DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/09/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-20 were cancelled. Claim 4 was withdrawn.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michelon (US 20100206286 A1) in view of Rorabeck (US 1676053).
Regarding claim 1, Michelon teaches a chain of a chain saw (see Figure 2 and 4), the chain comprising:
a chain link segment (see Figure 2A) including: a pair of side links (16 and 18) and a drive link (14) disposed between the side links, and the side links each having a pin hole (40);
an inner bushing (40) fitted into the outer bushing (50), the inner bushing having an outer diameter corresponding to a circular inner diameter of the outer bushing (see Figure 4);
a connection pin (44) passing through an inner hole of the inner bushing (see Figure 4) and the pin hole so that the connection pin is pivotally coupled into the outer bushing (see Figure 4).
Bell fails to teach the drive link having an elliptical mounting hole, an outer bushing fitted into the elliptical mounting hole, the outer bushing having an elliptical outer diameter corresponding to the elliptical mounting hole.
Rorabeck teaches a chain with an elliptical mounting hole (shape for 12e), an outer bushing (12e) fitted into the elliptical mounting hole, the outer bushing having an elliptical outer diameter corresponding to the elliptical mounting hole (see Figure 9).
It would have be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Michelon to make the outer bushing as a separate part, as taught by Rorabeck, in order to make the outer bushing more durable (page 1 lines 15-54 of Rorabeck).
Regarding claim 2, modified Michelon teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Modified Michelon fails to teach a protrusion is formed on a surface of the inner bushing, and a notch groove is formed in the pin hole of the side link at a corresponding position corresponding to the protrusion.
Embodiment in Figures 12-14 of Michelon further teaches a chain link with a protrusion is formed on one surface of the inner bushing (see Figures 12-14), and a notch groove (70) is formed in the pin hole of the side link at a corresponding position (see Figures 12-14).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Michelon to add the protrusion/notch arrangement, as taught by Michelon, in order to resist rotation, paragraph 0052-0053 of Michelon).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Michelon (US 20100206286 A1) in view of Rorabeck (US 1676053) and in further view of Silvon (US 3263717).
Regarding claim 3, modified Michelon teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Modified Michelon fails to teach the drive link includes concave and convex portions which are configured to be engaged with concave and convex portions of an adjacent drive.
Silvon teaches a chain link with concave and convex portions (24) which are engaged with adjacent drive links are formed on both sides of the drive link (see Figure 1).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Michelon to add concave and convex portions, as taught by Silvon, in order to better keep the chain in position (col. 5 lines 35-58 of Silvon).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michelon (US 20100206286 A1) in view of Rorabeck (US 1676053) and in further view of Stihl (US 2869534).
Regarding claim 5, modified Michelon further teaches a cutting tip is formed on an upper portion of side link (see Figure 2 of Michelon).
Modified Michelon fails to teach a fusion tip attached on an upper portion of the drive link.
Stihl teaches a fusion tip formed by fusing diamond powder (see Figures 1-3 and 7), the fusion tip formed by fusing diamond powder (see Figures 1-3 and 7).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Michelon to add fusion tip, as taught by Stihl, in order to better cut a “soft” stone material (page 1 lines 15-28 of Stihl).
Regarding claim 6, modified Michelon further teaches at least one coupling protrusion is formed in a groove of the drive link for coupling the fusion tip (as modified by Stihl, groove between 5 and 5” of Stihl, see Figure 6 of Stihl).
Regarding claim 7, modified Michelon further teaches the fusion tip is formed of a drive link cap formed on the upper portion of the drive link and a diamond powder fused into an upper surface of the drive link cap (as modified by Stihl, see Figure 7 of Stihl).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michelon (US 20100206286 A1) in view of Rorabeck (US 1676053) and in further view of Stihl (US 2869534) and in further view of Peirce (US 1063380).
Regarding claim 8, modified Michelon further teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 7 above.
Modified Michelon fails to teach a coupling hole into which the coupling protrusion is fitted is formed at a predetermined position on the drive link cap.
Peirce teaches a cutting tip (G) with a coupling hole into which the coupling protrusion is fitted is formed at a predetermined position on the drive link cap (as modified by Peirce, hole between F and G, see Figure 3 of Peirce).
Modified Michelon differs from the claimed device due to modified Michelon’s mounting arrangement is different, whereas Peirce teaches the mounting arrangement as claimed. Both Stihl and Peirce teach a cutting tip mounting arrangement. Such modification will achieve the predictable result of providing securing a cutting tip, since both mounting arrangements of Stihl and Peirce are known for the same purpose in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I. (B). Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Bell to substitute the mounting arrangement, taught by Peirce, for the purpose of providing a mounting arrangement. The resulting device of modified Michelon teaches a coupling hole into which the coupling protrusion is fitted is formed at a predetermined position on the drive link cap (as modified by Peirce, hole between F and G, see Figure 3 of Peirce).
Regarding claim 9, modified Michelon further teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 7 above.
Modified Michelon fails to teach round type protruding pieces are provided on central front and rear portions of the drive link cap.
Peirce teaches a cutting tip (G) with a coupling hole into which the coupling protrusion is fitted is formed at a predetermined position on the drive link cap (as modified by Peirce, hole between F and G, see Figure 3 of Peirce), round type protruding pieces are provided on central front and rear portions of the drive link cap (top round part of G in Figure 3 of Peirce).
Modified Michelon differs from the claimed device due to modified Michelon’s mounting arrangement is different, whereas Peirce teaches the mounting arrangement as claimed. Both Stihl and Peirce teach a cutting tip mounting arrangement. Such modification will achieve the predictable result of providing securing a cutting tip, since both mounting arrangements of Stihl and Peirce are known for the same purpose in the art. See MPEP § 2143 I. (B). Therefore, it would have been an obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Bell to substitute the mounting arrangement, taught by Peirce, for the purpose of providing a mounting arrangement. The resulting device of modified Michelon teaches round type protruding pieces are provided on central front and rear portions of the drive link cap (as modified by Peirce, top round part of G in Figure 3 of Peirce).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michelon (US 20100206286 A1) in view of Rorabeck (US 1676053) and in further view of Bell (US 6138658).
Regarding claim 10, modified Michelon teach all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Michelon fails to teach an O-ring groove is formed around the elliptical mounting hole, and an O-ring is disposed in the O-ring groove and covered by the side links.
Bell teaches a chain saw chain with an O-ring groove is formed around the hole, and an O-ring is disposed in the O-ring groove and covered by the side links (see Figures 2 and 2AB of Bell).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Michelon to add fusion tip, as taught by Bell, in order to better form a seal (col. 3 lines 29-45 of Bell). The resulting device of modified Michelon teaches an O-ring groove is formed around the elliptical mounting hole, and an O-ring is disposed in the O-ring groove and covered by the side links (as modified by Bell, see Figures 2 and 2AB of Bell).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 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.
Examine notes that the function of the outer bushing in Rorabeck in to increase the wearability of the material, thus making the outer bushing into a separated part.
Conclusion
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 LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 11/04/2025