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 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 8-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Martin (US 6112419 and also published DE 19753360 A1, art of record) in view of Tagami (US 2023/0278119) and Si-Kun (CN 214419059U and Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Martin shows a chainsaw (Figures 1-2) comprising:
a housing (9, 23, Figure 4);
a guide bar (10, Figure 2) having a face and a periphery around an outside of the face, the guide bar coupled to the housing (Figure 2);
a cutting chain (11, Figure 11) disposed along the periphery of the guide bar and operable to cut a workpiece and generate debris (see an opening 40, Figures 2, 4 for ejecting chips or cuttings or debris); and
a shroud (18) coupled to the housing and including an outer side wall (where the reference “38” is in Figure 2) spaced apart from the housing (Figure 1) and a chip or debris ejection opening (40, Figure 2) on the outer side wall, the outer side wall substantially parallel to the face of the guide bar (Figures 2-4) and covering a portion of the face of the guide bar (Figure 2), the opening located on a side of the outer side wall opposite from the guide bar and configured to be coupled to a suction source (this opening can be configured to a suction source as discussed art below).
However, Martin fails to discuss that a debris port extends outwardly from the outer side wall (from the opening).
A debris port coupled to an ejection opening is well-known in the art, for examples, Tagami’s Figure 9 shows a debris port (60) extending from an opening (62M of case body 62).
Si-kun’s Figure 1 shows a debris port (9) extending from an opening (10).
Based on the teachings, 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 shroud of Martin to have a debris port (hose or tube) extending from a debris opening (ejection), as taught by Tagami and Si-kun, in order to allow the dust, debris, or chips (generated during cutting) can be directly collected and removed away from the chainsaw. In doing so, the port extends from the opening and outwardly from the outer side wall.
Regarding claim 9, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the shroud includes a rear wall (see Figure 3 of Martin below) extending from the outer side wall toward the housing (Figure 1 of Martin), a top wall extending from the outer side wall toward the housing (Figure 1 of Martin), and a bottom wall extending from the outer side wall toward the housing (see Figure 3 of Martin below).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that each of the rear wall, the top wall, and the bottom wall engages the housing (see Martin’s Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the debris port is positioned adjacent the rear wall and the bottom wall (see the modified port in Martin’s Figure 2 where the chips or debris opening 40 and see the modification above).
Regarding claim 12, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the debris port is integrally formed with the outer side wall (as this is written, it is not required to have a single piece part or monolithic part, therefore, see both references Tagami’s port and Si-kun’s port integrally formed or coupled to the opening as a whole and meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 13, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the debris port extends obliquely from the outer side wall in a direction away from the housing (see the chips or debris opening 40 of Martin obliquely from the outer side wall, therefore, add the port to the opening that is also obliquely from the outer side wall).
Regarding claim 14, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the debris port also extends away from the guide bar (see the modification above, the port is added right on the opening, therefore, the port intrinsically extends away from the guide bar).
Regarding claim 15, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the shroud includes a plurality of ridges (46, 41 in Figure 4 and 45 in Figure 5 of Martin) formed on an inner surface of the shroud and extending toward the housing.
Regarding claim 17, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the portion of the face of the guide bar is disposed between the housing and the shroud (see Figure 1 of Martin).
Regarding claims 18-20, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 8-16 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the new rejections above.
Regarding “a debris port coupled on an ejection debris opening”, it is well-known in the art, see both Tagami and Si-kun. Regards to “the debris port” location in the remarks, pages 3-4, it appears applicant's arguments against the references individually, however, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While Martin shows all of the limitations as stated above including the shroud that has the ejection opening on the outer side wall for ejecting debris. Instead of letting the debris is ejected and dropped anywhere, one skill in the art could add a debris port (hose or tube) extending from the debris ejection opening, as taught by Tagami and Si-kun, in order to allow the dust, debris, or chips (generated during cutting) can be directly collected.
Thus, the modification is not failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness.
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
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 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 8/4/2026
Prosecution Insights