contact said base in said wear section (Wieninger, col. 5, lines 17-21).
Regarding claim 12, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes said guide bar has a first longitudinal side (top side) and a second longitudinal side (bottom side); each one of said side elements has a guide surface (i.e., the outer peripheral edges of side elements 1, 2) that extends along the longitudinal sides of the guide bar. The modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to disclose said guide surfaces have a hardness increased at least in said wear section. However, Payne teaches it is known in the art of guide bars for chain saws for the edges of the guide bar to experiences high peak forces along portions of the guide bar edge (16, 16a, 17, 17a) “where the chain part coming from the drive sprocket (not shown) first impacts the guide bar edge (16) at the attachment end (11), and wherein the saw chain, after having traversed the front end (14) while elevated and supported by the sprocket (15), settles again on the edge (17) at the front end [of the guide bar]” (col. 3, lines 17-22). Payne explains in col. 3, lines 22-24, “[w]ithin these limited regions (16, 17) the edge needs to be considerably harder than the central part (12) in order to limit wear.” It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Payne such that said guide surfaces have a hardness increased at least in said wear section in order to reduce wear on the guide bar in the locations on the guide bar where it is known for increased wear to be an issue (as taught by Payne). Regarding claim 13, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes said edge layer of said middle section has a plurality of said at least one hardened region (i.e., on a top side and on a bottom side, respectively, of said guide bar).
Regarding claim 14, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes at least one of said at least one hardened region realized on said redirection section (on either side of sprocket, as taught by Payne). Regarding claim 15, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes said guide bar comprises at least one run-in region (Payne, col. 3, lines 19-22) and at least one run-out region (Payne, col. 3, lines 17-19); and, the at least one hardened region is provided on at least one of the following: i) said run-in region; and, ii) said run-out region (as taught by Payne and Wieninger, according to the 103 rejection of claim 10). Regarding claim 16, the modified guide of bar Kume substantially disclosed above includes a guide bar for a motor-driven chainsaw, the guide bar comprising all features of the guide bar according to claim 1 set forth above, except that said guide bar being a solid bar made of a single material and extending from said clamping section to said free end forming said redirection section. Thus, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to disclose said guide bar being a solid bar made of a single material and extending from said clamping section to said free end forming said redirection section. However, Payne teaches it is known in the art of guide bars to be manufactured in a variety of ways, i.e., Payne states in col. 1, lines 10-17, “guide bars are either solid, i.e., made from a single steel plate with a milled or ground groove, or laminated, i.e., made from three thinner plates joined by spot welding, with the groove being created by the middle plate being smaller than the side plates. The guide bars are usually hardened along the edges to improve the wear resistance where the chain slides along the guide bar, and unhardened or have a lower hardness between the edges.” It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Payne such that said guide bar being a solid bar made of a single material and extending from said clamping section to said free end forming said redirection section because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results. In this case, it is known for guide bars to be manufactured from three separate pieces or from a single, solid piece, and in each case, additional heat treatment is required to provide the hardened region (as taught by Kanai) along the peripheral edge of the middle portion, as disclosed by Kume and taught by Payne and Wieninger. Regarding claims 19-21, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above includes wherein said first edge layer depth (t1) at said first end is at most 1.5mm (as per claim 19); wherein said first edge layer depth (t1) at said first end is at most 0.5mm (as per claim 20); and wherein said at least one hardened region extends up to said base of said peripheral groove (as per claim 21). Each of these values would have been obvious in light of the discussion set forth above in the 103 rejection of claim 1 on pages 9-12 of the present Office Action.
