DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the link plates" in line two of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodensteiner US 9,003,758 B2 as in view of Spӧ rrer US 7,472,539 B2. Bodensteiner US 9,003,758 B2, to be referred as the Bodensteiner patent, and Spӧ rrer US 7,472,539 B2, to be referred as the Spӧ rrer patent.
Regarding claim 1, Bodensteiner discloses a link plate (Bodensteiner – 7) wherein connecting pins (Bodensteiner – 8) pivotably couple the link plates together to form a chain (Bodensteiner Col. 8, Lines 30-35: The outer chain links 3 comprise two outer link plates (7) arranged with a distance there between and two chain pins (8) connecting the outer link plates (7) to each other and arranged with a parallel distance relative to each other. The chain pins (8) are pressed into corresponding pin openings 9 of the outer link plates (7)), each link plate (Bodensteiner – 7) having a sliding end face (Bodensteiner – 15, 16) at least on one side in an up and down direction for sliding contact with a guide member (Bodensteiner Col. 5, Lines 61-64: Preferably, exclusively at least a part of the inner link plates or exclusively at least a part of the outer link plates may comprise a link plate back (15, 16) that can be brought into a sliding contact with a tensioner blade or guide rail.). Bodensteiner discloses the radius R of the curvature of the link plate back 15 and the link plate belly 16 corresponds to half the thickness d of the inner link plate 4 (column 13, lines 50-53) but does not disclose the claimed invention wherein the link plate shaped to satisfy 16.8 ≥ ((r * 2 / t2) + (t - r * 2)) / r ≥ 11.5, where r represents a minimum radius of curvature of the end face rounded portions and “t” represents the plate thickness of the link plate . However, Bodensteiner discloses the radius of curvature corresponding to half the thickness which would satisfy the formula if the radius of curvature=0.030-0.043 and thickness=0.060-0.085. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the link plate shaped to satisfy 16.8 ≥ ((r * 2 / t2) + (t - r * 2)) / r ≥ 11.5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Changing the thickness increases stability of the link; thus, making the thickness modification a result effective parameter.
MPEP 2144.05 Section (II)(A) states the following regarding routine optimization: "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382). Applicant claims a relationship between a link plate thickness “t” and a minimum radius of curvature “r” of the end face rounded portions of the link plate can be optimized, wherein an optimum numerical range exists, 16.8 ≥ ((r * 2 / t2) + (t - r * 2)) / r ≥ 11.5. Bodensteiner discloses a link plate, wherein if r=0.030-0.043 & t=0.060-0.085, then the link plate shape is 16.67 – 11.88. It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range (See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Bodensteiner also fails to disclose wherein the sliding end face including end face rounded portions at both ends in a direction of plate thickness of the link plate, the end face rounded portions formed to be continuous with both side faces of the link plate.
Spӧ rrer teaches wherein the sliding end face (See Spӧ rrer FIG. below) including end face rounded portions (Spӧ rrer – 4,5) at both ends in a direction of plate thickness of the link plate, the end face rounded portions (Spӧ rrer – 4,5) formed to be continuous with both side faces of the link plate (Spӧ rrer – 1) (Spӧ rrer Col. 2, Lines 48-50: The first embodiment of the chain in accordance with the invention shown in FIG. 1 is a link plate (1) having an elongated shape and rounded ends.; FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
268
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Spӧ rrer FIG. 1
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify both end faces of the link plate to be rounded, as taught by Spӧ rrer, given that it is known within the art that a rounded surface reduces friction when the rounded surface is in constant contact with another surface.
Regarding claim 2, Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer disclose the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer further discloses a link plate thickness. However, Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer does not expressly disclose the link plate thickness between 1.65 mm and 0.80 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the link plate of Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer to have a link plate thickness between 1.65 mm and 0.80 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the link plate of Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer would not operate differently being within the claimed thickness.
Regarding claim 3, Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer discloses a link plate, wherein the sliding end face (Bodensteiner – 15,16) is convexly rounded along a running direction of the chain when viewed from a side of the link plate (Bodensteiner -7) (Bodensteiner Col. 13, Lines 40-46: It can be seen in FIG. 20 that both the link plate back (15) and the link plate belly (16) have a convexly curved shape. The cut is made exactly along the bore center line BM which runs perpendicular to the longitudinal center line L. This convex shape extends across the entire length of the link plate back (15) and the link plate belly (16) in the region between the two bore center lines BM.; FIG. 20).
Regarding claim 4, Bodensteiner discloses a chain comprising a plurality of inner link plates (Bodensteiner – 4) and a plurality of outer link plates (Bodensteiner -7) pivotably coupled together by connecting pins (Bodensteiner – 8)(Bodensteiner FIGS. 1, 2, 8-11), the inner link plates (Bodensteiner – 4). Bodensteiner fails to disclose the inner link plates each being the link plate according to claim 1. Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer teaches the inner link plates each being the link plate according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chain of Bodensteiner and include the link plate as claimed in claim 1 for the same motivation as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Bodensteiner discloses a chain comprising a plurality of link plates (Bodensteiner – 4, 7) pivotably coupled together by connecting pins (Bodensteiner – 8) (Bodensteiner FIGS. 1, 2, 8-11), including not more than four link plates (Bodensteiner FIG. 1) that are each link plates (Bodensteiner – 4) in a width direction (Bodensteiner FIGS. 1, 8, & 10). Bodensteiner fails to disclose the link plates being according to claim 1. Bodensteiner in view of Spӧ rrer teaches link plates each being the link plate according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chain of Bodensteiner and include the link plate as claimed in claim 1 for the same motivation as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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 Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/D.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725