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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 20, 2026 has been entered.
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 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "a chain wheel" in lines 1-2 of the claim. This element is indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same chain wheel as the “a chain wheel” in claim 1, line 9. For the purpose of examination, these chain wheels are interpreted as though they are the same element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7 - 11, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benecke (US 7,231,759).
Re Claim 1, Benecke discloses a chain (a conveyor chain 1) comprising:
a horizontal chain link (flat link 3) and a vertical (the broadest reasonable interpretation of the adjectives “horizontal” and “vertical” includes a link arranged horizontally or arranged vertically. Any horizontal link can become a vertical link by rotating it 90°. Moreover, any link has a horizontal and vertical aspect. The words horizontal and vertical do not add any structure to the link.) chain link engaging the horizontal chain link (flat links 2),
the horizontal chain link (flat link 3) having two legs (shanks 6, 7) and two bows (comprising arc segment 8 and transition segment 9) connecting the legs together via the bows extending in a bow extension direction between the two legs (Fig. 2),
wherein an end face of at least one bow, which faces outwards in a pitch direction of the horizontal chain link, has two pressure portions (Fig. 6, transitional segment 9 and part of arc segment 8 without constant curvature) spaced apart from one another in the bow extension direction and an intermediate portion (Fig. 6, part of arc segment 8 with constant curvature) connecting the pressure portions,
wherein the pressure portions each provide a contact surface (see Contact Surface in Fig. 3 illustrated below) between the horizontal chain link and a corresponding chain pocket of a chain wheel for introducing a driving force into the chain (the chain pocket and chain wheel are not positively claimed), and the intermediate portion does not comprise a contact surface (All three-dimensional objects inherently have surfaces. Therefore, the word “contact” in this limitation is a functional limitation. The intermediate portion is inherently capable of not being contacted if the user uses the chain link such that the intermediate portion is not contacted.) between the horizontal chain link and the corresponding chain pocket of the chain wheel (the chain pocket and chain wheel are not positively claimed) for introducing the driving force into the chain,
wherein the end face of the bow is convexly curved in the bow extension direction in the pressure portions (see Area with Larger Radius of Curvature in Fig. 3 illustrated below) and has, at least in portions in the intermediate portion (see Area with Smaller Radius of Curvature in Fig. 3 illustrated below), a smaller radius of curvature than in the pressure portions, and
wherein a distance between the legs in a chain link width direction is greater than an extension of the intermediate portion of the end face in the chain link width direction (see Fig. 6, illustrated below. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the word “extension” includes a section forming an additional length. As applicant did not define where the additional length extends from or to, Examiner has defined an extension of the intermediate portion as going from the centerline of Benecke to the edge of the intermediate portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. of Benecke, Illustrated
PNG
media_image2.png
443
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Benecke, illustrated
Re Claim 4, Benecke discloses the chain of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the intermediate portion has a constant radius of curvature in the bow extension direction (Col 5, Lines 8-10, “The outer radius … is in principle constant in the region of the arc segments 8)
Re Claim 5, Benecke discloses the chain of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the pressure portions are also convexly curved transversely to the bow extension direction (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 7, Benecke discloses the chain of claim 1, wherein the bow is rounded overall (Fig. 2).
Re Claim 8, Benecke discloses the chain of claim 1, wherein the pressure portions extend at least up to an outer width of the legs (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 9, Benecke discloses the chain of claim 1, wherein the horizontal chain link and/or the vertical; chain link are configured such that the two chain links are prevented from kinking (Col. 3, Line 3, “To prevent jamming of this chain”).
Re Claim 10, Benecke discloses the chain of claim 9, wherein the legs of the horizontal chain link are D-shaped in cross section such that a stop is provided at edges of the D shape (Fig.5a), preventing the vertical chain link from diving into the horizontal chain link when the vertical chain link envelopes one leg of the horizontal chain link.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benecke in view of Reinold (DE 19610933A1).
Re Claim 2, Benecke discloses all elements of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose a mean tangent of curvature in the bow extension direction of each pressure portion forms an angle of 7° to 20° with a chain link width direction.
