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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and Species C (Figure 16) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2025, 1/29/2025, 07/02/2024, 09/01/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
There are 33 figures have not been thoroughly checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in these figures.
For an example, 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 plurality of rivets are 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” (emphasis added) in claim 2 (looking at Figures 2 and 32, the rivets are in holes of straps and cutter links, not links, cutters, and straps together) 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3 “ is” should read –are--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 1, line 2 recites “a plurality of drive links configured to connect the chainsaw chain the chainsaw” that is unclear and confusing. Please note that links, cutters, and rivets connect together to form a chainsaw chain. However, as the recitation is written, it appears that the links configured to connect the chainsaw chain (already formed the chain). Therefore, it is confusing and unclear.
Claim 2, line 2 “each tie strap includes …a rivet hole extending through the tie strap” that is unclear. Looking at Figures 2 and 32, each tie strap (50 or 560) has two rivet holes extending through the tie strap for receiving two rivets for coupling two adjacent links and two adjacent cutters together for forming a chain. Therefore, a rivet hole is each tie strap is confusing and unclear. It should be --each tie strap includes …two rivet holes extending through the tie strap--.
Claim 2, the last 3 lines “wherein the plurality of rivets are 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” is confusing and unclear. Figures are not shown this feature (see the drawing, claim objection above). If the rivets are coupled to the plurality of drive links, the plurality of cutters, and the plurality of tie straps together, there is no forming a chain and it can be able to flex as a chain. Therefore, clarification is required.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2 of this pending application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 4, 27 of copending application No. 18/454152.
Although the claims language at the copending application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all structures of the Claims of this pending application are found in Claims of the copending application.
For example, Claim 1, the claims of copending application teaches a chainsaw chain for a chainsaw (see the preamble of claim 1), the chainsaw chain comprising:
a plurality of drive links (line 2) “configured to connect the chainsaw chain to the chainsaw” (see the issue above), each drive link including a drive link body, a pair of rivet holes extending through the drive link body (see lines 2-5; the claim 1 of copending application has an issue since each drive link includes 2 holes) and a tang extending from the drive link body and configured to engage a drive element of the chainsaw (see lines 2-5);
a plurality of cutters configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation, each cutter including:
a cutter body having a pair of rivet holes extending therethrough (see line 8; the claim 1 of copending application has an issue since each cutter body includes 2 rivet holes), the cutter body defining a longitudinal axis extending through the pair of rivet holes (see claim 4 of copending application) and a vertical axis oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (it is inherently limitation and also see claim 27 of Copending application),
a cutting tooth coupled to an upper portion of the cutter body (line 9 of claim 1), the cutting tooth of at least one of the plurality of cutters being set relative to the vertical axis of the cutter body (it is inherently limitation),
a feed limiter coupled to the upper portion of the cutter body and spaced from the cutting tooth (lines 11-12 of claim 1), and
a gullet defined between the cutting tooth and the feed limiter (line 13 of claim 1); and a plurality of rivets 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 (the last paragraph of claim 1).
For claim 2, claim 2 of copending application teach a plurality of tie straps, wherein each tie strap includes a tie strap body and a rivet hole 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.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hutsell (US 20160121511 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hutsell shows a chainsaw chain (Figure 10) for a chainsaw (Para. 2 “a chain saw”), the chainsaw chain comprising:
a plurality of drive links (1002, Figure 10) “configured to connect the chainsaw chain to the chainsaw” (see the issue above, the links are configured to connects cutters together for forming a chain saw chain), each drive link including a drive link body (a body of the link 1002), a pair of rivet holes (there are 2 holes of each link, Figure 10) extending through the drive link body, and a tang (where the reference “1002” is in Figure 10) extending from the drive link body and configured to engage a drive element of the chainsaw;
a plurality of cutters (100, 300, Figure 10) configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation, each cutter including a cutter body (a body of the cutter 100) having a pair of rivet holes extending therethrough (see two holes in Figures 8-9), the cutter body defining a longitudinal axis extending through the pair of rivet holes and a vertical axis oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Figure 9 below),
a cutting tooth (102, Figure 9) coupled to an upper portion of the cutter body, the cutting tooth of at least one of the plurality of cutters being set relative to the vertical axis of the cutter body (Figure 9 below),
a feed limiter (110, Figure 9) coupled to the upper portion of the cutter body and spaced from the cutting tooth, and
a gullet (108) defined between the cutting tooth and the feed limiter; and
a plurality of rivets (Para. 45 “The saw chain 1000 may further include drive links 1002 and tie straps 1004, rotatably coupled using rivets or other fasteners through rivet holes in the components (e.g., the rivet holes 122 of the cutter link 100)”) 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 (Figure 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Hutsell shows a plurality of tie straps (1004, Figure 10), wherein each tie strap includes a tie strap body (a body of the strap) and two rivet holes extending through the tie strap body (there are 2 holes of the tie strap 1004, Figure 10), and wherein some of the plurality of rivets are also received within corresponding rivet holes of the plurality of tie straps to couple the plurality of drive links for connecting the plurality of links, the plurality of cutters and the plurality of tie straps together.
