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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 contains two center lines. 37 CFR 1.84(h) says “… Views must not be connected by projection lines and must not contain center lines …” (emphasis added). 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.
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, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benecke (US Patent no. 7,231,759).
Re. claim 1, Benecke discloses a chain (a conveyor chain 1) comprising:
a chain link (flat link 3) having two legs (shanks 6, 7) and two bows (combination of arc segment 8 and transition segment 9) connecting the legs together via the bows extending in a bow extension direction between the two legs,
wherein an end face of at least one bow, which faces outwards in a pitch direction of the chain link, has two pressure portions (transitional segment 9) spaced apart from one another in the bow extension direction and an intermediate portion (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 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 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. 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 chain link is a first chain link (flat links 3) and the chain further comprises a second chain link (links 2) engaging the first chain link (Col. 4, Line 20-21, “horizontally oriented links 2 alternating with vertically oriented flat links 3”), wherein the first chain link and/or the second 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 first chain link are D-shaped in cross section such that a stop is provided at edges of the D shape (Fig.5a), preventing the second chain link from diving into the first chain link when the second chain link envelopes one leg of the first chain link. 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”), the chain wheel having at least one chain pocket corresponding to the chain link of the chain (Col 5, Line 18-19, “drive wheel whose teeth engage about the chain link”).
Re. claim 13, Benecke discloses the arrangement of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), wherein, 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 first 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_image2.png
500
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Benecke, Illustrated
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benecke in view of Klabisch et. al. (US Patent Publication no. 20120065012A1), hereinafter Klabisch.
Re. Claim 12, Benecke 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 chain link, has a larger radius of curvature in a chain link width direction than the pressure portions of the 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 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:
“Therefore, it is clear from the specification that the pressure portions provide the contact surfaces for introducing the driving force into the chain from the chain pocket of the chain wheel, and further that the contact surfaces, which contact the chain pocket of the chain wheel to transmit the driving force into the chain, are within the pressure portions.
In contrast, the specification describes the intermediate portion as connecting the pressure portions-there is no understanding that the contact surfaces for contacting the chain pocket of the chain wheel to transmit the driving force into the chain are provided by the intermediate portion. Indeed, this is not possible-in the intermediate portion, the next chain link is hooked in. As the next chain link surrounds the intermediate portion, the chain pocket cannot contact the chain link to be driven in the intermediate portion.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would recognize that the claimed pressure and intermediate portions are distinct parts of the chain link with particular functions, and that these portions are not assignable in an arbitrary manner to the state of the art. The Office Action's interpretation of the claim and application of Benecke to such interpretation is facially unreasonable from the perspective of one skilled in the art in light of the specification. Already for this reason alone, the outstanding rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.”
For the clarity of record, Examiner never said that the contact surfaces for contacting the chain pocket of the chain wheel to transmit the driving force is provided by the intermediate portion. Examiner identified transitional segment 9 of Benecke as the pressure portion and asserted that the surface of transitional segment 9 could be used as a contact surface surfaces for contacting the chain pocket of the chain wheel to transmit the driving force. Examiner identified the part of arc segment 8 with constant curvature as the intermediate portion in the first action on the merits and neither the first action on the merits or Benecke imply that identified the part of arc segment 8 with constant curvature serves as a contact surface. Benecke structurally meets all claimed limitations and therefore the rejections are being maintained. Applicant has not provided any structure that overcomes Benecke. Applicant also argued:
“Finally, it should be appreciated that, in such a chain, the chain link which is driven by the chain pocket of the chain wheel is a so-called horizontal chain link. The chain link specified in claim 1 is thus a horizontal chain link. See also specification at paragraph [0037]:”
and
“This is another distinguishing feature over Benecke, since the cited flat chain link 3 in Benecke is a vertical chain link. See Benecke at:”
Examiner notes that claim 1 limits the claimed invention to a “chain link”, not a horizontal chain link. While the limitation of a horizontal chain link is supported by the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP 2111.01). As the claim language currently stands, both vertical and horizontal chain links fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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 (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.
/WILLIAM DOUGLAS DICKSTEIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725