Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/474,346

CHAINSAW CUTTERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Examiner
DONG, LIANG
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
250 granted / 480 resolved
-17.9% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 480 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 2/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 13-14 and 21-35 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 4-12 and 15-20 were cancelled. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/06/2026 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/2026 filed after/on the filing date of the application on 9/26/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. 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, 3, 13-14, 21-22 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2747623) in view of Nicolson (US 20170014921 A1). Regarding claim 1, Cox teaches a chainsaw cutter (see Figure 1) for a chainsaw chain, the chainsaw cutter comprising: a cutter body (17, see Figure 1) having a pair of rivet holes extending through the cutter body (holes for 16, see Figure 1); a cutting tooth (18) coupled to and extending from an upper portion of the cutter body, the cutting tooth configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation (see Figures 1 and 3); a feed limiter (35) coupled to and extending from the upper portion of the cutter body, the feed limiter spaced from the cutting tooth (see Figure 1); and a gullet (10) disposed between the cutting tooth and the feed limiter (see Figure 1), the cutting tooth is wider than cutter body (see Figure 3), and wherein the cutting tooth is at least partially defined as a polygonal loop (trapezoidal shape) through which a channel extends (channel between 23, 26, 27 and 28, see Figure 3). Cox fails to teach the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing. Nicolson teaches a cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing (paragraphs 0042 and 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Cox to make the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing, as taught by Nicolson, in order provide a common method of making a cutting tooth (paragraph 0042 and 0048 of Nicolson). Regarding claim 3, modified Cox further teaches the polygonal loop includes a leading edge having a chamfer-like surface (see edge of 26 and 27 in Figure 4 of Cox). Regarding claim 13, modified Cox further teaches a chainsaw chain (see Figure 1) for a chainsaw, the chainsaw chain comprising: a plurality of drive links (11 with 12, see Figure 1) configured to connect the chainsaw chain to the chainsaw, each drive link including a drive link body (11), a rivet hole (hole on 11 for 16) extending through the drive link body, and a tang (12) extending from the drive link body and configured to engage a drive element of the chainsaw chain (see Figure 1); a plurality of cutters (assembly of 12, 17, 18, 10 and 35, see Figure 1) configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation, wherein at least one of the plurality of cutters is the chainsaw cutter of claim 1 (see Figure 1); and a plurality of rivets (16) 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 (see Figure 1 of Cox). Regarding claim 14, modified Cox further teaches a plurality of tie straps (14), wherein each tie strap includes a tie strap body and 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(see Figure 1 of Cox). Regarding claim 21, modified Cox further teaches the polygonal loop is formed by a top wall (28), a first side wall (26), a second side wall (27), and a bottom wall (23, see Figure 1-3 of Cox). Regarding claim 22, modified Cox further teaches the bottom wall forms a L-shape (at least from the top in Figure 2 of Cox). Regarding claim 24, Cox teaches a chainsaw cutter (See Figure 1) for a chainsaw chain, the chainsaw cutter comprising: a cutter body (17) having a pair of rivet holes (holes for 16) extending through the cutter body (see Figure 1); a cutting tooth (18) coupled to and extending from an upper portion of the cutter body, the cutting tooth includes a rake face (right face of 18 in Figure 1) formed at a first end of the cutting tooth (see Figures 1-3) and a relief face (left face of 18 in Figure 1) formed at a second end of the cutting tooth opposite the first end (see Figures 1-3), the cutting tooth configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation; a feed limiter (35) coupled to and extending from the upper portion of the cutter body, the feed limiter spaced from the cutting tooth (see Figures 1-4); and a gullet (10) disposed between the cutting tooth and the feed limiter (see Figures 1-3), the cutting tooth is wider than the cutter body (see Figures 1-4). Cox fails to teach the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing, and wherein the cutting tooth forms a diamond-shaped structure in which edges along the rake face are cutting elements. Nicolson teaches a cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing (paragraphs 0042 and 0048) and wherein the cutting tooth forms a diamond-shaped structure in which edges along the rake face are cutting elements (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Cox to make the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing, as taught by Nicolson, in order provide a common method of making a cutting tooth (paragraph 0042 and 0048 of Nicolson). The resulting device of modified Cox teaches the cutting tooth forms a diamond-shaped structure in which edges along the rake face are cutting elements (as modified by Nicolson, as the cutting edge made from diamond abrasive material, paragraph 0041 of Nicolson). Regarding claim 25, modified Cox further teaches the rake face of the cutting tooth has a cutting tip formed thereon (See Figures 2 and 4 of Cox). Regarding claim 26, modified Cox further teaches the cutting tooth further includes a cutting edge extending between the rake face and the relief face (cutting edge of 28, see Figures 2-4 of Cox). Regarding claim 27, modified Cox further teaches a chainsaw chain (see Figure 1) for a chainsaw, the chainsaw chain comprising: a plurality of drive links (11 with 12, see Figure 1) configured to connect the chainsaw chain to the chainsaw, each drive link including a drive link body (11), a rivet hole (hole on 11 for 16) extending through the drive link body, and a tang (12) extending from the drive link body and configured to engage a drive element of the chainsaw chain (see Figure 1); a plurality of cutters (assembly of 12, 17, 18, 10 and 35, see Figure 1) configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation, wherein at least one of the plurality of cutters is the chainsaw cutter of claim 1 (see Figure 1); and a plurality of rivets (16) 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 (see Figure 1 of Cox). Regarding claim 28, modified Cox further teaches a plurality of tie straps (14), wherein each tie strap includes a tie strap body and 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(see Figure 1 of Cox). Claims 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2747623) in view of Nicolson (US 20170014921 A1) and Mall (US 2862533). Regarding claim 29, Cox teaches a chainsaw cutter for a chainsaw chain, the chainsaw cutter comprising: a cutter body (17) having a pair of rivet holes (hole for 16 on 17) extending through the cutter body (see Figures 1-4); a cutting tooth (18) coupled to and extending from an upper portion of the cutter body, the cutting tooth includes a top plate (28) oriented perpendicular to the cutter body the cutting tooth (see Figures 1-4) configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation; a feed limiter (35) coupled to and extending from the upper portion of the cutter body, the feed limiter spaced from the cutting tooth (see Figures 1-4); and a gullet (10) disposed between the cutting tooth and the feed limiter, wherein the cutting tooth is wider than the cutter body (see Figure 2). Cox fails to teach a scoring tip coupled to the top plate, the scoring tip extends away from the top plate, wherein the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing. Nicolson teaches a cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing (paragraphs 0042 and 0048) and wherein the cutting tooth forms a diamond-shaped structure in which edges along the rake face are cutting elements (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Cox to make the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing, as taught by Nicolson, in order provide a common method of making a cutting tooth (paragraph 0042 and 0048 of Nicolson). Mall teaches a scoring tip (80) coupled to the top plate, the scoring tip extends away from the top plate (see Figures 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Cox to add a scoring tip arrangement on the cutting tooth, as taught by Mall, in order to better cut the kerf (col. 1 lines 17-20 of Mall). Regarding claim 30, modified Cox further teaches the scoring tip is integrally formed with the top plate (as modified by Mall, see Figures 7-9 of Mall). Regarding claim 31, modified Cox further teaches the cutting tooth includes a lead edge and a side plate defined along a side of the top plate proximate the gullet (as modified by Mall, see Figures 7-9 of Mall). Regarding claim 32, modified Cox further teaches the lead edge defines a rounded cutting corner (top round corner, see Figure 3 of Cox). Regarding claim 33, modified Cox further teaches the scoring tip is a first scoring tip(as modified by Mall, see Figures 7-9 of Mall). Modified Cox fails to teach wherein the feed limiter includes a second scoring tip. Mall further teaches the feed limiter includes a second scoring tip (see Figures 7-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Cox to add a scoring tip arrangement on feed limiter, as taught by Mall, in order to better cut the kerf (col. 1 lines 17-20 of Mall). Regarding claim 34, modified Cox further teaches a chainsaw