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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of AT 349051 B, hereinafter referred to as AT349, in view of Meisel et al as part of US 5031964 A, hereinafter referred to as Meisel.
In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner wishes to respond to specific arguments made by the applicant.
Applicant posits that the disclosure of Protzeller does not teach of a guide surface matching, at least locally, the curvature of a return member, and supplies an annotated figure 4 of Protzeller to support the claim. Examiner find this argument persuasive and agrees that the rejection in view of Protzeller is improper, as shown by the guide surface 42 not aligning with the curvature of the curvature C of return member 9, thus the guide member does not match, at least locally, the curvature of the return member.
Applicant further posits that the combination of AT349 and Protzeller would be inappropriate, as the disclosure of the instant application seeks to solve the technical problem of reducing wear of the links by maximizing the contact surface between the link and the return member. Applicant further states that the disclosure of Protzeller seeks to reduce wear on the links by minimizing the contact surface between the link and the return member by maximizing the concavity (Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, Page 8). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed would not seek out the solution of Protzeller to reduce wear in the links. Examiner does not find this particular argument persuasive, as both approaches seek to solve the same technical problem in the same field of endeavor.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT349 in view of Meisel.
Regarding Claim 1: AT349 teaches of a device for excavating or clearing ballast comprising an excavating chain (AT349: Page 2, line 1-5, the invention relates to a clearing and conveyer chain for cleaning track beds), the excavating chain comprising a succession of links (AT349: Fig. 1, links 7 form conveying chain 6), the excavating chain configured to be guided on a travel path at least by bevel return members (AT349: Fig. 1, chain 6 is guided over deflecting rollers 11), the excavating chain having an excavating portion for the device below a railroad track (AT349: Fig. 1, Chain guide cross chain 10 goes through below the track 5 in the working position), each link of the succession of links comprising:
A body extending longitudinally between a front end and a rear end (AT349: Fig. 3, front and rear ends of the link are designated by the curved portions around through holes 17) and being crossed by at least one front through hole and rear through hole (AT349: Fig. 3, through holes 17) configured to receive hinge means with an adjacent link of the chain (AT349: Fig. 3, through holes 17 are designed to engage intermediate links 18 to connect adjacent links of said chain; Page 4, line 51-53),
wherein the front through-hole and the rear through-hole extending along axes parallel to each other and contained in a reference plane of the body (AT349: Fig. 3, holes 17 contain axes 19, which are parallel to each other and within a reference plane 20 of the link).
AT349 does not teach of link being characterized in that the body has, on an inner side of the body with respect to the reference plane, opposite to an outer side, a concave guide surface extending over an envelope having an axis generator parallel to the axes of the link, the guide surface matching, at least locally, a curvature of at least one of the return members of the device, and a first convex surface extending between the concave guide surface and the front end, and a second convex surface extending between the concave guide surface and the rear end.
