DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, line 10 “a retractable ball tensioned upward” is being interpretated as “a retractable ball biased upward.” In other words, the word “tensioned” is not understood as narrowly referring to a state of pure tension applied to the ball (i.e. denoting a pulling action, which does not seem to be the case in the instant disclosure), tension normally being understood as opposite to a compression state (i.e. denoting a pushing action, which is what the instant application seems to disclose). No correction is required.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/27/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1 has been amended, while all other claims 2-6 and 8 have been maintained as previously presented in the application. Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejections under 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1-6 and 8 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 (‘Remarks’, page 5-12), regarding all claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but in light of amendment and in view of further consideration – are not found persuasive.
In view of argument [‘Remarks’, pages 6-9], the applicant submits to introduce “a retractable element ball (8) tensionedarbitrary position, including at one of the 3 alternative positions shown in Fig. 6, including one being rotated specifically at 90° relative to the bolt. Given Anzia’s explicit teaching of a limited number of alternative relative positions , which a person of ordinary skill in the art may select from, the retractable ball can be located downward in one of the recessed groove 35 among four available grooves as depicted in fig. 6 which makes the retractable ball to align vertical and biased upward, in such that it will allow the ball retracting in a direction that is orthogonal to both the threaded bolt and the wheel shaft, while also being tensioned upwardly. Therefore, the configuration represents a straightforward variation for one of ordinary skilled artisan’s design choice that maintain the same underlying operation and functional interaction of the anti-turn mechanism as required by added limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 remains obvious. See details in the rejection presented below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai (US Pub. 20060055147 A1) in view of Kitagawa Shigeto (JPS63297182 A; hereinafter ‘Shigeto’).
Regarding claim 1, Anzai discloses: a chain tensioner device (11, figs.1 to 5, [0026]) that, applicable to be dually incorporated [‘abstract’] on both sides of a wheel shaft of a rear wheel (7) of a motorcycle or vehicle (body frame 1) on which it is installed, comprises:
a threaded bolt (30, [0033]) for adjusting tension on a chain (10), that remains inserted in a first part (21, fig. 5) integral with the wheel shaft (shown in fig. 4, axle 6 is being interpreted as ‘wheel shaft 6’), arranged in horizonal position (front-rear direction of the vehicle, fig. 4 and [0033]), so that a tip (31) of the threaded bolt (30, fig. 5) presses on a second part (25) integral at an opposite end of a gear (claim 17, line 1-11, page 5), so that tightening or loosening the threaded bolt (30) determines a gap (20, fig. 4) between both the first part (21 or 25) to regulate the tension of the chain [ see claim 9 where Anzai discloses “tension-adjusting bolt comprises head and a shank”], and
a discretization mechanism of the gap (20, fig. 4) between the first part (21) and the second part (25) comprises at least a retractable ball ( 36, fig. 5) either in the threaded bolt (30) or in the first part (21) that contacts and is fitted (fig. 5) in one of the series of slots (33, figs. 4-5) provided either in the threaded bolt (30) or in the first part (21) so that it is possible to know the applicable tightening or loosening [0046] of the threaded bolt (30);
Anzai further teaches a retractable ball tensioned (i.e. biased, see discussion above) laterally/horizontally (see fig. 4; instead of “upward” as claimed) and retracting in a direction that is orthogonal to the threaded bolt (figs. 4-5).
Anzai therefore teaches most limitations, except that the direction of ball retraction is not “upward” and not orthogonal to the wheel shaft.
As depicted in fig. 4, the Anzai configuration depicts the threaded bolt as orthogonal to the wheel shaft. Paragraphs. 0048 and 0050 further teach or suggest that the anti-turn function may be achieved at an arbitrary position along the axial direction. Given this express guidance to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select any arbitrary axial position, in particular any of the finite number (4) of choices shown in fig. 6 the retractable ball may be located or shifted downward in the anti-turn recessed groove 35. In such an arrangement, the retractable ball is biased upward and retracts along a direction that remains orthogonal to the threaded bolt, while also becoming orthogonal to the wheel shaft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have and position the retractable ball in such that it can be biased upward and retracting in a direction that is orthogonal to both the threaded bolt and the wheel shaft (as Anzai’s initial configurations simply rotated by 90°, further expressly taught by Anzai, see above) with a reasonable expectation of success, in such that the orthogonal biasing isolates the anti-turn force from the rotational axes, thereby reducing unintended torque transfer, and thus improve the reliability of the anti-turn engagement. Such an arrangement enhances stability and repeatability of the locking interaction, particularly under dynamic loading, and therefore constitute predictable structural modification as suggested by the arbitrary positioning of Anzai [Par. 0041].
Additionally, at the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Anzai by shifting the retractable ball downward and biasing it upward such that the components are orthogonal to the wheel shaft because as such a relocation merely adjusts the positional relationship of known components without altering their operation. Applicant has not disclosed that the added limitations as required by claim 1 provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with that had already been known from the prior art of record. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the existing prior art element as taught by Anzai to obtain the invention as claimed.