chain (see Figure 1) for a chainsaw, the chainsaw chain comprising: a plurality of drive links (11 with 12, see Figure 1) configured to connect the chainsaw chain to the chainsaw, each drive link including a drive link body (11), a rivet hole (hole on 11 for 16) extending through the drive link body, and a tang (12) extending from the drive link body and configured to engage a drive element of the chainsaw chain (see Figure 1); a plurality of cutters (assembly of 12, 17, 18, 10 and 35, see Figure 1) configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation, wherein at least one of the plurality of cutters is the chainsaw cutter of claim 1 (see Figure 1); and a plurality of rivets (16) 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 (see Figure 1 of Cox). Regarding claim 35, modified Cox further teaches a plurality of tie straps (14), wherein each tie strap includes a tie strap body and 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(see Figure 1 of Cox). Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2747623) in view of Nicolson (US 20170014921 A1) and in further view of Bye (US 2652076). Regarding claim 23, modified Cox further teaches the feed limiter includes a second portion extending parallel to a vertical axis of the cutter body (see Figures 2-3 of Cox). Modified Cox fails to teach the feed limiter includes a first portion obliquely oriented relative to the cutter body. Bye teaches a chain saw including the feed limiter includes a first portion obliquely oriented relative to the cutter body (see Figure 4) and a second portion extending parallel to a vertical axis of the cutter body (see Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Cox to change the shape of the feed limiter, as taught by Bye. Since the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Claims 29-31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mall (US 2862533) in view of Nicolson (US 20170014921 A1). Regarding claim 29, Mall teaches a chainsaw cutter for a chainsaw chain, the chainsaw cutter comprising: a cutter body (79) having a pair of rivet holes (hole for 16 on 17) extending through the cutter body (see Figures 7-9); a cutting tooth (75) coupled to and extending from an upper portion of the cutter body, the cutting tooth includes a top plate (85) oriented perpendicular to the cutter body the cutting tooth (see Figures 7-9) and a scoring tip (80) coupled to the top plate, the scoring tip extends away from the top plate (see Figures 7-9), configured to cut a workpiece during a cutting operation; a feed limiter (82) coupled to and extending from the upper portion of the cutter body, the feed limiter spaced from the cutting tooth (see Figures 7-9); and a gullet (83) disposed between the cutting tooth and the feed limiter, wherein the cutting tooth is wider than the cutter body (see Figures 7-9). Mall fails to teach wherein the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing. Nicolson teaches a cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing (paragraphs 0042 and 0048) and wherein the cutting tooth forms a diamond-shaped structure in which edges along the rake face are cutting elements (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Mall to make the cutting tooth is formed on the cutter body by additive manufacturing, as taught by Nicolson, in order provide a common method of making a cutting tooth (paragraph 0042 and 0048 of Nicolson). Regarding claim 30, modified Mall further teaches the scoring tip is integrally formed with the top plate (see Figures 7-9 of Mall). Regarding claim 31, modified Mall further teaches the cutting tooth includes a lead edge and a side plate defined along a side of the top plate proximate the gullet (see Figures 7-9 of Mall). Regarding claim 33, modified Cox further teaches the scoring tip is a first scoring tip (80) and wherein the feed limiter includes a second scoring tip (86, see Figures 7-9 of Mall). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments 2/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 13-14 and 21-35 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. Conclusion 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, Ashley Boyer 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. /LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/17/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 04, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600053
CUTTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600048
AUTOMATICALLY RETRACTING SCRAPER WITH BLADE STOP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589513
MACHINE FOR CUTTING DECORATIONS FOR FRUSTOCONICAL BODIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589522
FLOOR CUTTING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12563996
HOLDING DEVICE FOR AN ASSEMBLY THAT IS TO BE FRACTURED
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+32.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 480 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month