Meisel teaches of an excavating chain, the excavating chain comprising a succession of links (Meisel: Col. 1, line 52-54, the trim chain 100 is comprised of a plurality of interconnected links 101 and 102),
the excavating chain configured to be guided on a travel path at least by bevel return members (Meisel: Fig. 6, chain 100 travels around cutting drum 125),
each link of the succession of links comprising:
a body extending longitudinally between a front end and a rear end and being crossed by at least one front through-hole and a rear through-hole configured to receive hinge means with an adjacent link of the chain (Meisel: Fig. 3, link 101 comprises a longitudinally extending body between a front and rear end, which is crossed by a front through hole and rear through hole 101a to receive pivot pin 103 to connect adjacent links),
the front through-hole and the rear through-hole extending along axes parallel to each other and contained in a reference plane of the body (Meisel: Fig. 3-5, the through holes 101a extend along axes parallel to one another contained within a reference plane of the link 101),
the link being characterized in that the body has, on an inner side of the body with respect to the reference plane, opposite to an outer side (Meisel: Fig. 3, link 101 comprises an outer side where mounting hub 105 is disposed, and an inner side opposite hub 105),
a concave guide surface extending over an envelope having an axis generator parallel to the axes of the link, the guide surface matching, at least locally, a curvature of at least one of the return members of the device (Meisel: Fig. 3/6, the inner side of link 101 comprises a concave axis generator parallel to the axes of through holes 101a, which matches the curvature of support surface 120b; Col. 6, line 43-54, link 101 hugs support surface 120b snugly to maximize friction between the two components),
And a first convex surface extending between the concave guide surface and the front end, and a second convex surface extending between the concave guide surface and the rear end (Meisel: Fig. 3, the portions of the inner side of link 100 disposed on either side of the concave guide surface are convex, and extend between the concave surface and the front and rear ends of link 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed substitute the flat interior shape of the links as taught by AT349 with the concave/convex curvature of the interior of the links as taught by Meisel to create an excavating chain more resistant to wear and capable of delivering force more efficiently (Meisel: Col. 6, line 43-54, the snug contact between the interior of link 101 and the support surface 120b maximizes friction between components, allowing for additional driving force to be delivered; Col. 6, line 62 – Col. 7, line 4, The alignment that is provided by the curvature of the links against the support surface 120b leads to the chain not experiencing adverse wear effects from the internal surface of the chain, improving chain life). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of increasing the force delivery and lifespan of the cutting chain (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 2: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 1, Meisel further teaches wherein the guide surface extends along a guiding curve having at least partially the shape of an elliptical arc (Meisel: Fig. 3, the concave guide surface of link 101 is at least partially elliptical in shape).
Regarding Claim 3: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
While AT349 in view of Meisel does not specify the length of the concave guide surface relative to the position of the through holes, the arc length, and therefore the longitudinal length of the concave guide surface relative to the through holes of the link, would be determined by the radius of the return member, and would be a result-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the arc length of the concave surface of the link, and the longitudinal extent relative to the through holes of the link taught by AT349 in view of Meisel would be a characterized by routine experimentation to achieve an optimal result, and therefore a results-effective variable and obvious to try, such that the longitudinal extent of the concave guide surface would extend past the through holes of the link to match the radius of the return member (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 4: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches the apparatus described above in claim 1.
AT349 further teaches that the front and rear ends of the body each have a curved convex portion free of edges (AT349: Fig. 3 shows curved, convex front and rear ends with no edges).
Additionally, Meisel also teaches that the front and rear ends of the body each have a curved convex portion free of edges (Meisel: Fig. 3, the front and rear ends of link are curved, convex, and free of edges).
Regarding Claim 5: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
AT349 further teaches that the link comprises a projection part extending from an outer side of the body with respect to the reference plane (AT349: Fig. 3, each chain 7 has an airfoil body 22 protruding from base 16 perpendicular to plane 20).
Further, Meisel teaches that the link comprises a projection part extending from an outer side of the body with respect to the reference plane (Fig. 3, link 101 comprises mounting hub 105 on the outer side of the link).
Regarding Claim 6: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches the apparatus described above in claim 5.
AT349 further teaches that the projecting part comprises a scoop for transporting ballast (AT349: Page 2, Line 45-54, Airfoils 22 and chisels 27 carry the ballast out of the track bed 13).
Regarding Claim 9: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 5.
AT349 additionally teaches that the link is characterized in that the link has fingers born by a scoop (AT349: Fig. 3, chisels 27 are mounted upon airfoils 22) and projecting outward from the outer side of the reference plane in the extension of the scoop (AT349: Fig. 3, chisels 27 and airfoils 22 project outward from the side of the links that engage with rollers 11) and the fingers oriented along an axis inclined with respect to the reference plane (AT349: fig. 3, chisels 27 are inclined with respect to reference plane 20).
Further, Meisel teaches that the link is characterized in that the link has fingers born by a scoop (Meisel: Fig. 6, Cutting tool 25 is contained within mounting hub 105) and projecting outward from the outer side of the reference plane in the extension of the scoop (Meisel: Fig. 6, cutting tool 25 projects outwardly from the plane defined by the link 101) and the fingers oriented along an axis inclined with respect to the reference plane (Meisel: Fig. 6, cutting tool 25 is oriented at an incline with respect to the reference plane defined by link 101).
