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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3-10-2026 has been entered. Claims 12-16 are pending and are examined in this action.
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.
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,931,527 to Raymond in view of US 4,268,966 to Williams and CN 206547402 U.
In re Claim 12, Raymond teaches a bimodal stability controlled cutting apparatus with hands off operation (as best understood, the structure of Raymond Figs. 1-7, teaches a bimodal stability controlled cutting apparatus with hands off operation, in view of Applicant’s specification) comprising:
a chain bar (see Figs. 1-7, #16);
a cutting chain around the chain bar (see Figs. 1-7, #60);
a motor configured to spin the cutting chain (see Col. 6, ll. 40-47, teaching: The chainsaw 60 is typically generally elongated and includes a conventional chain guided along a conventional guide bar and movable there along by a motor);
at least one a clamping jaw configured to clamp onto material being worked by the bimodal controlled cutting apparatus (see Figs. 1-7, #30/30);
a pneumatic cylinder configured to open and close the at least one clamping jaw (see Figs. 1-7, #36/36).
Raymond does not teach a capstan pully configured rotate the chain bar, the capstan pully being configured to receive a rope usable by an operator to rotate the capstan thereby rotating the chain bar in a first mode of operation; and
a handle operatively connected to the capstan so that as the operator rotates the handle the capstan pulley rotates thereby rotating the chain bar in a second mode of operation.
However, Williams teaches a guide pressure mechanism (#36) including a capstan pully (see Figs. 1-3, #40) configured rotate the chain bar, the capstan pully being configured to receive a rope (see Figs. 1-3, #39) usable by an operator to rotate the capstan thereby rotating the chain bar in a first mode of operation (see Figs. 1-3, #39 rotates #40 – the claims were examined as best understood); and
In the same field of invention, sawing logs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the hydraulic blade moving system of Raymond, with the manually operated blade moving system of Williams. Doing so is a substation of one known blade movement system for another known blade movement system to achieve the result of causing the blade to pass through the workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, b). The blade movement system of Williams is a simple manual system that does not required a motor and can be used without electricity or without a hydraulic structure, thus simplifying the system and prevent complicated parts which can break down an render the saw unable to work.
Williams teaches a handle operatively connected to the capstan (see Williams, Figs. 1-3, #41, which is operatively connected to #40 in that the movement of handle #41 moves cord #39 which moves the capstan #40; see also Williams, Col. 3, ll. 30 – Col. 4, ll. 15); however, Williams does not teach a handle that rotates. As such, modified Raymond does not teach the operator rotates the handle the capstan pulley rotates thereby rotating the chain bar in a second mode of operation
However, CN 206547402 U teaches that it is known in the cutting art to provide a crank handle (see CN 206547402U, Fig. 1, crank handle #51, on a rotating pulley, #5 – see CN 206547402U, translation, first full paragraph which states: “the hand wheel 5 is provided with a handle 51, rotating the handle 51 to drive the strong rope 6”).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the handle of Williams with the crank handle of CN 206547402U). Doing so is the substitution of one known handle style for another known handle style in order to rotate the pulley to move a cutting tool (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 14, modified Raymond, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the at least one clamping jaw includes a first clamping jaw (see Raymond, Figs. 1-7, #30) and a second clamping jaw (see Raymond, Figs. 1-7, the other #30), wherein each of the first and second clamping jaws include a first member (see Raymond, Figs. 1-7, #34) and a second member (see Raymond, Figs. 1-7, #34) pivotally attached to a housing of the bimodal stability controlled cutting apparatus and are engaged with one another through a plurality of teeth (see Raymond, Figs. 1-7, #34/34 which are engaged with one another through a plurality of teeth).
In re Claim 15, modified Raymond, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the first and second clamping jaws are connected by a bar (see Raymond, Fig. 6, #20).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,931,527 to Raymond in view of US 4,268,966 to Williams and CN 206547402 U, and further in view of US 2018/0317397 to Carter.
In re Claim 13, modified Raymond, in re Claim 12, does not teach further comprising: a slip ring configured to provide electrical current to the motor.
However, Carter teaches that it is known in the art of rotating chain saws to use a slip ring (see Carter, Para. 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use a slip ring in the rotation of modified Raymond, in re Claim 12. Doing so reduces the possibility of electrical cables getting tangled during rotation (see Carter, Para. 0064).
In re Claim 16, modified Raymond, in re Claim 12, does not teach wherein the pneumatic cylinder is arranged between the first and second clamping jaws and has a first end connected to the housing and a second end connected to the bar so that as the pneumatic cylinder operates the first and second jaws move in sync with one another.
However, Carter teaches that it is known in the art of gripping workpiece for chain saws to provide a drive structure arranged between the first and second clamping jaws (see Carter, Fig. 8B, #310, between #302/304) and has a first end connected to the housing and a second end connected to the bar (see Carter, Fig. 8B) so that as the drive structure operates the first and second jaws move in sync with one another (see Carter, Para. 0086-87).
In the same field of invention, structures for securing workpiece that are cut by a chain saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide two clamping jaws with bars between the jaws as taught by Carter. Doing so provides a structure that grips the workpiece a spaced portions which secures the elongated work piece at four different positions which increases stability (see e.g., Carter, Figs. 8A-B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-10-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 12 has obviated the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejection. However, as noted above US 8,931,527 to Raymond in view of US 4,268,966 to Williams and CN 206547402 U read on Claim 12. CN 206547402 U teaches that it is known to add a crank to a rope pully to allow the user to move the rope, which in turn moves a cutting device/blade.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724