Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/774,566

PORTABLE WORK APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 16, 2024
Examiner
MATTHEWS, JENNIFER S
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
437 granted / 817 resolved
-16.5% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
873
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.9%
+6.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 817 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Claims 1-4, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,112,419 to Uhl et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20150273721 to Harer et al., and in further view of US Patent No. 5,718,050 to Keller or JP2014213514 to Onodera. In re claim 1, Uhl teaches a portable work apparatus comprising: a housing (housing surrounding motor 3, 6, 9); a drive motor (3) arranged in said housing; a guide bar (10) defining a longitudinal center axis; a saw chain (11); said drive motor (3) being configured to drive said saw chain (11) in a rotating manner in a guide groove of said guide bar via a drive sprocket (25); said guide bar defining a longitudinal plane which is spanned by the guide groove; said housing (housing surrounding motor 3, 6, 9) including a base body (see Annotated Figure 1, below) and a sprocket cover (18); said base body and said sprocket cover delimiting a sprocket area (as shown in at least Figure 2); said housing having a front side (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2) and a back side (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2); said guide bar (10) projecting from said housing on said front side (as shown in at least Figure 1); said housing having a first longitudinal side (as indicated by center axis 29 in at least Figure 2) and a second longitudinal side (the second longitudinal side of the housing is disposed opposite the first longitudinal side of the housing and extends along center axis 29) connecting said front side and said back side of said housing; wherein a discharge opening (40) for discharging chips from said sprocket area into outside surroundings is defined on said housing (9); said discharge opening (40) having a first section formed on said first longitudinal side (as shown in at least Figure 2) and a height measured parallel to said longitudinal plane and perpendicularly to said longitudinal center axis (29) of said guide bar; and, wherein said discharge opening has a height. PNG media_image1.png 658 760 media_image1.png Greyscale Uhl teaches a guide bar (10). It is known in the art of chainsaws for a guide bar to have a guide groove; however, in the event one may argue Uhl does not teach a guide bar having a guide groove, Harer teaches a chainsaw having a guide bar with a guide groove (34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the guide bar of Uhl with a guide groove as taught by Harer which is advantageous for maintaining stability of the chainsaw for accurate and consistent cuts. In re claim 2, wherein said discharge opening (40) is at least partially formed by a cutout in said sprocket cover (18). In re claim 3, wherein said guide bar (10) has a longitudinal top side (as shown in at least Figure 1) and a longitudinal bottom side (as shown in at least Figure 1) opposite said longitudinal top side relative to said longitudinal center axis; and, said discharge opening (40) is arranged in a region of said longitudinal top side of said guide bar (as shown in at least Figure 1). In re claim 4, wherein said first section of the discharge opening has a length measured in a direction of said longitudinal center axis (as shown in at least Figure 1) that is greater than said height of said discharge opening (as shown in at least Figure 1, the height is measured from 47 to 44, which is less than the length of the opening 40). In re claim 10, wherein said housing has a top side (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2) and a bottom side (as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2). In re claim 13, wherein said drive motor is an electric motor (3, Col. 2, lines 36). Regarding claim 1, Uhl teaches a discharge opening having a height, but does not teach the height is at least 5mm. Note, the phrase “at least 5mm” is not ambiguous in this particular case, as the range is supported in at least Paras [0005,0038] of the pending application. Keller teaches in the art of chainsaws a sprocket cover having a discharge opening having a height (as shown in at least Figure 1). Onodera teaches in the art of chainsaws a sprocket cover having a discharge opening having a height (as shown in at least Figure 4). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize various size discharge openings can be utilized depending on various factors, including, but not limited to, the intended cutting application. For instance, a bigger port would be required for large trees, while a smaller port maybe used for pruning to manage chips and airflow. Uhl, Keller, and Onodera provide teachings of chainsaws having discharge openings of various sizes, including different heights. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of the teachings of Keller or Onodera, to dimension the discharge opening of Uhl to have a height to manage airflow and prevent the device from being clogged. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. It would have been obvious to modify obvious to try various height discharge openings for the reasons set forth below: (1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem. The Examiner recognized there was a design need to dimension the discharge opening of Uhl, in light of the teachings of Keller or Onodera, to have a specific height to effectively remove chips in order to reduce clogging, which is a design need based in the art of chainsaws. In light of the teachings of Keller or Onodera, the Examiner concluded the height of Uhl would have to be great enough to prevent clogging. (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem. The Examiner recognized that in light of the teachings of Keller or Onodera the height of the discharge opening of Uhl could be various dimensions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of identified values that could be implemented as the height of the discharge opening, proportionate to the sprocket housing, to perform the intended removal of chips operation. The teachings of Uhl, Keller, and Onodera would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various height dimensions both above and below 5 mm before arriving at the dimension which allows the integrity of the chainsaw to be retained. (3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The Examiner determined that, in light of the teaches of Keller or Onodera, that Uhl could have a height dimension that would not jeopardize the intended discharge purpose of the chainsaw. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of dimensioning the opening would manage air flow and prevent clogging of the device. (4) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner recognized in light of the teachings of Keller or Onodera that the discharge opening could have a height proportionate to the sprocket, in order to manage air flow and prevent clogging, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to try various discharge opening heights above and below 5mm before arriving at the range of values that did not jeopardize the integrity of the chainsaw. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-9, 11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Uhl teaches a work apparatus having a discharge port. The discharge port of Uhl is exposed in the discharge port between the first and second end of the opening. Uhl does not teach or suggest the saw chain is covered between the first end and a second end of the first section of the discharge opening over at least 50% of the length of the first section by a cover area of the housing and the work apparatus having an additional discharge port on the bottom side of the housing. Harer teaches a working apparatus having a discharge port which is located under the chain saw. Harer teaches the chain saw is covered by at least 50% of the length by the cover area. Harer does not teach the work apparatus having an additional discharge port on the bottom side of the housing. Uhl (US Patent No. 5,896,669) teaches a working apparatus having a chip collection port and two discharge ports on the bottom side of the housing. Uhl ‘699 does not teach or suggest a discharge opening on a first longitudinal side of the guide bar. One having ordinary skill in the art would not have been prompted to modify the discharge opening of Uhl by the teachings of Harer to cover a greater percentage of the chain with respect to the discharge opening as this would potentially destroy the based reference for its intended purpose. Uhl specifically teaches the advantages of the shape of the discharge opening in conjunction with the ramp to aid is moving the chips away from the cutting chamber and toward the ejection opening. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm. 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. /JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 16, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589514
Capsule Cutting Apparatus and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589512
SHEARING TOOL WITH CLOSURE ASSIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570014
CUTTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12539636
Power Transmission Unit for Electrode Cutting Apparatuses
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12539634
PIPE CUTTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+20.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 817 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month