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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 , and 18 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. Regarding claim 1, “the inner lid” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 17, “ t he filter plate of a chainsaw” lacks antecedent basis in light of “face plate of a chainsaw.” Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected due to being dependent on claim 1. Claim 4 is rejected due to being dependent on claim 3. Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected due to being dependent on claim 11 . Claim 18 is rejected due to being dependent on claim 17. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim s 1 , 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berto US 5100443 A in view of Lee et al. US 20190376477 A1 and in further view of Louison et al. US 20210354069 A1. Regarding claim 1, Berto teaches an air filter system represented by the filter assembly 1. The filter assembly 1 comprises of the following elements of the current invention: A filter configured to clean air for an engine of a chain saw represented by filter 6 that may be used for “cleaning air for an engine such as an engine of a chain saw” (Fig. 1, pg. 5). A filter cover represented by cage 3 (Fig. 1, pg. 5) Front panel represented by retainer member 4 (Fig. 1, pg. 6). A pair of side panels represented by sidewall 8 where in “the sidewall of the cage comprises a sidewall of the first part and a sidewall of a second part” (Fig. 1, claim 14). The sidewall of the first part and sidewall of the second part constitute a pair of panels. An upper panel represented by second endwall 9b (Fig. 1, pg. 5). A lower panel represented by a first endwall 9a (Fig. 1, pg. 5). The front panel including a recess configured to receive a locking nut represented by “opening 21 in the retainer plate 4 ” where in “a nut…[is] small enough to fit through opening 21 ” (Fig. 1, pg. 6) Berto does not teach the following: The upper panel including a pair of outer portions and a center portion extending form the front panel with a rounded edge. An inner weather and debris baffle with a width being at least equal to or greater than a width of the upper panel from an upper edge of the front panel to a free end of the upper panel, the width of the inner lid extending from underneath the upper panel and away from the upper panel Lee et al. teaches the upper panel including a pair of outer portions and a center portion extending form the front panel with a rounded edge represented by recessed part 212 where in “the recessed part may include a top surface 212-1 ; side surfaces 212-2 that extend from the top surface in opposite directions ” (Fig. 2, [0008, 0033]). T he pair of outer portions are represented by side surfaces 212-2 and the center portion is represented by the top surface 212-1 . The recessed part 212 is beneficial to provide additional cover for the filter cover, helping guide air in the desired shape or direction. The reference is silent as to the recessed parts having a rounded edge. However, having rounded edges is simply an engineering choice . The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in shape or changes in size / proportion, are valid rejections, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144.04). Lee et al. does not teach an inner weather and debris baffle with a width being at least equal to or greater than a width of the upper panel from an upper edge of the front panel to a free end of the upper panel, the width of the inner lid extending from underneath the upper panel and away from the upper panel Louison et al. teaches a n inner weather and debris baffle with a width at least equal to or greater than the width of the upper panel represented by baffle 50 (Fig. 6, [0034]). The baffle is beneficial to help “improve the precleaning efficiency” of the filter [0034]. The reference further teaches the baffle may “cover the entire outer surface of the filter media” or even “the entire length of the filter element” [0037,0045]. Hence, the shape and size of the baffle is adjustable. Therefore, the width of the baffle being at least equal to or greater than a width of the upper panel from an upper edge of the front panel to a free end of the upper panel, the width of the inner lid extending from underneath the upper panel and away from the upper panel , is simply an engineering cho ic e. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in size / proportion, are valid rejections, in re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (see MPEP 2144.04). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berto with the teachings of Lee et al. and Louison et al. to include a pair of outer portions and a center portion extending form the front panel with a rounded edge to help guide air into the cover in the desired manner and an inner weather and debris baffle to improve the precleaning efficiency of the filter. Regarding claim 2, Berto teaches the pair of side panels including one or more vents arranged to extend in a direction away from the front panel represented by “eight spaced-apart openings 7a-h in the sidewall 8 ” (Fig. 3, pg. 5). Regarding claim 3 , Berto is silent as to the upper panel having a first triangular sha p e on one side and a second triangular shape on another side, the first triangular shape being larger than the second triangular shape. However, shaping the upper panel in this manner is merely a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in shape or changes in size/proportions , are valid rejections, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have made the upper panel having a first triangular shape on one side and a second triangular shape on another side, the first triangular shape being larger than the second triangular shape for aesthetic purposes. Regarding claim 4, Berto is silent as to the free end of the upper panel extending from the first triangular shape to the second triangular shape at an angle. However, shaping the free end of the upper panel in this manner is merely a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as changes in shape or changes in size/proportions, are valid rejections In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have made the free end of the upper panel extend from the first triangular shape to the second