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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “motive device”, the “tension biasing element” in claims 1 and 14 invoke 112F because for an example, first, "device" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "device" is modified by functional language including “ to cause rotational movement of the chain around the guide bar”; and third, the "device" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "motive" preceding device describes the function, not the structure of the device.
Similarly analysis with other limitation.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN216299543U and Translation) in view of Martenson (US 5177871).
Regarding claim 1, Chen shows a chainsaw (Figures 1-2) comprising:
a housing (100/104, Figures 1 and 15) comprising a geartrain (a sprocket 203, Figure 3);
a guide bar (201, Figure 1) extending from the housing, the guide bar defining an aperture (2012, Figure 3 and Translation, page 5, the 2nd last paragraph “the guide plate 201 is provided with a tightening hole 2012 matching the pin shaft 504 , and one end of the pin shaft 504 is correspondingly inserted into the tightening hole 2012”);
a chain (202, Figure 1) moveably coupled around the geartrain and the guide bar;
a motive device (see the background of invention “a drive motor” and see Figure 6), operatively coupled to the geartrain that selectively drives the geartrain to cause rotational movement of the chain around the guide bar (see the background of invention);
a tension adjustment assembly (500, Figure 15) configured to selectively move the guide bar relative to the housing to adjust a tension in the chain (see the discussion of the tensioning adjusting device 500 in the translation), wherein the tension adjustment assembly comprises:
an intermediate gear (502, Figure 15), and a pin (504) in mechanical communication with the intermediate gear (Figure 15), the pin extending away from the housing (see Figure 5) and through the aperture in the guide bar (see the discussion above and see Figure 3);
an adjustment gear (501, Figure 15) spaced a part from the pin in mechanical communication with the pin via the intermediately gear to motivate movement of the pin against the guide bar (Figure 15 and Translation, page 5, the 2nd last paragraph); and
the adjustment gear extends through the guide bar apart from the aperture (see the adjusting shaft 505/500 in Figure 3 extending through the slot 2011 apart from the hole 2012).
Chen also shows that the tension adjustment assembly further comprises: a worm gear (503, Figure 16) threadably coupled to the pin (504), wherein the adjustment gear (501) is configured to selectively rotate the worm gear to move the pin relative to the housing (Figure 15)
However, Chen fails to discuss a tension biasing element disposed between the intermediate gear and the pin for biasing both the intermediate gear and the pin and the tension biasing element extends about the worm gear and along a direction perpendicular to the pin.
Martenson shows a tensioning mechanism (Figures 2-5) for belt and chain machines (see the abstract “belt” and the prior art “a chain saw”), wherein the tensioning mechanism includes a spring (58, Figure 5) disposed between an intermediate gear (70) and a pin (a tension indicator 60) for biasing both the intermediate gear and the pin and the pin and wherein the spring (58) extends about a worm gear (82) and along a direction perpendicular to the pin (Figures 4-5, the spring 58 clearly extends about the worm gear 82 and along a direction perpendicular to the pin 60).
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 tension adjustment assembly of Chen to have a spring between an intermediate gear and a pin and extending about a worm gear and along a direction perpendicular to the pin, as taught by Martenson, in order to add biasing force between the intermediate gear and the pin for preventing any incidentally rotated of the worm gear and the pin or slippage of the gears. Doing so, the tension biasing element imparting an expansive force pushing the guide bar away from the housing through the pin to oppose a loosening of the tension in the chain.
Regarding claims 2-5, the modified chainsaw of Chen shows that the expansive force of the tension biasing element pushes the guide bar away from the housing (see the discussion above that has the spring 58 of Martenson biasing between the intermediate gear and the pin and see the issue discussion above for the “guide bar away the housing”); the tension biasing element comprises a compression spring or an elastomeric material and disposed in the tension adjustment assembly (see the modification above).
Regarding claim 11, the modified chainsaw of Chen shows that the tension biasing element (spring, see the modification above) is disposed between the pin and an end of the worm gear (see Martenson’s figure 4 and the modification above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified chainsaw of Chen shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 1-5, 10-11 above including the guide bar comprising an outer track (Translation, page 4, the middle paragraph “the outer edge of the guide plate 201 is provided with a groove for installing the saw chain 202. The cutting teeth are inserted into the grooves”) comprising a first wall opposite a second wall (this is inherent limitation because a groove has 2 walls), and a bottom wall (this is inherent limitation) extending between the first wall and the second wall;
a chain (202) moveably coupled around the geartrain and the outer track of the guide bar (Figures 1-3 of Chen) and other limitations as stated in claims 1-5, 10-11 above.
If one argues that the guide bar groove (track) of Chen does not have first and second walls and a bottom, Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known to have a guide bar groove including two opposite walls and a bottom for a chain saw. Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have the groove (2 opposite walls and a bottom), in order to allow a saw chain smoothly ridden on a guide bar.
Applicant has not challenged this taking of office notice, and thus it is now considered to be admitted prior art as per MPEP. 2144.03. See the last paragraph of the section C.
Regarding claim 15, the modified chainsaw of Chen shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 10-11 above.
Regarding claims 16-17, the modified chainsaw of Chen shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 2-5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below.
With regards to “independent Claims 1 and 14”, Claim 14 is similar to Claim 1 which recites a worm gear threadably coupled to a pin (see Chen’s Figure 15), wherein an adjustment gear is configured to selectively rotate the worm gear to move the pin relative to a housing (see the discussion in claim 1 above), and wherein a tensioning biasing element extends about the worm gear and along a direction perpendicular to the pin (see Martenson’s figure 4 and the modification above).
Applicant notes that neither of the cited references, either alone or in combination, indicates a tensioning biasing element extends about the worm gear and along a direction perpendicular to the pin. This is not clear what Applicant is seeing.
Chen’s Figures 15-16 clearly show the worm gear 503 and the pin 504, however, Chen’s reference lacks of a spring or a tensioning biasing element that extends about the worm gear and along a direction perpendicular to the pin.
Martenson’s Figure 4 shows a spring 58 that extends about a worm gear 82 and along a direction perpendicular to a pin (a tension indicator 60).
See Worm drive - Wikipedia for details.
Therefore, the combination of Chen in view Martenson meets the invention by suggesting Martenson, Col. 4, lines 28-43 “The coil spring 58 is coaxially mounted around the second member 72 with a first end 90 adjacent the position indicator 60 and a second end 92 adjacent a portion of the gear plate 52. Because the threaded section 84 of the position indicator 60 is threadingly connected to the second member 72, the spring 58 is able to bias the second member 72 in a forward direction by pushing on the position locator 60…” (emphasis added). Also, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, add biasing force between the intermediate gear and the pin for preventing any incidentally rotated of the worm gear and the pin or slippage of the gears is a necessary.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0134593 A1 shows a tension mechanism including a worm gear (36, Figure 9).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 5/20/2026
Prosecution Insights