Anzai as disclosed above differs from the claimed invention such that a threaded bolt for adjusting tension on a chain, that remains inserted in a first part integral with the wheel shaft, wherein a base of the threaded bolt is accessible from the rear part of the shaft, through a hole pierced in the first part; however,
Shigeto (referring to fig. 2) in another rear wheel supporter for motorcycle similar to Anzai discloses that a threaded bolt (39, fig. 2) for adjusting tension on a chain (15) [ para. 0001 teaches: “adjusting the tension of the chain 15. When the tightening bolt 39 is then tightened, the hub 22 is fastened and fixed at the rear wheel axle mounting portion 19, and the chain 15 is adjusted”], that remains inserted in a first part integral (fig. 2) with the wheel shaft (12) [ para. 0001 teaches:“ fastening bolt 39 is inserted into the rear portion 19a of the rear wheel axle mounting portion 19 perpendicular to the axle direction (note that: ‘first part integral”) and engages with this annular groove 38, and this fastening bolt 39 secures the hub 22 to the rear wheel axle mounting portion 19 of the rear arm 9”], wherein a base (rear portion 19a) of the threaded bolt (39) is accessible from the rear part (see fig. 2 for rear part) of the shaft (axle shaft 12), through a hole (where 39 is inserted) pierced in the first part (see annotated fig. 2 below).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Anzai to incorporate the teaching of Shigeto and provide the threaded bolt inserted integrally in a first part with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to advantageously optimize the known mechanical design and integrate a threaded bolt for adjusting tension that remains inserted in a first part formed integrally with the support member, as taught by Shigeto.
The reference already discloses an integrated tensioning structure using a tightening bolt engaging an axle hub groove or hole to adjust chain tension. Using a threaded bolt retained withing the integral part is a predictable design choice of alternative design configuration and mere substitution of equivalent elements performing the same function in the same manner to achieve the same result. In doing so, the hub is tightened and fixed by a bolt through the slit or hole in the rear wheel axle mounting portion [0001 of Shigeto].
PNG
media_image1.png
802
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Shigeto.
Regarding claim 2, Anzai as modified above further discloses that the chain tensioner device (11) is characterized in that the discretization mechanism of the gap (20) between the first part (21) and the second part (25) comprises:
in the first part (21), a retractable ball (36) inserted in an end of a plunger (39, fig. 5) with an internal spring (38, [0020]) that tends to push ([0038]) the retractable ball (36) outwards the plunger (39, fig. 5); and
in the threaded bolt (30) one of the series of slots (33, fig. 5) in which the retractable ball (36) contacts and is fitted [ 0035, line 1-5].
Regarding claim 5, Anzai as modified above further teaches that the chain tensioner device (11 of Anzai), characterized in that the threaded bolt (39, fig. 2 of
Shigeto) remains fully inserted (fig. 2 of Shigeto) in the part integral (“integral part”, annotated fig. 2 above) with the wheel shaft (axle part 12, fig. 2 of Shigeto).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1, Anzai as modified above further teaches that the chain tensioner device (11 of Anzai), characterized in that the tip (31, fig. 4-5 of Anzai) of the bolt (30 of Anzai) is flat [ shown in fig. 4, the tip end portion of the bolt 30 is flat, also see fig. 5 of Anzai].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai in view of Shigeto and further in view of Clayton (US 20040214671 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Anzai as modified above further teaches that the chain tensioner device (11), characterized in that the discretization mechanism of the gap (20, fig. 5) between the first part (21) and the second part (25) comprises:
in the threaded bolt (30), inserted in the ends of a plunger (plug 39) with an internal spring (38) that tends to push the said balls outwards the plunger (39), and
in the first part (21) one of the series of slots (33) are fitted.
Anzai teaches the first part and the second part that comprises the threaded bolt where plunger is inserted in ends of plunger with an internal spring that tends to push the plunger but fails to teach ‘two retractable balls’ inserted in the ends of the spring.
Clayton in another chain tensioner devices, similar to Anzai teaches a first ball and a second ball 22 [fig. 4 and para. 0025 and 0026] are housed and spring 21 is placed between the first and the second ball. Clayton further teaches that the first ball is under the action of spring connects valves of the tensioner 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the two balls inserted at the ends of the spring, as this is essential for allowing the internal spring to apply sufficient force to push the plunger as taught by Clayton into the invention of the modified Anzai with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously maintain a controlled and stable push to the chain tensioner device through the plunger, preventing unwanted shifting or misalignment that could affect performance, thus reducing manufacturing costs [para. 0012 of Clayton].
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzai in view of Shigeto and further in view of Veer et al. (US20200325967 A1; hereinafter “Veer”).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Anzai as modified above further teaches that the chain tensioner device (11) characterized in that the threaded bolt (30) is a headless bolt and provided at its base [shown in fig. 3 and 4 of Anzai, ‘tip end’ is positioned at the base on the opposite side of end 31 and is headless], but Anzai fails to teach that a machined recess and the recess is for inserting a tool, however,
Veer in another chain tensioning devices similar to Anzai teaches that a tensioning bar assembly for a tensioning assembly includes a longitudinal bar [equivalent to threaded bolt] having a top end, a bottom end, and a threaded portion and the proximate bottom end of the threaded bolt for engagement with a tool [‘abstract’]. See para. 0012, line 15-20 and fig. 3 where 102h end of the threaded bolt is headless and formed with recess to insert a tool.
Veer further discloses: “the engagement head at or proximate the bottom end of the bar (equivalent to ‘threaded bolt’ of claim invention) may be any one or more of: a triangle, square, pentagon or hex head or socket; a posidrive head or socket; a torx head or socket; a slotted or Phillips screwdriver receiving socket” [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate threaded bolt or bar which has a recess at its open end with respect to the through hole where a tool (hex tool) can be inserted as taught by Veer into the invention of the modified Anzai with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to advantageously configure a chain tensioning device where an open end of the threaded bolt can be engaged with a variety of tools for applying tension to the chain. This allows the longitudinal bar or a threaded bolt to rotate freely and permit free axial rotation [‘abstract’ of Veer].
Regarding claim 8, Anzai as modified above further teaches that the tool is a hex tool [ see claim rejection 4 above and para, 0021 of Veer where hex type tool is used].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 0504870 A to Alfred discloses: The invention relates to device for adjusting one of the chain wheels.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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 extension fee 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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM 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, Neacsu, Valentin can be reached on 571-272-6265. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights