DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
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.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 17-28, drawn to a drag chain.
Group 2, claim(s) 29, drawn to an end-securing part
Group 3, claim(s) 30, drawn to a guide channel.
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 for the following reasons:
Group 1, 3 lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Group 3 does not require the features of Group 1 and vice versa. (just an intended use)
Group 1, 2 (or Group 2 and 3) lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of either group 2, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Willibald as described below.
During a telephone conversation with Michael Gallagher on 11/01/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 17-28. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 29-32 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 17-28 objected to because of the following informalities:
“A drag chain … wherein the chain has a plurality of chain links” in claim 17 should be “A drag chain … wherein the chain comprising a plurality of chain links” or similar.
“the mutually opposite link plates” in claim 17 should be “the mutually opposite plates”.
“the crosspieces” in claim 17 should be “the at least one crosspiece”.
“designed for” in claim 23 should be “configured for” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the same” in line 15. It is unclear what “the same” is refering to.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the sliding surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “a sliding surface” has not been previously cited.
Regarding claim 24, 26, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 17-28 recite the limitation “can” throughout the claims. It is unclear if the limitation is required or just mere capability is required.
All dependent claims of above-mentioned claims inherit all of the limitations of the above-mentioned claims. Thus, the claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best understood, claim(s) 17-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Willibald (DE 19525478).
Regarding claim 17, Willibald discloses a drag chain (Fig. 1-11) for guiding cables between two connection points, wherein the chain has a plurality of chain links (27, 30) connected to one another in an articulated manner and succeeding each other in the longitudinal direction of the chain, wherein the chain links each have mutually opposite plates (see Fig. 6: 43 ,44, 29, 30) which are spaced apart laterally from one another and each have an inner and an outer side surface and each have two narrow sides which are opposite one another with respect to the plate height, wherein at least some or all of the chain links have at least one crosspiece (47) which connects the plates of the respective chain link to one another, wherein the mutually opposite link plates and the crosspieces form a receiving space for the at least one cable (see fig. 7), wherein the drag chain can be arranged and moved by forming a lower track (it is able to form a lower track, upper track and deflection region), an upper track and a deflection region connecting the latter, with the upper track being placed on the lower track, wherein the chain links of the lower track and/or upper track are or can be fitted with additional elements (it is able to be fitted with additional elements such as sliding elements), such as sliding elements, on the side facing the respective other track, the chain having an end- securing part (28) which is coupled to an end link (27 – examiner notes that chain can be maneuvered to be the lower track link) of the lower track of the chain and which has connection-securing means (55, 56, 58) for securing the end-securing part to a connection point or said chain is secured to a stationary connection point by means of the same, wherein the end-securing part of the lower track has on the side facing the upper track, at least one wedge-shaped ramp-type element (33, 34) with a pointed end and a broad end, which are spaced apart from one another in the longitudinal direction of the chain, in that the wedge-shaped ramp-type element is arranged or can be arranged on the end-securing part with its longitudinal direction at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of the chain (can be in line therefore in parallel relationship), wherein, in the secured arrangement on the chain, the ramp-type element tapers in the direction leading away from the deflection region and upper track.
Regarding claim 18, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein in the secured arrangement of the ramp-type element on the chain, the ramp-type surface thereof at the broad end of the ramp-type element is arranged at least substantially at the level of the sliding surface of the sliding element adjacent in the longitudinal direction of the chain or at least substantially at the level of the upper side of the additional element adjacent in the longitudinal direction of the chain. (see Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 19, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein the pointed end of the ramp-type element in its secured arrangement on the chain protrudes from the free end of the end-securing part. (see Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 20, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein the ramp-type element is arranged on the side parts of the end-securing part. (rear side part)
Regarding claim 21, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein the ramp-type element can be secured or is secured to the end-securing part. (see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 22, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 21, wherein the ramp-type element can be detachably secured or is detachably secured to the end-securing part. (see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 23, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to any claim 17, wherein the end-securing part has a plurality of connection point securing regions (57) for securing to the connection point and in that the ramp-type element is secured to or designed for securing to a connection point securing region (59) of the end-securing part. (see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 24, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein the ramp-type element preferably has integrally formed securing means (57) which correspond to connection point securing regions (59) of the end-securing part.
Regarding claim 26, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein the ramp-type element is elastically (57 elastically deforms into fit inside 59 – all materials have elasticity) deformable and is preferably of arcuate design in the dismantled state.
Regarding claim 27, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein at least the ramp-type surface of the ramp-type element consists of a material with low sliding friction (examiner notes that 33 is made up of a material with friction coefficient. Being “low” is subjective) and/or higher wear resistance compared to the chain plate material.
Regarding claim 28, Willibald discloses the drag chain according to claim 17, wherein the length of the ramp-type element is greater than/equal to 0.5 times or greater than/equal to 0.75 times the length of the end-securing part. (see Fig. 5: seems like the same size so 1X.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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 on (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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3725