As best understood, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US Patent 4,641,432), Kanai (US Publication 2012/0129006), Jerabek (US Patent 4,408,393), Wieninger (US Patent 5,271,157) and Payne (US Patent 5,596,811) in view of Bitzer et al (US Publication 2017/0072477), herein referred to as Bitzer. Regarding claim 22, the modified guide of bar Kume substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose said weld is performed with an energy input below a melting temperature of a material of said middle section so that said material is austenitized without melting. However, Bitzer teaches it is known in the art of manufacturing metal tools to use a laser to partially surface-harden a portion of the tool that is subject to receive high wear during use in order to thereby austenitize the partial surface area. Bitzer states in para. 0015, “[i]t is advantageous to move the rotary tool to be partially surface-hardened relative to a selective hardening device in order to thereby austenitize the partial surface area. In this context, it is proposed that either the rotary tool is moved relative to a laser beam source, electron beam source or ion beam source or relative to a field coil of an induction hardening system or that the hardening device is moved relative to the rotary tool in order to case-harden the partial surface areas. It is usually advantageous to move the rotary tool, which has a small mass and free mobility, relative to a stationary hardening device in order to selectively austenitize the partial surface areas.” It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above such that said weld is performed with an energy input below a melting temperature of a material of said middle section so that said material is austenitized without melting in order to achieve partial surface hardening in the desired locations in a guide bar formed from a single piece of material (i.e., peripheral guide groove machined into perimeter of guide bar rather than fusing two outer side elements to either side of middle section).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US Patent 4,641,432), Kanai (US Publication 2012/0129006), Jerabek (US Patent 4,408,393), Wieninger (US Patent 5,271,157) and Payne (US Patent 5,596,811) in further view of Ashmonov et al (RU2185956), herein referred to as Ashmonov.
Regarding claim 23, the modified guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose said distance (b) between adjacent weld center spots is selected such that a wave-shaped contour of the guide bar caused by wear is avoided. However, Ashmonov teaches it is known in the art of chainsaws to provide a guide bar formed by side plates (1, 2) and a middle plate (3) fastened together by a plurality of welds (6) along a length of the guide bar and by transverse welds (7) at either end thereof. Ashmonov states, the welds are “made in the form of separate weld points that are joined together, or spaced transverse to a distance not exceeding 1 cm” (translation, page 3, lines 15-16). Additionally, Ashmonov describes computer simulations performed to measure the stress state of the guide bar, stating “[t]he calculations also showed that the distance between the weld points forming the indicated rows should not exceed 1 cm. Otherwise, the weld points cause stress concentration, the principle of equal strength construction is violated, which leads to a decrease in the strength characteristics of the saw bar.” The teaching of Ashmonov relates the spacing between weld points to the strength of the guide bar. Additionally, as noted above on pages 20-21, Wieninger teaches “[i]n lieu of individual electrowelding spots, short or continuous line welds can be made with corresponding line-shaped formed projections being provided in the side parts to simultaneously limit the actual electroweld locations and for limiting the thermal influence zones during welding” (col. 8, lines 30-35). This suggests continuous line-shaped welds and individual spot-shaped welds could be used interchangeably with one another to a certain extent depending upon the application of the guide bar and desired guide bar stiffness requirements.” It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the guide bar of Kume substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Ashmonov and Wieninger such that said distance (b) between adjacent weld center spots is selected such that a wave-shaped contour of the guide bar caused by wear is avoided as this is a result of selecting weld spacing that achieves strong operating characteristics, i.e., individual welds could partially overlap such that an outline of the hardened area around the welds forms a flatter contour than if the individual welds are spaced further apart, e.g., at a distance greater than 1mm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 9-10 of the Remarks, Applicant states, “[s]ince the guide rail is typically machined from two sides, the weld seam must be at least 2 mm deep to ensure machining of a rail at least 4 mm thick. In such a case, the weld width would be greater than 1 mm. A person skilled in the art would position the laser so that the influence zone extends to the base of the groove. With a weld width greater than 1 mm, the hardened area would extend over a depth t2 of at least 1 