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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5-29-26.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case the abstract uses the legal phraseology “configured to”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification and claims, the phrase “linkage mechanism” does not appear to be a proper term for what 160/161 is referencing. While it is understood Applicant can be their own lexicographer, the word “linkage” has specific meaning and implies certain structure in the art that does not seem to correspond with 160/161. 161 is a cam and does not appear to be part of a linkage or define a linkage or a mechanism. It is recommended that all occurrences of “linkage mechanism” be replaced with a more appropriate phrase (i.e. engaging member).
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 1-5 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.
With regards to claim 1 lines 8-9, the phrase “and at least partially covered on the working head” is unclear. It is unclear how the protective member is covered on the head. It is believed that this limitation should be replaced with “and at least partially covering the working head”. It is noted that any occurrence of this phrase in the specification should be amended in the same manner.
With regards to claim 1 lines 11-12, the phrase “as triggered by movement of the protective member” is unclear. It is unclear what structure allows for the protective member and the pumping member to interact. The specification discloses that cam 161 is required for interaction. There needs to be a structural placeholder for 161 in claim 1 in order for the function to take place.
With regards to claim 4, the phrase “member is pivotally connected to the housing” is unclear. Claim 1 discloses the member is movably mounted on the housing and claim 4 does not further limit the claim 1 disclosure. As written, the member is mounted to the housing and separately pivotally connected to the housing which is not supported. Claim 4 should be replaced with “the protective member is movably mounted to the housing via a pivotal connection”.
With regards to claim 5, the phrase “a return member is further connected between the protective member and the housing” is unclear. The specification supports the return member utilizing the same connection that connects the protective member to the housing or the “movably mounted” disclosure in claim 1. Claim 5 needs to be amended so it is clear the same structure that mounts the member and the housing tighter also attaches the return member.
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 1-5 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113246227 in view of CN 104285694 further in view of Stones et al. (8,065,805).
With regards to claim 1, CN 113246227 discloses a chain saw (100) having a housing (1), a working head (2) with a guide plate (21) and a cutting element arranged around the guide plate (22), the guide plate being mounted on the housing and at least partially extending out of the housing (Fig. 2), a driving device mounted on the housing and configured to connect to the cutting element and drive the cutting element to move around the guide plate (6), a pumping mechanism configured to deliver a lubricating medium to the guide plate or the cutting element (3).
However, CN 113246227 fails to disclose a protective member movably mounted on the housing and at least partially covered on the working head, the protective member is configured such that when the working head gradually cuts into an object, the protective member is pushable by the object to move in a direction away from the working head, and the protective member is pivotally connected to the housing, a return member connected between the protective member and the housing, and the return member is configured to act on the protective member, and drive the protective member to return to an initial position.
CN 104285694 teach it is known in the art of chainsaws to incorporate a protective member (20) movably mounted on the housing (Figs. 3 and 5) and at least partially covered on the working head (Fig. 5), the protective member is configured such that when the working head gradually cuts into an object, the protective member is pushable by the object to move in a direction away from the working head (Fig. 3), and the protective member is pivotally connected to the housing (25 in Fig. 2), a return member connected between the protective member and the housing (35 in Fig. 2), and the return member is configured to act on the protective member and drive the protective member to return to an initial position (35 in Fig. 2). Such a modification allows for the user to be protected from accidental contact with the blade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 113246227 with the protective member, as taught by CN 104285694, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, CN 113246227 in view of CN 104285694 fail to disclose the pumping mechanism being configured to output the lubricating medium as triggered by movement of the protective member in a direction away from the working head and when the protective does not move or moves toward the working head, the pumping mechanism does not output the lubricating medium.
It is noted that CN 113246227 does disclose in Figure 3 the use of applying an engaging portion (42’) to an existing movable structure (41’) that when the movable structure (41’) performs the movement, the engaging portion (42’) engages a triggering portion of the oil pump (31’).
Stones et al. teach it is known in the art of chains saws with a protective member (11) to incorporate the pumping mechanism being configured to output the lubricating medium as triggered by movement of the protective member in a direction away from the working head (column 9 lines 65-67) and when the protective does not move or moves toward the working head, the pumping mechanism does not output the lubricating medium (column 9 lines 65-67). Stones et al. disclose the lubricating/pumping mechanism can be arranged to dispense in response to opening of the handles 14, 16 (column 9 lines 65-67). It is noted that handle (14 in Stones et al.) and protective member (11 in Stones et al.) are different parts of the same structure (4 in Stones et al.) so as handle 14 opens, protective member 11 moves in a direction away from the working head. It would have been obvious for any portion of 4 to incorporate an engaging member to trigger the pumping mechanism. CN 113246227 has been modified to incorporate the protective member, as taught by CN 104285694, and it would have been obvious to have applied the engaging portion (42’ in CN 113246227) to any moving structure including the protective member of Modified CN 113246227 in light of Stones et al. teaching. Also, column 9 lines 65-67 Stones et al. give an opening only option to dispense the lubricant and then discloses another option disclosing that the open and then closing the handles will dispense the lubricant (column 9 lines 67 – column 10 line 2). The opening only option is utilized in the rejection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided CN 113246227 in view of CN 104285694 with movement of the protective member being configured to trigger the pumping mechanism, as taught by Stones et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 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, Boyer D 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.
01 July 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights