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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 does not refer back to and further limit the claim from which it depends (see the last line of claim 8). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sikun (CN 214419059 U and Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Sikun shows a chainsaw (Figure 1) comprising:
a housing (3, 6);
a guide bar (12) having a face and a periphery around an outside of the face, the guide coupled to the housing;
a cutting chain (1) disposed along the periphery of the guide bar and operable to cut a workpiece and generate debris; and
a shroud (2, Figure 1) coupled to the housing and including an outer wall (all walls having external surfaces) and a debris port (7-10) extending outwardly from the outer wall, the outer wall spaced apart from the housing (via a sliding frame 11) and covering a portion of the face of the guide bar (see Figure 1), the debris port configured to be coupled to a suction source (7).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jindan (CN 215661162 U and Translation).
Regarding claim 18, it is directed to a shroud, not a chain saw, Jindan shows a shroud (200, Figures 4-6) “for use with a chainsaw, the chainsaw including a housing, a guide bar coupled to the housing, and a cutting chain disposed along the guide bar and operable to cut a workpiece and generate debris”, the shroud comprising:
an outer wall (all outer walls of the device 200) configured to be spaced apart from the housing of the chainsaw and cover a portion of the guide bar (Figure 1);
a rear wall (230) extending from the outer wall and configured to extend toward the housing; a top wall (a lateral wall, Figure 4) extending from the outer wall and configured to extend toward the housing; a bottom wall (210, Figure 4) extending from the outer wall and configured to extend toward the housing; and
a debris port (220, Figure 4) extending outwardly from the outer wall, the debris port configured to be coupled to a suction source (see the vacuum port 210s discussion that connects to a vacuum).
Regarding claims 19-20, Jindan shows the debris port is integrally formed with the outer wall and the debris port extends obliquely from the outer wall (see the port 220 in Figure 5 extends from a vertical wall and obliquely from the vertical wall).
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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Martin (DE 19753360 A1 and Translation) in view of Jindan.
Regarding claim 8, Martin shows a chainsaw (Figures 1-2) comprising:
a housing (9);
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) disposed along the periphery of the guide bar and operable to cut a workpiece and generate debris; and
a shroud (38) coupled to the housing and including an outer wall (where the reference “38” is in Figure 2) and a chip or debris ejection opening (40) the opening configured to be coupled to a suction source (this opening can be configured to a suction source as discussed below).
However, Martin fails to discuss that a debris port extends outwardly from the outer wall.
Jindan shows the debris port (220) for a suction source or a suction machine as discussed in claim 18 above.
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 shroud of Martin to have a debris port, as taught by Jindan, in order to allow the dust, debris, or chips can be directly collected and removed away from the chainsaw.
Regarding claim 9, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the shroud includes a rear wall extending from the outer wall toward the housing, a top wall extending from the outer wall toward the housing, and a bottom wall extending from the outer 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 2).
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).
Regarding claim 12, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the debris port is integrally formed with the outer wall (see Jindan’s device 200, the port and the cover are integral).
Regarding claim 13, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the debris port extends obliquely from the outer wall in a direction away from the housing (see the chips or debris opening 40 obliquely from the outer wall, therefore, add the port to the opening that is obliquely from the outer wall. Also, Jindan’s device 200, the port is obliquely from the outer 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) formed on an inner surface of the shroud and extending toward the housing.
Regarding claim 16, the modified chainsaw of Martin shows that the debris port is configured to be coupled to the suction source (see claim 8 above).
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 reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See new art above.
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
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 3/25/2026