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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harer (US 20150273721).
Regarding claim 1, Harer discloses a handheld chainsaw (chain saw 1; see fig. 1) comprising: a cutting assembly (guide bar 8 and saw chain 10; see fig. 1); a housing (housing 2; see fig. 1) having a lateral contact surface (see annotated portions of fig. 8 below); a sprocket-wheel cover (sprocket wheel cover 16; see fig. 1); a chain catcher (chain catch 76; see fig. 8) having a catch edge (see annotated portions of fig. 8 below); the chainsaw extending in the direction of a longitudinal axis predefined by said cutting assembly (guide bar 8 extends along longitudinal center axis 9; see paragraph [0036] and fig. 1); said chain catcher being arranged on said sprocket-wheel cover (chain catch 76 can be arranged on sprocket wheel cover 16; see paragraph [0047]); said lateral contact surface defining a contact plane (the lateral contact surface serves as a contact plane; see annotated portions of fig. 8 below); said chain catcher having a free end adjoining said lateral contact surface (when chain catch 76 is arranged on sprocket wheel cover 16, the free end adjoins the lateral contact surface; see annotated portions of fig. 8 below) and, wherein, at least in a region of said free end, said catch edge of said chain catcher has a catch slope (see annotated portions of fig. 8 below) oriented away from said lateral contact surface (the catch slope is at least partially oriented away from the lateral contact surface; see annotated portions of fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
486
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Harer does not explicitly disclose that the chain catcher has no form-fitting position holder acting rearwardly in a direction of the longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Harer to remove the form-fitting position holder and thus make the chain catcher and sprocket wheel cover integral since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (see Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993)). It appears that Harer discloses a fastener which holds the chain catcher in place (see fig. 7). However, if the chain catcher were made such that it is integral with the sprocket wheel cover, the fastener would not be necessary. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of making the chain catcher and sprocket wheel cover integral being that fewer parts are required and the structure is more stable (since fewer parts means that there are fewer potential points of failure). For example, in the event of chain breakage, there is no risk that the chain could damage the fastener or cause it to come loose, which could potentially lead to injury to the user. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of parts, increase stability of the device, and improve safety, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified further discloses wherein said catch slope is configured in a form of a concave catch hook (the catch slope is formed in a concave manner; see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified further discloses wherein said catch slope has a first side directed away from said lateral contact surface (when chain catch 76 is arranged on sprocket wheel cover 16, at least a portion of the catch slope is angled away from the lateral contact surface; see annotated portions of fig. 8 above); and, said catch slope is adjoined on said first side by a rectilinear catch-edge section (see annotated portion of fig. 8 below) disposed perpendicularly on said lateral contact surface (the catch-edge section is perpendicular relative to the lateral contact surface; see annotated portion of fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified further discloses wherein said chain catcher is formed in one piece on said sprocket-wheel cover (as modified above, chain catch 76 and sprocket wheel cover 16 are formed integrally; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified further discloses wherein, away from said chain catcher, said sprocket-wheel cover has a form-fitting position holder acting rearwardly at least in the direction of the longitudinal axis (fastening nuts 65, 68 fix sprocket wheel cover 16 to housing 2 – when saw chain 10 breaks and comes into contact with chain catch 76, fastening nuts 65, 68 will experience a rearward force relative to longitudinal center axis 9; see paragraph [0043] and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified further discloses wherein said form-fitting position holder is formed by a lug of said sprocket-wheel cover (the form-fitting position holder is formed as fastening nuts 65, 68; see paragraph [0043] and fig. 6), said lug engaging in a corresponding receiver opening of said housing (fastening nuts 65, 68 are received in recess 56 in order to secure sprocket wheel cover 16 to housing 2; see paragraph [0043] and figs. 6, 17).
Regarding claim 10, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified further discloses wherein at least one positioning edge (guide part 51; see figs. 5, 6, and 16) with no form-fitting position holder for said chain catcher acting rearwardly in the direction of the longitudinal axis is formed on said lateral contact surface of said housing (guide part 51 is formed at least partially on the lateral contact surface of housing 2; see fig. 16).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harer (US 20150273721) in view of Kachi (US 20230099820).
Regarding claim 4, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a directing slope is positioned on said lateral contact surface of said housing; and, said directing slope at least partially overlaps said catch slope of said chain catcher in a direction of a lateral axis of the chainsaw.
Kachi discloses wherein a directing slope (chain guide 100; see fig. 12) is positioned on said lateral contact surface of said housing (chain guide 100 is positioned on base member 14, which is part of body 4; see paragraph [0042] and fig. 12); and, said directing slope at least partially overlaps said catch slope of said chain catcher in a direction of a lateral axis of the chainsaw (chain guide 100 at least partially overlaps chain catcher 106 in a lateral (left/right) direction; see fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Harer in view of Kachi to include a directing slope. Kachi discloses that chain guide 100 is located near the chain catcher (see paragraphs [0064-0065]) and is useful for preventing lateral movement of saw chain 8, which could result in it becoming detached from guide bar 6 (see paragraph [0063]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including such a structure is beneficial because it further limits undesirable movement of the saw chain, which could cause injury to a user. Therefore, in order to improve safety of the device by limiting lateral movement of the saw chain, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Kachi further discloses wherein, as seen in relation to the longitudinal axis of the chainsaw, said directing slope begins in front of said catch slope of said chain catcher (chain guide 100 begins in front of chain catcher 106; see figs. 12 and 17) and extends to behind said catch slope of said chain catcher (chain guide 100 extends to the rear of chain catcher 106; see figs. 12 and 17).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harer (US 20150273721) in view of Stieler (US 20150152901).
Regarding claim 7, Harer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Harer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein said sprocket-wheel cover is formed from plastic material.
Stieler discloses wherein said sprocket-wheel cover is formed from plastic material (housing section 30, which is formed as a chain wheel cover, may be made from a plastic material; see paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Harer in view of Stieler to make the sprocket wheel cover from a plastic material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use plastic for a part of the device housing since it is relatively easy and inexpensive to manufacture, while still providing suitable resistance to outside forces. Therefore, in order to reduce costs and improve ease of manufacturing, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that it is unclear what the chain catcher should look like when attached to the sprocket wheel cover (see pg. 2 of remarks), Examiner interprets that in the event that chain catch 76 of Harer is positioned on sprocket wheel cover 16, chain catch 76 is oriented in the same manner as shown in fig. 8 (wherein chain catch 76 is simply relocated to the outside of sprocket wheel cover 16). As modified to make chain catch 76 integral with sprocket wheel cover 16, a form-fitting position holder, or fastener, is not required. In this way, impact energy would still be transferred to the sprocket wheel cover. Further, as previously discussed, removing the fastener increases safety of the device since there is no danger of the chain damaging the fastener, which could lead to injury of a user.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that chain catch 76 cannot be oriented in the same way if located on sprocket wheel cover 16, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant notes that the slope of the chain catcher must be inclined such that the sprocket wheel cover undergoes lateral deformation, and that if the chain catcher is mounted on the sprocket wheel cover, its inclination must be opposite of that when mounted on the housing (see pg. 7 of remarks). However, as additionally noted by Applicant, to achieve the energy absorption function as taught by Harer, the sprocket wheel cover experiences lateral deformation away from the housing during impact. It is understood that, if the chain catcher is mounted on the sprocket wheel cover in the same way as on the housing, the inclination of the chain catcher would still result in a lateral deformation of the sprocket wheel cover away from the housing. Thus, mounting the chain catcher on the housing does not appear to teach away from the energy absorption concept of Harer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 3848649 to Wanless, drawn to a safety device for a hacksaw.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights