DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 07/14/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending;
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 11-13 are currently amended; claims 3, 4, and 7-10 were previously presented; claim 5 has been cancelled; claims 14-21 have been withdrawn;
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected herein.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 14-21 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed (i.e., claims 1-4 and 6-13) for the following reason(s):
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept ("requirement of unity of invention"). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, Applicant is required to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
Group I, claims 1-4 and 6-13, drawn to a support and guiding apparatus for feeder lines.
Group II, claims 14-21, drawn to a drilling machine.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. In particular, the technical features shared between the invention of Group I and the invention of Group II are as follows:
"A support and guiding apparatus for feeder lines, comprising:
a feeding tube for a digging device;
a support branch; and
a plurality of transverse connecting elements or crosspieces adapted for guiding said feeding tube and connected to said support branch,
wherein said support branch comprises:
a single flexible traction element, defining a longitudinal X-axis when said flexible traction element is in an extended configuration, said flexible traction element having two opposite end sections and an intermediate section interposed between said end sections, said flexible traction element having, at least in the intermediate section, a cross section (S) in a YZ-plane perpendicular with respect to said longitudinal X-axis, said cross section (S) being substantially constant all along the intermediate section along the longitudinal X-axis, said cross section (S) having a width (B) extending in a direction which defines a Y-axis and a thickness or height (H) extending in a direction which defines a Z-axis where said width (B) is greater than said thickness or height (H); and
a plurality of spacer elements coupled to said single flexible traction element, each one of said spacer elements having a first seat housing the flexible traction element and which is crossed by the flexible traction element, said first seat of each one of said spacer elements being shaped in such a way as to orient said flexible traction element along a lying XY-plane, and to prevent rotation of each one of the spacer elements around the longitudinal X-axis, each one of said spacer elements being arranged to allow rotation of the support branch around a rotation axis, said rotation axis being parallel with respect to said Y-axis" (claim 1, lines 1-26; also see claim 14).
The foregoing technical features shared between the invention of Group I and the invention of Group II are not special technical features, since they do not make a contribution over the prior art, e.g., in view of Mole (GB 951478 A).
Mole discloses a support and guiding apparatus (A, B, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7, c8, figs 1 & 5, also see annotation below, c8 refers to the bolts that connect the blocks c2, c3, see page 1, lines 55-76) for feeder lines (see Figure 1, the support and guiding apparatus A, B, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7, c8 is capable of performing the above intended use), comprising:
a feeding tube (A, fig 1, see abstract, flexible pipes are used in place of cables for the supply of fluids) for a digging device (see Figure 1, the feeding tube A is capable of performing the above intended use);
a support branch (B, c, c1, c4, c5, fig 1); and
a plurality of transverse connecting elements or crosspieces (c2, c3, c6, c7, c8, figs 1 & 5, also see annotation below, c8 refers to the bolts that connect the blocks c2, c3, see page 1, lines 55-76) adapted for guiding said feeding tube (see Figure 1, the crosspieces c2, c3, c6, c7, c8 are capable of performing the above intended use) and connected to said support branch (see Figure 1),
wherein said support branch comprises:
a single flexible traction element (B, fig 1), defining a longitudinal X-axis when said flexible traction element is in an extended configuration (see Figure 1, also see annotation below), said flexible traction element having two opposite end sections (see Figure 1, see page 1, lines 77-80, page 2, lines 28, the opposite securing end sections, also see annotation below) and an intermediate section (see Figure 1, the intermediate section between the opposite securing end sections, also see annotation below) interposed between said end sections (see Figure 1), said flexible traction element having, at least in the intermediate section, a cross section in a YZ-plane perpendicular with respect to said longitudinal X-axis (see Figures 1 and 5, also see annotation below), said cross section being substantially constant all along the intermediate section along the longitudinal X-axis (see Figures 1 and 5), said cross section having a width extending in a direction which defines a Y-axis and a thickness or height extending in a direction which defines a Z-axis where said width is greater than said thickness or height (see Figures 1 and 5, also see annotation below); and
a plurality of spacer elements (c, c1, c4, c5, fig 1) coupled to said single flexible traction element (see Figure 1), each one of said spacer elements having a first seat (c4, fig 1, also see annotation below) housing the flexible traction element and which is crossed by the flexible traction element (see Figure 1), said first seat of each one of said spacer elements being shaped in such a way as to orient said flexible traction element along a lying XY-plane (see Figures 1 and 5, also see annotation below, the first seat c4 is capable of performing the above intended use), and to prevent rotation of each one of the spacer elements around the longitudinal X-axis (see Figures 1 and 5, the first seat c4 is capable of performing the above intended use), each one of said spacer elements being arranged to allow rotation of the support branch around a rotation axis, said rotation axis being parallel with respect to said Y-axis (see Figures 1 and 5, each one of the spacer elements c, c1, c4, c5 is capable of performing the above intended use).