Reinold teaches that the angle between the bow pressure portions is obtuse, preferably at 130° ([0009]). When the angle between the pressure portions is 130°, the angle between the pressure portions and the chain link width direction is 25°. Further, Reinold teaches that the obtuse-angled design results in greater bending stiffness, an allowance for wear, and a longer service life ([0006]).
Benecke in combination with Reinold discloses the invention except for the range of 7° to 20°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angle between the pressure portions more obtuse and the angle between the pressure portion and the chain width more acute, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Claim 3, Benecke discloses all elements of the chain of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose the pressure portions having a constant radius of curvature in the bow extension direction.
Reinold teaches the pressure portions having a constant radius of curvature in the bow extension direction (Fig. 2) and that having this shape of bow allows the chain to engage the sprocket in a flowing effect and more easily overcome resistance ([0009]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benecke to incorporate the teachings of Reinold to have pressure portions with a constant curvature in the bow extension direction. Doing so would more easily overcome resistance, as recognized by Reinold.
Re Claim 6, Benecke discloses all elements of the chain of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but fails to disclose that each pressure portion has a constant curvature transversely to the bow extension direction.
Reinold teaches that each pressure portion has a constant curvature transversely to the bow extension direction (Fig. 3) and that design of the pressure portions reduces the contact pressure between the chain and wheel ([009]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benecke to incorporate the teachings of Reinold to have pressure portions with a constant curvature in the transverse direction. Doing so would reduce the contact pressure, as recognized by Reinold.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benecke in view of Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus (DE202005013132).
Re Claim 11, Benecke discloses an arrangement comprising a chain according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a chain wheel (Col. 5, Line 18, “drive wheel”), but fails to disclose that the chain wheel has at least one chain pocket corresponding to the horizontal chain link of the chain.
Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus teaches that the chain pockets (“pockets 52 between two adjacent teeth 51, which are bounded by the tooth flanks 53 of the teeth 51” [0019]) of the chain wheel (chain sprocket 50) correspond to the horizontal chain link (“preferably the bow flanks can be concave with a curvature that corresponds exactly or approximately to the convex curvature of the tooth flanks of the sprockets in order to reduce the surface pressures in the contact zones or to further improve force introduction zones” [0008]).
Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus teaches that the chain pocket should corresponding in curvature to the horizontal chain link of the chain in order to reduce surface pressure or improve force introduction. 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 drive wheel of Benecke so its chain pockets corresponds in curvature to the horizontal chain link as taught by Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus to improve force introduction.
Re Claim 13, Benecke, in view of Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus, discloses the arrangement of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and bennecke further discloses that in normal operation, the contact surfaces (see Contact Surface in Fig. 2 illustrated below) provided by the pressure portions of the at least one bow of the horizontal chain link are each positionally aligned (see centerline going through Envelope in Fig. 2 illustrated below) with a respective leg of the two legs adjoining the bow.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Benecke, Illustrated
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benecke in view of Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus (DE202005013132), further in view of Klabisch et. al. (US 2012/0065012A1), hereinafter Klabisch.
Re Claim 12, Benecke in view of Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus (DE202005013132), discloses the arrangement of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), but does not disclose that the chain pocket, in a region of the pressure portions of the horizontal chain link, has a larger radius of curvature in the chain link width direction than the pressure portions of the horizontal chain link.
Klabisch teaches that the chain pocket, in a region of the pressure portions of the chain link, has a larger radius of curvature ([0032] “straight or plane running tooth flank areas”) in a chain link width direction than the pressure portions of the chain link and that the manufacture of the sprocket in this manner is simpler and cheaper ([0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Benecke, in view of Buschoff-Hennicke-Althaus, to incorporate the teachings of Klabisch and make the chain pocket, in a region of the pressure portions, be straight and have an infinitely large radius of curvature in order to make the manufacturing cheaper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the newly introduced limitations distinguished claim 1 over Benecke. As explained in the rejection above, they do not (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights