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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 8, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “chamfer-like” which includes the phrases "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN101850566 to Zheng.
In re claim 1, Zheng teaches a chainsaw chain for a chainsaw, the chainsaw chain comprising:
a plurality of drive links (4) configured to connect the chainsaw chain to the chainsaw, each drive link including a drive link body (a shown in at least Figure 1), a rivet hole (rivet 1 is disposed in rivet hole) extending through the drive link body, and a tang (see Annotated Figure 1, below) extending from the drive link body and configured to engage a drive element of the chainsaw;
a plurality of cutters (2) configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation, each cutter including
a cutter body having a rivet hole (as shown in at least Figure 2) extending therethrough,
a cutting tooth (21) coupled to an upper portion of the cutter body,
a carbide cutting tip (5, Paras 0011,0012) coupled to the cutting tooth,
a feed limiter (22) coupled to the upper portion of the cutter body and spaced from the cutting tooth, and
a gullet (see Annotated Figure 1, below)defined between the cutting tooth and the feed limiter; and
a plurality of rivets (as shown in at least Figure 1) received within corresponding rivet holes of the plurality of drive links and the plurality of cutters to couple the plurality of drive links and the plurality of cutters together.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, further comprising a plurality of tie straps (3), wherein each tie strap includes a tie strap body (as shown in at least Figure 1) and a rivet hole (as shown in at least Figure 1) extending through the tie strap body, and wherein the plurality of rivets is also received within corresponding rivet holes of the plurality of tie straps to couple the plurality of drive links, the plurality of cutters, and the plurality of tie straps together (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 4, wherein the rivet hole (as shown in at least Figure 2) of each cutter body is a first rivet hole, and wherein the cutter body of each cutter (2) has a second rivet hole extending therethrough and a longitudinal axis extending through the first rivet hole and the second rivet hole (as shown in at least Figure 2)
In re claim 5, wherein a major dimension of the carbide cutting tip (5) of at least one cutter is oriented at an oblique angle relative to the longitudinal axis (as shown in at least Figure 3).
Note, the term “major” does not impart any structure to the term dimension. It has been interpreted, the cutting edge (9) is oriented oblique relative to the longitudinal axis.
In re claim 7, wherein a major dimension of the carbide cutting tip of at least one cutter is oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis (as shown at least Figure 2, see Annotated Figure 2, below).
Note, he term “major” does not impart any structure to the term dimension. It has been interpreted, the base of the cutting tip is oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image2.png
283
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 8, wherein the cutting tooth (21) of at least one cutter is set relative to the feed limiter (22)
In re claim 9, wherein the carbide cutting tip (5) of at least one cutter has a width that is greater than a width of a corresponding cutter body (as shown in at least Figure 3).
In re claim 11, wherein a cutting insert (5) of at least one cutter extends across an entire lead edge of the top plate (see Annotated Figure 3, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
263
293
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re claim 12, wherein a cutting insert (5) of at least one cutter extends across a portion of a lead edge of the top plate (see Annotated Figure 3, above).
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 3, 6, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of CN 114536481 to Ni et al.
In re claim 3, Zheng teaches wherein the cutter body of each cutter has a toe and a heel formed on a bottom portion of the cutter body and spaced from each other, but does wherein the toe and the heel are formed as chamfer-like edges.
Ni teaches a cutter body having a toe and a heel having chamfer-like edges (as shown in at least Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to shape the tow and heal of Zheng to have chamfer-like edges as taught by Ni which is advantageous for durability and impact resistance.
Regarding claim 6, referring to Figure 1, Zheng teaches the carbide cutting tip having a major dimension with respect to the longitudinal axis, but does not teach the carbide cutting tip of at least one cutter is oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Referring to alternative embodiment to at least Figure 4, Zheng teaches at least a point along the carbide cutting tip oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Ni teaches a cutting tip (312) having a high hardness (higher than the base body) orientated perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orient the carbide cutting tip of Zheng perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (of the cutting body) as taught by Figure 4 to Zheng or Ni which is advantageous for cutting speed and chip ejection.
Regarding claim 10, Zheng teaches wherein each cutter also includes a top plate and at least a portion of the top plate extends outward and perpendicular to the cutter body; however, in the event one may argue the top plate of Zheng does not extend outward and perpendicular, Ni teaches a cutter including a top plate (as shown in at least Figure 4) extending outward and perpendicular to the cutter body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orient the top plate of Zheng perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (of the cutting body) as taught by Ni which is advantageous for cutting speed and chip ejection.
Regarding claim 13, Zheng teaches a cutting insert, but does not teach a portion of at least one cutter overlays a portion of a corresponding gullet.
Ni teaches a portion of the cutting insert (312) of at least one cutter overlays a portion of a corresponding gullet (312a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orient a portion of the cutting insert of Zheng to overlap the gullet as taught by Ni which is advantageous for quickly breaking the object being cut (Pg. 3, lines 6-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP0090773 teaches a cutting insert overlapping a cutter. US Patent Application Publication No. 20140260875 teaches a chainsaw cutter having a body, cutting tool, gullet, feed limiter, and a plurality of rivets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724