mm. Upon reworking Kume, taking into account the welding parameters in Fig. 1 and the general knowledge from Kanai, a person of ordinary skill in the art would practically automatically arrive at a configuration in which the required surface layer depths t1< 3 mm, t2 > 1 mm and a core area softer than the hardened surface layer are achieved.” It is unclear if Applicant is merely reiterating what is set forth by the examiner in the Office Action, or if Applicant is affirming the prior art discloses or otherwise suggests “a person of ordinary skill in the art would practically automatically arrive at a configuration in which the required surface layer depths t1 < 3 mm, t2 > 1 mm and a core area softer than the hardened surface layer are achieved.” On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “Kume discloses that the guide rails have a thickness of approximately 4 to 6 mm. Welding is usually performed from two sides of the guide rail. However, with particularly thin guide rails, processing can be carried out from only one side. It is therefore initially questionable whether a person skilled in the art would even process a guide rail with a width of 4 mm from both sides, or only from one. If the person of ordinary skill in the art had optimized the distance between the laser source and the surface to achieve a weld depth of approximately 2.5 mm, the weld width would still be less than 1 mm (approximately 0.8 mm).” Further, on page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “parameters should not fall within the ’sweet spot’ between 1.0 and 3.0mm, as otherwise the weld width would be too small. This is highly unlikely, since not only are greater weld depths absolutely necessary, but distortion of the guide rail due to increased heat input must also be explicitly avoided. To prevent this distortion, the weld width should, of course, be kept small.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not claim “particularly thin guide rails.” Applicant’s argument appears to be based on a hypothetical situation in which processing can be carried out from only one side if the side elements and middle section are thin enough. Further, the disclosure of Kume provides a description of one manner of welding the pieces of the guide bar together. One having an ordinary skill in the art understands there is a wide range of welding techniques to achieve correspondingly varied material characteristics in a finished product. On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “the Office action's interpretation of the feature that "the weld seam runs near the periphery of the center plate" as extending essentially to the base of the groove is untenable. Kume discloses only the aforementioned, rather vague, formulation in the description, but shows in the schematic diagrams, for example, Figures 2, 5a, and 5b, that the weld seam is by no means that close to the base of the groove.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The location of the weld is one aspect of the rejection. Accordingly, the examiner refers to the teaching of Kanai which suggests it is known for welding to formed a hardened region around the weld nuggets formed in the materials fused together. However, Applicant’s arguments do not appear to address the combination of Kume and Kanai. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Espana (US Patent 3,744,363) discloses a method of making a guide bar with hard surfaces. Wieninger et al (US Patent 4,903,410) discloses a guide bar for a chainsaw. Bell (US Patent 4,970,789) discloses the highest rate of wear occurs at the nose of the guide bar (col. 1, lines 51-53). Goodwater et al (US Patent 5,554,837) discloses laser welding of superalloy articles. Leini (US Patent 5,561,908) discloses a chainsaw guide bar with a hardened edge that extends less than 20% of the width of the guide bar (col. 2, lines 20-23). Apfel et al (DE 35 18 990) discloses it is known in the art of guide bars for chainsaws to use “welding electrodes [to] attack from the outer sides of the side parts 2 and 3 at the locations where the steel inserts [6] are located” (translation page 2, line 43 – page 3, line 1) Lux et al (US Publication 2021/0023734) teaches variations in groove depth along the length of the periphery guide groove. Kuwamura (JP 20200104292) states in page 5, lines 29-41, “the range of the bottom portion 25 of the guide groove 17 which should be kept in contact with the deepest portion 13a of the drive link 13 by being formed of a material softer than the drive link 13 is defined by the extension of the guide groove 17. Although it is most preferable to use the whole area in the direction, even if there is a non-contact area in a part of the area, it is included in the present invention as long as the transportation efficiency of the lubricating oil is improved as compared with the conventional one as a whole. That is, the range of the bottom portion 25 of the guide groove 17 that should be kept in contact with the deepest portion 13a of the drive link 13 only needs to be a range that is effective in improving the lubricating oil transport efficiency in the extending direction of the guide groove 17.”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 March 21, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724