[AltContent: textbox (End Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Intermediate Section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
780
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Z-Axis)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Y-Axis)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (X-Axis)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (c4 – First Seat)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Width)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (End Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Z-Axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Cross Section)][AltContent: textbox (c8 – Bolt )][AltContent: textbox (Thickness or Height)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Y-Axis)][AltContent: arrow]
Since Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention (claims 1-4 and 6-13), this invention (claims 1-4 and 6-13) has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 14-21 have been withdrawn by the Examiner from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Mole (GB 951478 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that Mole fails to disclose the newly added limitations to claim 1, i.e., "wherein each of said spacer elements has opposite faces opposite to each other in a direction of X-axis, and each of said opposite faces has an outside convex shape which is symmetrical with respect to the first seat" (claim 1, lines 27-29). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since such newly added limitations are still disclosed by Mole. Applicant is hereby directed to the detailed rejection of claim 1 set forth below in the current Office action.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed 07/14/2025 have not been entered because they introduce new matter into the original disclosure of the present application. Note that 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the original disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Newly Added Figure 12 – The spacer element (30) depicted in the newly added Figure 12 is not disclosed by the original disclosure of the present application. Therefore, the newly added Figure 12 in the replacement drawings filed 07/14/2025 is considered as new matter.
Since the replacement drawings filed 07/14/2025 have not been entered for introducing new matter into the original disclosure of the present application, the drawing objections presented in the Office action mailed 01/17/2025 are maintained.
The drawings filed 01/31/2023 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the reference character "36" in Figure 6 has been used to designate both the abutment portion and the relief portion.
The drawings filed 01/31/2023 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "38" (page 23, line 16).
The drawings filed 01/31/2023 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "wherein each one of said spacer elements is monolithic or made from a single shell" (claim 7, lines 2 and 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings filed 01/31/2023 are objected to because of the following informality:
Figure 10B – As annotated below, the identified reference number "41C" and the reference line therefor should be removed.
PNG
media_image2.png
512
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (The identified reference number "41C" and the reference line therefor should be removed.)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: oval]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 07/14/2025 and the amendments to the abstract filed 07/14/2025 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-4 and 6-13, both "said" and "the" are interchangeably used for the same elements. It is recommended that either "said" or "the" be used for consistency.
Claim 1, line 28, "of X-axis" appears to be --of the longitudinal X-axis--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations: "each of said opposite faces has an outside convex shape which is symmetrical with respect to the first seat" (claim 1, lines 28 and 29). As best understood, the drawings show each spacer element (30) having opposite faces (34), wherein each of the opposite faces (34) of each spacer element (30) has an outside convex shape. However, there is no marking, text, or symbol in the drawings indicating that the outside convex shape of each of the opposite faces (34) of each spacer element (30) is "symmetrical with respect to the first seat [33]" as claimed. At best, the drawings merely show the outside convex shape of each of the opposite faces (34) of each spacer element (30) being substantially symmetrical with respect to the first seat (33). On the other hand, the specification does not disclose the outside convex shape of each of the opposite faces (34) of each spacer element (30) being "symmetrical with respect to the first seat [33]" as claimed. Therefore, the limitations "each of said opposite faces has an outside convex shape which is symmetrical with respect to the first seat" (claim 1, lines 28 and 29) are considered as new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4 and 6-13 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "which is" in line 21 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "which is" in line 21 refers to the limitation "each one of said spacer elements" in lines 19 and 20 or the limitation "a first seat" in line 20. Note that this rejection was previously presented in the Office action mailed 01/17/2025 and has not been addressed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "said opposite faces" in line 28 is indefinite. Note that the limitations in lines 27 and 28 state "each of said spacer elements has opposite faces." It is not clear as to whose opposite faces (i.e., the opposite faces of which one of the spacer elements) the limitation "said opposite faces" in line 28 refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "the first seat" in line 29 is indefinite. Note that the limitations in lines 19 and 20 state "each one of said spacer elements having a first seat." It is not clear as to whose first seat (i.e., the first seat of which one of the spacer elements) the limitation "the first seat" in line 29 refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation "two opposite faces" in claim 2 (line 3) is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "two opposite faces" in claim 2 (line 3) and the newly added limitation "opposite faces" in claim 1 (line 27) refer to the same opposite faces or different opposite faces. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 4, and 6-13 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-3 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mole (GB 951478 A), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole (GB 951478 A), alone.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant is reminded that the "feeder lines" and the "digging device" are functionally recited as functional elements that are not required structures within the scope of claim 1. As such, any recitation directed to the "feeder lines" and/or the "digging device" is considered to be functional or intended use.
Mole discloses a support and guiding apparatus (A, B, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7, c8, figs 1 & 5, also see annotation below, c8 refers to the bolts that connect the blocks c2, c3, see page 1, lines 55-76) for feeder lines (see Figure 1, the support and guiding apparatus A, B, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, c7, c8 is capable of performing the above intended use), comprising:
a feeding tube (A, fig 1, see abstract, flexible pipes are used in place of cables for the supply of fluids) for a digging device (see Figure 1, the feeding tube A is capable of performing the above intended use);
a support branch (B, c, c1, c4, c5, fig 1); and
a plurality of transverse connecting elements or crosspieces (c2, c3, c6, c7, c8, figs 1 & 5, also see annotation below, c8 refers to the bolts that connect the blocks c2, c3, see page 1, lines 55-76) adapted for guiding said feeding tube (see Figure 1, the crosspieces c2, c3, c6, c7, c8 are capable of performing the above intended use) and connected to said support branch (see Figure 1),
wherein said support branch comprises:
a single flexible traction element (B, fig 1), defining a longitudinal X-axis when said flexible traction element is in an extended configuration (see Figure 1, also see annotation below), said flexible traction element having two opposite end sections (see Figure 1, see page 1, lines 77-80, page 2, lines 28, the opposite securing end sections, also see annotation below) and an intermediate section (see Figure 1, the intermediate section between the opposite securing end sections, also see annotation below) interposed between said end sections (see Figure 1), said flexible traction element having, at least in the intermediate section, a cross section in a YZ-plane perpendicular with respect to said longitudinal X-axis (see Figures 1 and 5, also see annotation below), said cross section being substantially constant all along the intermediate section along the longitudinal X-axis (see Figures 1 and 5), said cross section having a width extending in a direction which defines a Y-axis and a thickness or height extending in a direction which defines a Z-axis where said width is greater than said thickness or height (see Figures 1 and 5, also see annotation below); and
a plurality of spacer elements (c, c1, c4, c5, fig 1) coupled to said single flexible traction element (see Figure 1), each one of said spacer elements having a first seat (c4, fig 1, also see annotation below) housing the flexible traction element and which is crossed by the flexible traction element (see Figure 1), said first seat of each one of said spacer elements being shaped in such a way as to orient said flexible traction element along a lying XY-plane (see Figures 1 and 5, also see annotation below, the first seat c4 is capable of performing the above intended use), and to prevent rotation of each one of the spacer elements around the longitudinal X-axis (see Figures 1 and 5, the first seat c4 is capable of performing the above intended use), each one of said spacer elements being arranged to allow rotation of the support branch around a rotation axis, said rotation axis being parallel with respect to said Y-axis (see Figures 1 and 5, each one of the spacer elements c, c1, c4, c5 is capable of performing the above intended use),
wherein each of said spacer elements has opposite faces (c9, fig 3, see annotation below, the two opposite faces) opposite to each other in a direction of X-axis (see Figures 1, 3, and 4), and each of said opposite faces has an outside convex shape (see Figures 1, 3, and 4) which is symmetrical with respect to the first seat (see Figure 1; as shown in Figure 1, the left half portion of the outside convex shape of each face c9 of each spacer element c, c1, c4, c5 is symmetrical to the right half portion of the outside convex shape of each face c9 of each spacer element c, c1, c4, c5 with respect to the first seat c4 of each spacer element c, c1, c4, c5).
[AltContent: textbox (Symmetrical Outside Convex Shape)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (End Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Intermediate Section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
780
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Z Axis)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Y Axis)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (X Axis)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (c4 – First Seat)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Width)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (End Section)]
[AltContent: textbox (Z Axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Cross Section)][AltContent: textbox (c8 – Bolt )][AltContent: textbox (Thickness or Height)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Y Axis)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (c9 – Face )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (c9 – Face )][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
250
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Z Axis)]
[AltContent: textbox (X Axis)]
[AltContent: textbox (Line of Symmetry)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Symmetrical Outside Convex Shape of Face (c9))]
PNG
media_image4.png
190
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Right Half Portion of Symmetrical Outside Convex Shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Left Half Portion of Symmetrical Outside Convex Shape)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (c4 – First Seat)]
[AltContent: textbox (Line of Symmetry)]
[AltContent: textbox (Annotation of Selected Portion of Figure 1)]
Mole is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Assuming Applicant argues that the outside convex shape of each of said opposite faces (c9, fig 3, see annotation) is not symmetrical with respect to the first seat (c4, fig 1) as shown in the annotation of the selected portion of Figure 1 above, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the outside convex shape of each of said opposite faces (c9, fig 3, see annotation) of each of the spacer elements (c, c1, c4, c5, fig 1) to be symmetrical with respect to the first seat (c4, fig 1) of each of the spacer elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The motivation would have been to allow each of the spacer elements to be conveniently usable with either one of the two belts due to its symmetrical nature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mole to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein said first seat of each one of said spacer elements is made as a through cavity (c4, fig 3) extending longitudinally between two opposite faces (c9, fig 3, see annotation above, the two opposite faces) of said spacer element and defining on said opposite faces two openings having an elongated shape in a direction parallel with respect to the Y-axis (see Figures 1, 3, and 5).
Regarding claim 3, wherein said spacer elements are slidably coupled to the flexible traction element (see Figure 1, see page 1, lines 59-63).
Regarding claim 6, wherein each one of said spacer elements comprises a first half-shell (c, fig 1) and a second half-shell (c1, fig 1) placed one above the other and constrained to each other (see Figure 1).
Claims 4 and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole (GB 951478 A) in view of Shin (US 9,576,705 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Mole does not disclose (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1, does not teach) the support and guiding apparatus, wherein said spacer elements are coupled in an axially fixed way to the flexible traction element.
Shin teaches a support branch (200, fig 7) comprising: a single flexible traction element (210, fig 7); and a plurality of spacer elements (230, 250, 270, fig 8) coupled in an axially fixed way to the flexible traction element (col 6, lines 29-36).
PNG
media_image5.png
328
484
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shin is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple the spacer elements (Mole: c, c1, c4, c5, fig 1) in an axially fixed way (Shin: col 6, lines 29-36) to the flexible traction element (Mole: B, fig 1), as taught by Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to prevent the spacer elements from unwantedly coming off from the flexible traction element in the event that the user mishandled the support branch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mole and Shin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, Mole discloses (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1, teaches) the support and guiding apparatus, wherein each one of said transverse connecting elements or crosspieces comprises:
at least a through guide seat (c10, fig 5, see annotation below, see page 1, lines 7-76, the compartments defined by the blocks c2, c3, the sleeves c7, and the bolts) adapted to guide said feeding tube (see Figure 5);
at least one through engagement seat (c11, fig 5, see annotation below, the seat defined by the blocks c2, c3), suitable to couple the transverse connecting elements or crosspieces to the flexible traction element (see Figure 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
197
589
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (c11 – Through Engagement Seat)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (c10 – Through Guide Seat)][AltContent: arrow]
Mole does not disclose (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1, does not teach) the support and guiding apparatus, wherein the at least one through engagement seat of each one of said transverse connecting elements or crosspieces is suitable to fix the transverse connecting elements or crosspieces to the flexible traction element.
