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 Page 3, Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C., filed 5/20/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Pietruska et al. and Sinz et al..
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietruska CN 107420486 A in view of Sinz et al. US 20040244354 A1. CN 107420486 A is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Pietruska patent, and US 20040244354 A1 is a published patent hereinafter to be referred to as the Sinz patent.
Pietruska discloses a link plate (Pietruska – 66, FIG. 3) wherein connecting pins (Pietruska – 76, FIG. 3) pivotably couple a plurality of the link plates together to form a chain (Pietruska – FIG. 3), each link plate having a sliding end face (Pietruska – 68a, 68b, FIG. 2) at least on one side in an up and down direction for sliding contact with a guide member (Pietruska – 52, FIG. 2), the sliding end face (Pietruska – 68a, 68b) including a flat face portion (Pietruska – 82a, 82b, FIG. 6a) and end face rounded portions (Pietruska – 86a, 86b, FIG. 6a) disposed at both ends of the flat face portion (Pietruska – 82a, 82b) in a direction of plate thickness of the link plate in a cross- sectional view of the link plate (Pietruska FIG. 5), the end face rounded portions formed to be continuous with both side faces of the link plate (Pietruska Description Page 6, Lines 14-17). Pietruska fails to disclose 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.
Sinz teaches a chain link, wherein the radius of curvature “r” is small in order to avoid cross-sectional reduction on the link profile (Sinz Para [0002]: the radius of the rounding, as also in the case of other relevant chains used in practice, being very small in order to avoid a cross-sectional reduction in the link profile); thus, teaching that changing the radius is a result effective parameter.
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 the link plate shape disclosed in Pietruska such that a radius of curvature of the end face rounded portions is small, as taught by Sinz, to reduce surface pressure between two adjacent chain links (Sinz Para [0002]: there is an extensive support of the same, the support resulting in a reduced surface pressure, which is proportional to the size of the supporting surfaces, and consequently to a reduced wear both of the chain wheels and of the chain links, is what favors the use of small rounding radii.).
Pietruska in view of Sinz discloses the claimed invention except for the link plate shaped to satisfy 16.8 ≥ ((r * 2 / t2) + (t - r * 2)) / r ≥ 11.5. 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)).
Regarding claim 2, Pietruska discloses the link plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the plate thickness “t” is 1.65mm ≥ t ≥ 0.80 mm (Pietruska Description Page 3, Lines 9-11: the invention first optimizes the chain type. the width of the chain plate of the chain in most cases equal to 0.8 mm to 2 mm, preferably 1.0 mm to 1.8 mm and particularly preferably 1.2 mm to 1.6 mm.).
Regarding claim 3, Pietruska discloses the link plate (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the sliding end face (Pietruska – 68a, 68b) is convexly rounded along a running direction of the chain when viewed from a side of the link plate (Pietruska FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Pietruska discloses a chain comprising a plurality of inner link plates (Pietruska – 74, FIG. 3) and a plurality of outer link plates (Pietruska – 72, FIG. 3) pivotably coupled together by connecting pins (Pietruska – 76)(Pietruska Description Page 5, Lines 51-54: showing the roller chain form according to the invention of two links of the second chain 22 70a, view of the 70b. each chain link 70a comprises two outer sides of the chain plate (72) and two inner side of the link plate (74), the link plate (66) design as shown in FIG. 2. each of two outer sides of the chain plate (72) connected by the pin rod (76)), the inner link plates each being the link plate according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Pietruska discloses a chain comprising a plurality of link plates pivotably coupled together by connecting pins, the link plates including not more than four link plates (Pietruska FIG. 3) that are each the link plate according to claim 1 in a width direction (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 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.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights