Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/062,275

SAW CHAIN

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 25, 2025
Priority
Mar 11, 2024 — JP 2024-036927
Examiner
DONG, LIANG
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
MAKITA Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
258 granted / 492 resolved
-7.6% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
567
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
85.9%
+45.9% vs TC avg
§102
7.2%
-32.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.5%
-33.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 492 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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 19062275, filed on 2/25/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/25/2025 was filed on the filing date of the application on 2/25/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fohrenbach (US 20110179652 A1) in view of Harfst (US 20170197327 A1). Regarding claim 1, Fohrenbach teaches a saw chain configured to be movably mounted along a periphery of a guide bar (11), the saw chain comprising: a plurality of drive links (1) each comprising two drive link through holes (hole for 7 and 7’), wherein the drive links are arranged along a chain movement direction in which the saw chain moves with respect to the guide bar (see Figure 2); a plurality of side links (3 and 3’) each comprising two side link through holes (hole for 7 and 7’), wherein the side links are located on both left side and right side of the plurality of drive links in a left-right direction orthogonal to the guide bar; and a plurality of connection pins, wherein the connection pins connect the drive links and the side links to each other by being inserted through the drive link through holes and the side link through holes, wherein at least two side links of the plurality of side links each comprise a cutting portion including a cutting blade (5 and 5’) and a depth gauge (6 and 6’), in the left-right direction, a distance between a left end of the cutting blade of a side link of the at least two side links located on the left side of the plurality of drive links and a right end of the cutting blade of a side link of the at least two side links located on the right side of the plurality of drive links is in a range of 4.3 mm to 4.6 mm (4.2-5.2 mm, paragraph 0032), in a chain height direction orthogonal to the left-right direction and the chain movement direction, a distance between a top of the cutting blade of the side link and a top of the depth gauge of the side link is in a range of some value (unknown value), and an average of a distance between center axes of the two drive link through holes of each drive link and a distance between center axes of the two side link through holes of each side link is in a range of 6.35mm (paragraph 0029). Fohrenbach fails to teach a distance between a top of the cutting blade of the side link and a top of the depth gauge of the side link is in a range of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm, an average of a distance between center axes of the two drive link through holes of each drive link and a distance between center axes of the two side link through holes of each side link is in a range of 8.0 mm to 8.5 mm. Harfst teaches a distance between a top of the cutting blade of the side link and a top of the depth gauge of the side link is in a different wide range (see Figures 6A and 8).] With respect to the specific distance of a distance between a top of the cutting blade of the side link and a top of the depth gauge of the side link is in a range of 0.1 mm to 0.3 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Fohrenbach to have the specific distance set forth in the claim in order to remove the desired amount of material wanted by the end user. Furthermore, with respect to the specific distance of an average of a distance between center axes of the two drive link through holes of each drive link and a distance between center axes of the two side link through holes of each side link is in a range of 8.0 mm to 8.5 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Fohrenbach to have the specific distance set forth in the claim in order to create the desired size chain wanted by the end user. Regarding claim 2, modified Fohrenbach further teaches as the cutting portion is viewed in the left-right direction, an area of a space defined by a straight line connecting the top of the cutting blade and the top of the depth gauge and an outer edge of the cutting portion is in a range of unknown value (see Figure 2). Modified Fohrenbach fails to teach an area of a space defined by a straight line connecting the top of the cutting blade and the top of the depth gauge and an outer edge of the cutting portion is in a range of 10 mm² to 14 mm². Furthermore, with respect to the specific area of an area of a space defined by a straight line connecting the top of the cutting blade and the top of the depth gauge and an outer edge of the cutting portion is in a range of 10 mm² to 14 mm², the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Fohrenbach to have the specific area set forth in the claim in order to remove the desired amount of material wanted by the end user. Regarding claim 3, modified Fohrenbach further teaches for each of the at least two side links each comprising the cutting portion, a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of unknown value (see Figure 2). Modified Fohrenbach fails to teach a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of 8.0 mm to 10.0 mm. Furthermore, with respect to the specific distance of a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of 8.0 mm to 10.0 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Fohrenbach to have the specific area set forth in the claim in order to create the desired shape kerf wanted by the end user. Regarding claim 4, modified Fohrenbach further teaches on the left side and the right side of the plurality of drive links, side links each comprising the cutting portion and side links that do not comprise the cutting portion are alternately arranged along the chain movement direction (see Figure 2 of Fohrenbach). Regarding claim 5, modified Fohrenbach further teaches the saw chain is configured to be mounted on a chainsaw body of top handle type, and the chainsaw body comprises: a prime mover configured to drive the saw chain; a housing supporting the guide bar and the prime mover; and a top handle that is located vertically above the housing when the housing is placed on a horizontal plane (see Figure 1 of Fohrenbach). Regarding claim 6, modified Fohrenbach further teaches the saw chain is configured to be mounted on a chainsaw body of compact type, and the chainsaw body comprises: a prime mover configured to drive the saw chain; a housing supporting the guide bar and the prime mover; and a grip extending from an outer surface of the housing (see Figure 1 of Fohrenbach). Regarding claim 7, modified Fohrenbach further teaches the saw chain is configured to be mounted on a chainsaw body, and the chainsaw body comprises: a prime mover configured to drive the saw chain; and a housing supporting the guide bar and the prime mover, and a weight of the chainsaw body is in a range of unknown value. Modified Fohrenbach fails to teach a weight of the chainsaw body is in a range of 0.8 kg to 3.5 kg. Furthermore, with respect to the specific weight of a weight of the chainsaw body is in a range of 0.8 kg to 3.5 kg, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Fohrenbach to have the specific weight set forth in the claim in order to create the desired size device wanted by the end user. Regarding claim 8, modified Fohrenbach further teaches for each of the at least two side links each comprising the cutting portion, a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of unknow value (see Figure 2 of Fohrenbach), on the left side and the right side of the plurality of drive links, side links each comprising the cutting portion and side links that do not comprise the cutting portion are alternately arranged along the chain movement direction, the saw chain is configured to be mounted on a chainsaw body of top handle type (see Figure 2 of Fohrenbach), and the chainsaw body comprises: a prime mover configured to drive the saw chain (see Figure 1 of Fohrenbach); a housing supporting the guide bar and the prime mover (see Figure 1 of Fohrenbach); and a top handle that is located vertically above the housing when the housing is placed on a horizontal plane (see Figure 1 of Fohrenbach). Modified Fohrenbach fails to teach a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of 8.0 mm to 10.0 mm. Furthermore, with respect to the specific distance of a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of 8.0 mm to 10.0 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Fohrenbach to have the specific area set forth in the claim in order to create the desired shape kerf wanted by the end user. Regarding claim 9, modified Fohrenbach further teaches for each of the at least two side links each comprising the cutting portion (see Figure 2 of Fohrenbach), a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of unknown value (see Figure 2 of Fohrenbach), on the left side and the right side of the plurality of drive links, side links each comprising the cutting portion and side links that do not comprise the cutting portion are alternately arranged along the chain movement direction (see Figure 2 of Fohrenbach), the saw chain is configured to be mounted on a chainsaw body of compact type, and the chainsaw body comprises: a prime mover configured to drive the saw chain (see Figure 1 of Fohrenbach); a housing supporting the guide bar and the prime mover; and a grip extending from an outer surface of the housing (see Figure 1 of Fohrenbach). Modified Fohrenbach fails to teach a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of 8.0 mm to 10.0 mm. Furthermore, with respect to the specific distance of a distance between the top of the cutting blade and a bottom of the side link in the chain height direction is in a range of 8.0 mm to 10.0 mm, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art., In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the device of Fohrenbach to have the specific area set forth in the claim in order to create the desired shape kerf wanted by the end user. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 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, Ashley Boyer 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. /LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/19/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 25, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12673438
BLADESET FOR A HAIR CUTTING APPARATUS WITH TAPERED TEETH
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12661818
ELECTRIC BEARD TRIMMER
5y 1m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12661819
GLUE-CORE SEPARATION OPERATION SYSTEM AND EQUIPMENT FOR SEPARATING GLUE-CORE OF CONVEYOR BELT JOINT BEFORE VULCANIZATION
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12654242
WINDOW COVERING CUTTING APPARATUS
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12643165
SIZE POSITIONING DEVICE
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+32.3%)
2y 11m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 492 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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