triangular shape at and angle aesthetic purposes. Regarding claim 5, Louison et al. does not teach the inner weather and debris baffle being located a distance from the free end of the upper panel. However, the reference states the “ baffle is positioned within the housing between the inlet and the filter element and shields at least a portion of the filter element from the incoming air flow through the inlet ” [0010]. It is clear the baffle may be positioned at any distance between the inlet and filter element and therefore can be at a distance from the upper panel. Positioning the baffle in such a way would allow debris to be removed from the air before reaching the filter and improving the precleaning efficiency. Furthermore, rearranging the position of the baffle is simply a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berto with the teachings of Louison et al. to include a n inner weather and debris baffle being located a distance from the free end of the upper panel to shield a portion of the filter from incoming air. Regarding claim 6, Louison et al. teaches the inner weather and debris baffle including a first outer portion, a second outer portion, and a center portion located between the first outer portion and the second outer portion, the center portion being located closer to the free end of the front panel than the first outer portion and the second outer portion represented by baffle 50 in figure 3. Figure 3 shows baffle 50 where in the top line depicting the baffle represents the first outer portion, the bottom line depicting the baffle represents the second outer portion, and the portion between the top line and the bottom line represents the center portion. The reference is silent as to the center portion being located closer to the free end of the front panel, however positioning the baffle in such a way would ensure the baffle is centered and can remove as much debris as possible from the air before the air reaches the filter, thus improving the precleaning efficiency. Furthermore, rearranging position of the baffle is simply a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid reject ions, in re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)) (see MPEP 2144.04) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berto with the teachings of Louison et al. to include an inner weather and debris baffle with the center portion being located closer to the free end of the front panel to ensure the baffle can remove as much debris as possible from the air before the air reaches the filter. Regarding claim 7, Louisan et al. is silent as to the inner weather and debris baffle being configured to slide freely under a cylinder head shroud located on a body of a chainsaw. However, the claim limitation is functional only . Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 ) . The baffle of Louisan et al. could inherently slide freely under the cylinder head shroud of a chainsaw. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that baffles on the cylinder head shroud of chainsaw serve to reduce noise during operation and help direct airflow. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berto with the teachings of Louison et al. to configure the inner weather and debris baffle to slide freely under a cylinder head shroud on a body of a chainsaw to help reduce noise and direct airflow. Regarding claim 8, Berto teaches the lower panel including one or more cutouts configured to be received by a body of the chainsaw represented by hole 11 where in “hole 11 [extends] through the first endwall 9a ” (Fig. 1, pg. 6). The reference teaches a connector 6 going through hole 11 to “attach the filter assembly 1 to a piece of equipment” where in a piece of equipment may be a chain saw (pgs. 5-6). Regarding claim 9, Berto is silent as to the front panel, the pair of side panels, the upper panel, and the bottom panel forming an enlarged air cavity configure d to receive the filter . Lee et al. teaches a filter cover 200 that may cover the air filter where in “the filter cover 200 opens upward…this allowing an air filter to be replaced with a new one” (Fig. 1, [0031]). It is clear the filter cover 200 has a cavity configured to receive a n air filter. This is beneficial to ensure the filter is protected from outside elements and is not over exposed , preventing unnecessary wear. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berto with the teachings of Lee et al. to include the front panel, the pair of side panels, the upper panel, and the bottom panel forming an enlarged air cavity configured to receive the filter to ensure the filter is protected and to prevent unnecessary wear. Regarding claim 10, Berto teaches the filter cover being molded as a single piece represented by “the cage 3 can comprise a single piece or multi piece construction” (Fig. 2, pg. 6). Claim s 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berto US 5100443 A in view of Lee et al. US 20190376477 A1 and in further view of Louison et al. US 20210354069 A1 and in further view of Berto US 5203895 A. For the purpose of this examination Berto US 5203895 A will be referred to as “ Berto 2.” Regarding claim 11, Berto in view of Lee et al. and in further view of Louison et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Berto in view of Lee et al. and in further view of Louison et al. does not teach the filter includ ing a foam element having opposed first and second spaced-apart endwalls and a sidewall extending between the opposed first and second spaced-apart endwalls , the first endwall of the filter including a hole extending therethrough and the second endwall including a flow passage extending therethrough for providing fluid communication with an air outlet in a cage for supporting the foam element, the first endwall having a thickness sufficient for sealing the foam element around a locking nut passing through the hole in the foam element and the second endwall having an inwardly extending section with a thickness sufficient for sealing the outer periphery of the flow passage. Berto 2 teaches the filter includ ing a foam element having opposed first and second spaced-apart endwalls and a sidewall extending between the opposed first and second spaced-apart endwalls , the first endwall of the filter including a hole extending therethrough and the second endwall including a flow passage extending therethrough for providing fluid communication with an air outlet in a cage for supporting the foam element, the first endwall having a thickness sufficient for sealing the foam element around a locking nut passing through the hole in the foam element and the second endwall having an inwardly extending section with a thickness sufficient for sealing the outer periphery of the flow passage represented by “ the filter comprising a foam element having opposed first and second spaced-apart endwalls and a sidewall extending therebetween, the first endwall of the filter including a hole extending therethrough and the second endwall including a flow passage extending therethrough for providing fluid communication with an air outlet in a cage for supporting the foam element, the first endwall having a thickness sufficient for sealing the foam element around a bolt passing through the hole therein and the second endwall having an inwardly extending section with a thickness sufficient for sealing the outer periphery of the flow passage ” (Claim 1). The filter being configured in this manner is beneficial to sufficiently seal the foam element and sufficiently seal the flow passage. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Berto in view of Lee et al. and in further view of Louisan et al. with the teachings of Berto 2 to include the foam element having opposed first and second spaced-apart endwalls and a sidewall extending between the opposed first and second spaced-apart endwalls , the first endwall of the filter including a hole extending therethrough and the second endwall including a flow passage extending therethrough for providing fluid communication with an air outlet in a cage for supporting the foam element, the first endwall having a thickness sufficient for sealing the foam element around a locking nut passing through the hole in the foam element and the second endwall having an inwardly extending section with a thickness sufficient for sealing the outer periphery of the flow passage to sufficiently seal the foam element and sufficiently seal the flow passage. Regarding claim 12, Berto 2 teaches the foam element comprising a single piece of porous plastic foam material represented by “ the foam element comprises a single piece of porous plastic foam material” (Claim 2). Regarding claim 13, Berto 2 teaches the foam element being elliptical in a lateral cross section represented by “the foam element is elliptical in lateral cross section” (Claim 4). Regarding claim 14, Berto teaches the cage including an application specific annular recess configured to receive a portion of the locking nut represented by” the cage 3 also includes a hole 11 extending through the first endwall 9a . The hole 11 can be located in an optional recessed portion 12 of the first endwall 9a ” (Fig. 1, pg. 6). Regarding claim 15, Berto is silent as to the cage including a detachable application specific annular recess configured to receive a portion of the locking nut. However, making the application specific annular recess detachable is merely a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as parts being integrated or separable, are valid rejections, in re Dulberg , 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have made the application specific annular recess detachable for the simplification of the device. 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. Claims 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Berto US 5203895 A. For the purpose of this examination Berto US 5203895 A will be referred to as “ Berto 2.” Regarding claim 16, Berto 2 teaches a method for filtering air for an engine of a chain saw comprising sealing a foam element against an inner surface of a filter cover, where in the sealing comprises squishing a foam martial against one or more surfaces of the inner surface of the filter over with an air intake structure and face plate of a chain saw represented by “ the first endwall 31 of the filter 6 is compressed between the retaining member 4 and the first endwall 9a of the cage 3 when the connector means attaches the filter assembly to a piece of equipment to thereby provide an effective seal around the nut connection ” where in the filter 6 is a “a single piece of porous plastic foam,” cage 3 is a filter cover, first endwall 9a is an inner surface of cage 3 , and the piece of equipment is an air intake structure and face plate of a chain saw (Fig. 1, pg. 6). Regarding claim 17, Berto 2 teaches the following elements of the claim: squishing the foam material against a locking nut , the locking nut configured to secure the filter cover to the filter plate of the chainsaw represented by “ pressing an endwall of the filter against an endwall of the cage and a nut ” (Abstract). squishing the foam material between the filter cover and cage , the foam material being wrapped around the cage represented by “t he filter 6 is supported by the cage 3 with the sidewall 30 of the filter 6 surrounding the sidewall 8 of the cage 3 as shown in FIG. 1 ” (Fig. 1, pg. 6). Regarding claim 18, Berto 2 teaches squishing a foam donut between the annular recess of a cage lid and an intake support structure of a face plate of the chainsaw to help stop air from migrating around the locking nut and into an air intake of the chainsaw represented by “ the sidewall including an inner surface defining a cavity within the foam element … the second endwall including a flow passage extending therethrough and opening into the cavity … the first endwall having a thickness sufficient for sealing the foam element around a bolt passing through the bolt hole and the second endwall having a thickness sufficient for sealing the flow passage ” (Claim 2). The foam element having a cavity clearly indicates a “donut” shape. Furthermore, the reference teaches “the hole 11 can be located in an optional recessed portion 12 of the first endwall 9a ” where in the first endwall 9a is the lid of the cage (Fig. 1, pg. 6). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6550 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th, 7-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7872 . 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. /CHRISTOPHER P JONES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /AMMAD W BUTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776