Shin teaches a support branch (200, fig 7) comprising: a single flexible traction element (210, fig 7); and a plurality of spacer elements (230, 250, 270, fig 8) each having a through engagement seat (230a, fig 8, see annotation below, the through seat of the base 230) suitable to fix the spacer elements to the flexible traction element (col 6, lines 29-36).
PNG
media_image7.png
600
498
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (230a – Through Engagement Seat)]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the at least one through engagement seat (Mole: c11, fig 5, see annotation above) of each one of the transverse connecting elements or crosspieces (Mole: c2, c3, c6, c7, c8, figs 1 & 5, see annotation above) to be suitable to fix the transverse connecting elements or crosspieces to the flexible traction element (Mole: B, fig 1; Shin: col 6, lines 29-36), as taught by Shin, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to prevent the crosspieces from unwantedly coming off from the flexible traction element in the event that the user mishandled the support branch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mole and Shin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole (GB 951478 A) in view of Sheikholeslami et al. (US 6,858,797 B2), hereinafter Sheikholeslami.
Regarding claim 7, Mole does not disclose (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1, does not teach) the support and guiding apparatus, wherein each one of said spacer elements is monolithic or made from a single shell.
Sheikholeslami teaches a support branch (10, fig 2A) comprising: a single flexible traction element (12, fig 2A); and a plurality of spacer elements (14, fig 2A), wherein each one of said spacer elements is monolithic or made from a single shell (see Figures 1, 2, 2A, and 2B, also see col 6, lines 8-22).
PNG
media_image8.png
292
580
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Sheikholeslami is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each one of said spacer elements (Mole: c, c1, c4, c5, fig 1) to be monolithic or from a single shell (Sheikholeslami: 14, fig 2A, see Figures 1, 2, 2A, and 2B, also see col 6, lines 8-22), as taught by Sheikholeslami, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enhance the integrity of the support branch. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Mole and Sheikholeslami to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claims 8-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mole (GB 951478 A), alone.
Regarding claim 8, Mole does not disclose (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1, does not teach) the support and guiding apparatus, wherein Mole is silent as to whether or not said flexible traction element is made up of fabric.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form said flexible traction element (B, fig 1) from fabric, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to provide great flexibility to the flexible traction element without easily breaking due to repeated bending. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mole to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 8, does not teach the support and guiding apparatus, wherein said fabric is constituted of synthetic or plastic material yarns.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form said flexible traction element (B, fig 1) from fabric constituted of synthetic or plastic material yarns, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to provide great flexibility to the flexible traction element without easily breaking due to repeated bending. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mole to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 8, does not teach the support and guiding apparatus, wherein said fabric is at least partially or entirely made of metallic yarns.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form said flexible traction element (B, fig 1) from fabric at least partially or entirely made of metallic yarns, with a reasonable expectation of success, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to provide great flexibility to the flexible traction element without easily breaking due to repeated bending. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mole to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Mole discloses (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1, teaches) the support and guiding apparatus, wherein the width of the cross section is greater than the height or thickness of the cross section (see Figures 1 and 5).
Mole (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1) is silent as to whether or not the width of the cross section is at least 3 times greater than the height or thickness of the cross section.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the width of the cross section to be at least 3 times greater than the height or thickness of the cross section, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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). The motivation would have been to provide enhanced support of the spacer elements and the crosspieces on the flexible traction element with a larger bearing area between the spacer elements and the flexible traction element and a larger bearing area between the crosspieces and the flexible traction element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mole to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Mole discloses (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1, teaches) the support and guiding apparatus, wherein the width of the cross section is greater than the height or thickness of the cross section (see Figures 1 and 5).
Mole (alternatively, Mole, as modified with respect to claim 1) is silent as to whether or not the width of the cross section is at least 4 times greater than the height or thickness of the cross section.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the width of the cross section to be at least 4 times greater than the height or thickness of the cross section, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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). The motivation would have been to provide enhanced support of the spacer elements and the crosspieces on the flexible traction element with a larger bearing area between the spacer elements and the flexible traction element and a larger bearing area between the crosspieces and the flexible traction element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mole to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
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 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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631