Regarding Claim 10: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 9.
AT349 further teaches that the fingers are located above the plane perpendicular to the parallel axes of the front and rear through holes and tangent to a lower end of said scoop (AT349: Fig. 3, Chisels 27 are located above plane 20 and tangent to airfoil 22 and blade 23).
Further, Meisel teaches that the fingers are located above the plane perpendicular to the parallel axes of the front and rear through holes and tangent to a lower end of said scoop (Meisel: Fig. 6, cutting tools 25 are located above the plane defined by the link 101’s front and rear through holes 101a and tangent to the lower end of mounting hub 105).
Regarding Claim 12: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches the apparatus described in Claim 1.
AT349 further teaches that the body is in one piece produced by foundry, with or without machining of the front and rear holes or the guide surfaces (AT349: Page 4, Lin 17-24, the plate and the blade are formed in one piece via casting).
Regarding Claim 13: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the excavating chain of claim 1 (See claim 1).
Regarding Claim 16: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 2.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 2, Meisel further teaches wherein the guide surface extends along a guiding curve having at least partially the shape of a circular arc (Fig. 3, the concave surface of link 101 follows at least partially a circular arc).
Regarding Claim 17: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 4.
While AT349 in view of Meisel does not specify the length of the concave guide surface relative to the distance separating the through holes, the arc length, and therefore the longitudinal length of the concave guide surface relative to the through holes of the link, would be determined by the radius of the return member, and would be a result-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the arc length of the concave surface of the link, and the longitudinal extent relative to the through holes of the link taught by AT349 in view of Meisel would be a characterized by routine experimentation to achieve an optimal result, and therefore a results-effective variable and obvious to try, such that the longitudinal extent of the concave guide surface would extend past the through holes of the link to match the radius of the return member (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Claims 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT349 in view of Meisel, further in view of Camilleri as part of US 5212895 A, hereinafter referred to as Camilleri.
AT349 in view of Meisel teaches the apparatus described above in claim 1.
AT349 in view of Meisel does not teach of a rearwardly extending stop and a counter stop on the rearward link.
Camilleri teaches of an endless chain apparatus for cutting teeth, wherein a forward link comprises a projecting part (Cutting teeth 80) with rearwardly extending stop (control arm 83) and a counter stop on the rearward link (Block 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to combine the stoppage mechanism taught by Camilleri with the apparatus described by AT349 in view of Meisel to create a device that reduces the torque placed on the cutting apparatus, and therefore the linkage (Camilleri: Col. 2, line 6-9).
Regarding Claim 11: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches the apparatus described above in claim 1.
AT349 in view of Meisel teaches that the links comprise a projecting part (AT349: Fig. 3, each chain 7 has an airfoil body 22 protruding from base 16 perpendicular to plane 20).
Camilleri teaches of an endless chain apparatus for cutting teeth, wherein a forward link comprises a projecting part (Cutting teeth 80) with rearwardly extending stop (control arm 83) and a counter stop on the rearward link (Block 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to combine the projection taught by AT349 in view of Meisel with the stop mechanism taught by Camilleri to create a linkage more resistant to torque being placed upon the apparatus (Camilleri: Col. 2, line 6-9). In light of that modification, it would also be obvious to include the counter-stop mechanism taught by Camilleri in the apparatus taught by AT349 in view of Meisel on the protrusion of the rearward link to provide a place for the stop mechanism to engage with to reduce the torque placed upon the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 14: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 13.
AT349 in view of Meisel further teaches wherein the links of chain comprise at least one of:
a link comprising a scoop (AT349: Fig. 1-4, links 7 comprise a projecting portion comprising blade 23; Meisel: Fig. 6, link 101 comprises mounting hub 105)
a link of the type without a projecting part (AT349: Fig. 3, intermediate link 18 has no projecting part; Meisel: Fig. 6, links 102 are shown to not possess a projecting part).
AT349 in view of Meisel does not tech of a link comprising a counter stop.
Camilleri teaches of an endless chain apparatus for cutting teeth, wherein a forward link comprises a projecting part (Cutting teeth 80) with rearwardly extending stop (control arm 83) and a counter stop on the rearward link (Block 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to combine the projection taught by AT349 in view of Meisel with the stop mechanism taught by Camilleri to create a linkage more resistant to torque being placed upon the apparatus (Camilleri: Col. 2, line 6-9). In light of that modification, it would also be obvious to include the counter-stop mechanism taught by Camilleri in the apparatus taught by AT349 in view of Meisel on the protrusion of the rearward link to provide a place for the stop mechanism to engage with to reduce the torque placed upon the apparatus.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT349 in view of Meisel, further in view of Theurer as part of EP 0737779 A1, hereinafter referred to as Theurer.
Regarding Claim 8: AT349 in view of Meisel teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
AT349 in view of Meisel does not teach of at least one of the through holes configured to receive hinge means with an adjacent link of the chain having a flat surface so as to bock an axis of the hinge means in rotation.
Theurer teaches of a clearing chain with finger shaped carriers made to convey and clear ballast from a railway track bed (Theurer: Col. 1, line 1-10) comprising through holes to receive a hinge means with an adjacent link (Theurer: Through holes allow connection of fingers to chain links 2; Col. 2, Line 35-43) has a flat surface so as to block an axis of the hinge means in rotation (Theurer: Fig. 2, through holes comprise flat interior edges which show an additional method of securement to the link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the rounded through holes of AT349 in view of Meisel with the flat interior surface and additional securement method of Theurer to create a linkage that is less likely to rotate or fail under torsional stress without any substantial modification to the individual elements (MPEP 2143, Subsection 1, B).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT349 in view of Meisel, further in view of Camilleri further in view of Theurer.
Regarding Claim 18: AT349 in view of Protzeller, further in view of Camilleri teach of the apparatus described in claim 11.
AT349 in view of Meisel, further in view of Camilleri do not teach of the angle by which the engagement members protrude with respect to the reference plane being between 70 and 75 degrees. AT349 teaches that the angle used is 45 degrees.
Theurer teaches of a clearing chain with finger shaped carriers made to convey and clear ballast from a railway track bed (Theurer: Col. 1, line 1-10). Theurer does not explicitly state that the angle of said fingers is between the aforementioned 70-75 degrees relative to the reference plane that contains the axes of the through holes which join said links together. As can be seen in Fig. 1 of Theurer, the angle from which the engagement members protrude appears to be approaching, but does not reach, 90 degrees. In light of the variance of angle seen in the prior art, the angle of protrusion relative to the reference plane may be seen as a results effective variable. AT349 further teaches that the chisels are subject to an extremely high level of stress in operation, and due to the arrangement of the chisels on the protrusions, the upper chisels are subject to bending stresses due to their inclination from the track plane while the lower chisels are subject to mostly compressive stress (AT349: Page 2, Line 25-33). Therefore, it would have been held obvious to find the ideal angle of protrusion to minimize torsional stresses and maximize the efficacy of the excavating fingers taught by Theurer and by AT349 in view of Meisel, further in view of Camilleri would be characterized by routine experimentation to achieve an optimal result, and therefore would be result of known result-effective variable, such that the angle may lie before, between, or above the aforementioned 70-75 degree range. (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sterwerf as part of US 4717206 A teaches of an excavating chain assembly, wherein the chain comprises a series of interconnected links, wherein the chain is configured to be guided on a travel path by bevel return members, each link comprising a body extending longitudinally between a front and rear end being crossed by at least one through hole configured to receive a hinge means with an adjacent link in the chain, the front and rear through hole extending parallel to one another contained within a reference plane of the body, the link being characterized by an inner and outer side, a concave guide surface extending over an envelope having an axis generator parallel to the axes of the link, and a first convex surface extending between the concave guide surface and the front end, and a second convex surface extending between the concave guide surface and the rear end.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/Matthew Troutman/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679