Regarding claim 3, Hutsell shows that the cutting tooth of at least one of the plurality of cutters is set in a first direction relative to the vertical axis (see Figure 10, the cutting 100 is a left side cutter as discussed in para. 16 “ a left-hand cutter link”), and wherein the cutting tooth of at least one of the plurality of cutters is set in a second direction relative to the vertical axis that is opposite the first direction (Figure 10 shows a right side of the cutter 300 as discussed in Para. 45 “ the “right-handed” version of the cutter link 100”).
Regarding claim 4, Hutsell shows that the at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the first direction is positioned on a first side of the plurality of drive links (see discussion in claim 3 above and see the cutter 100, Figure 10, is one side of the links 1002), and wherein the at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the second direction is positioned on a second side of the plurality of drive links opposite the first side (see the cutter 300 that is on other side of the links 1002).
Regarding claim 6, Hutsell shows that the cutting tooth of at least one of the plurality of cutters is unset relative to the vertical axis (as it is written, it is unclear what “unset” relative to the vertical axis is, therefore, the tooth or the upper edge 106, Figure 3, bending away the vertical axis and meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Hutsell shows that the cutting tooth of the at least one of the plurality of cutters is oriented to overlap the plurality of drive links (the upper edge 106 of the cutter 100 is extending laterally as seen in Figure 1 and towards the links as see in figure 10 that means the tooth or the edge is overlap the links 1002).
Regarding claim 8, Hutsell shows that the cutting tooth of the at least one of the plurality of cutters is oriented to extend in a direction away from the plurality of drive links (see Figure 10, the tooth or cutting edge of the cutter 300 is away and above the link 1002).
Regarding claim 10, Hutsell shows that the cutting tooth of the at least one of the plurality of cutters is set between 5 degrees and 15 degrees relative to the vertical axis (as this is written, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the tooth are and where the “5 degrees and 15 degrees relative to the vertical axis” is measured. Therefore, looking at Figure 3, it shows a sharpened surface 104 is curved relative to the vertical axis, a portion of the curve can be away from or relative to the vertical axis between 5 degrees and 15 degrees).
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 5, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutsell in view of Bozic (DE 102012206763 A1 and Translation).
Regarding claim 5, Hutsell shows all of the limitations as stated above except that the at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the first direction and the at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the second direction are positioned on a same side of the plurality of drive links.
Bozic shows a chainsaw chain (12a, Figure 1) having a plurality of cutters (24a, 26a, 28a as discussed in Para. 27 and shown in Figure 2), wherein each of the plurality of cutters has a cutting tooth (16a, 18a, 20a as seen in Figures 3-4), wherein at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the first direction (an upper direction, Figure 4) and at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the second direction (downward as seen the tooth 80a, Figure 4) are positioned on a same side of the chain (Figure 4 shows all cutters are from an upper side of the chain) and each cutter has a cutting tooth oriented angularly, not parallel to each other (as discussed in Para. 6 “subsequently at least three directly consecutive cutting elements which have different setting angles from one another and are inclined relative to the cutting plane in a direction which runs opposite to the direction in which the first-mentioned three cutting elements are inclined”).
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 chain of Hutsell to have a plurality of cutters to be the same side of the chain and each cutter has a cutting tooth oriented angularly, not parallel to each other, as taught by Bozic, in order to allow to provide a high cutting performance can be achieved (as discussed in the last line of Para. 6 of Bozic). Doing so, the at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the first direction and the at least one of the plurality of cutters having the cutting tooth set in the second direction are positioned on a same side of the plurality of drive links.
Regarding claim 9, doing so, the modified chain of Hutsell shows that the cutting tooth of a first cutter of the plurality of cutters is oriented at a first oblique angle relative to the vertical axis (see Figure 4 of Bozic, the vertical plane is where the reference “22a” is and each tooth is oblique angle relative the vertical plane or axis), and wherein the cutting tooth of a second cutter of the plurality of cutters is oriented at a second oblique angle relative to the vertical axis, the second oblique angle being less than the first oblique angle (see the second oblique angle of the tooth 20a is less than the first oblique angle of teeth 16a, 18a, Figure 4 of Bozic).
Regarding claim 11, doing so, the modified chain of Hutsell shows that the cutting tooth of a first cutter of the plurality of cutters is taller than the feed limiter (see Hutsell’s Figures 3-4, the cutter 106 is taller than the limiter 110) by a first amount, and wherein the cutting tooth of a second cutter of the plurality of cutters is taller than the feed limiter by a second amount (see the discussion above for Hutsell’s Figures 3-4, the cutter 106 is taller than the limiter 110) that is less than the first amount (as this is written, it is unclear from where to where that the amount can be measured, therefore, see Bozic’s Figure 4, the tooth 18a or 80a is farther inclined or angled compared to the tooth 20a and please note that the teeth are inclined or angled, not including the limiters, thus, the tall amount between a portion of the tooth 18a or 80a and its limiter is less than the tall amount between a portion of tooth 20a to its limiter since the tooth 18a or 80a is farther bent or inclined).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See art in the 892 form for cutting teeth being angular or inclined position relative to cutters for a high cutting performance can be achieved.
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 11/29/2025