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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 25-48 are pending. Claims 1-24 are canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 January 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first Office Action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 is dependent upon canceled claim 24. Claim 29 is dependent upon claim 28 and thus also dependent upon canceled claim 24.
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 28-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitations “the energy chain and drive unit,” "the geometry of the spaces between the regions with reinforced strength,” “the longitudinal direction of the energy chain in the case of adjoining chain links,” and “the geometry of the protrusions arranged on the drive roller.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 29 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 28.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the protrusions" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the protrusions" in line 3. 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.
Claim(s) 28-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raasch (DE 4341926 A1) in view of Hermey (US 20150128556 A1).
In regards to claim 25, Raasch teaches an energy chain (20) (Fig. 2), for receiving and guiding power and information transmission lines (see machine translation, para. [0009], lines 1-3)) between a fixed connector region (1) and a movable connector region (20e), with a drive unit (para. [0025], lines 16-17), wherein the energy chain has chain links (36, 38) (Fig. 3) that adjoin one another in their longitudinal direction (as seen in Fig. 3), are pivotable relative to one another (as seen in Fig. 3)
Raasch does not explicitly teach wherein each chain link comprises two lateral parts that lie opposite one another in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction; wherein the crosspieces have, in their connecting regions adjacent to the lateral parts of the chain links, regions in which their strength is reinforced compared with the portions of the crosspieces lying between these regions.
Hermey teaches wherein each chain link comprises two lateral parts (14) (Fig. 1a) that lie opposite one another in a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction (as seen in Fig. 1a); wherein the crosspieces (21) have, in their connecting regions adjacent to the lateral parts (14) of the chain links (1), regions (27) (Fig. 2c, 2e) in which their strength is reinforced (para. [0026], lines 10-12) compared with the portions of the crosspieces lying between these regions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chain link of Raasch to include lateral parts wherein the crosspieces are reinforced at the region where the crosspiece connects to the lateral part of the chain link as taught by Hermey with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the resilience of the system (see Hermey, para. [0026], lines 10-12).
Raasch does not explicitly teach wherein the drive roller of the drive unit is arranged and formed relative to the energy chain such that the radial protrusions engage between the regions with reinforced strength of the crosspieces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive roller of Raasch to include being positioned such that the radial protrusions engage with the most reinforced portion of the crosspieces with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing damage to the system throughout operation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 25, wherein the regions with reinforced strength (27) (Hermey, Fig. 2c, 2e) have a material reinforcement (Hermey, para. [0026], lines 10-12, the material reinforcement being the pins 27) compared with the portions of the crosspieces lying in between.
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 26, wherein the regions with reinforced strength have a greater width (Hermey, as seen in Fig. 1a, the portion where the crosspiece 21 connects with the lateral part 14 is wider than the middle of the crosspiece) with respect to the longitudinal direction of the energy chain and/or a greater height with respect to the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and running parallel to the lateral parts compared with the portions of the crosspieces lying in between.
In regards to claim 28, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 24, wherein the geometry of the spaces (Raasch, as seen in Fig. 3, the space between crosspiece 42 and the next link 36, 38) between the regions with reinforced strength (27) (Hermey, Fig. 2c, 2e), which are arranged neighbouring one another in the longitudinal direction (Hermey, as seen in Fig. 2) of the energy chain in the case of adjoining chain links (36, 38) (Raasch, Fig. 3), corresponds to the geometry of the radial protrusions arranged on the drive roller (Raasch, as seen in Fig. 3, the radial protrusions fit in the spaces between crosspiece 42 and the links 36, 38).
In regards to claim 29, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 28, wherein the spaces
Raasch does not explicitly teach the spaces being trapezoidal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spaces of Raasch to be trapezoidal in shape with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the security of the fit for the radial protrusions, since it has been held the modifying the configuration or shape of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 25, wherein the portions of the crosspieces extending between the regions with reinforced strength are formed as separate, bar-like parts (Hermey, as seen in Fig. 1a), which can be connected or are connected to the adjacent regions with reinforced strength (Hermey, as seen in Fig. 1a).
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 30, wherein the bar-like parts can be or are detachably connected (Hermey, para. [0016]) to the regions with reinforced strength.
In regards to claim 32, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 25, wherein the regions with reinforced strength are directly adjacent to the lateral parts neighbouring them (Hermey, as seen in Fig. 1a).
In regards to claim 34, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 32, wherein the regions with reinforced strength can be or are detachably connected to the lateral parts neighbouring them by fastening means (Hermey, para. [0016]).
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raasch (DE 4341926 A1) in view of Hermey (US 20150128556 A1) and Igus (DE 202017104198 U1).
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 25,
Raasch does not teach wherein the drive roller of the drive unit has two circular disc-shaped parts that are arranged on its end faces, are connected to one another in a rotationally fixed manner and each have the radial protrusions, wherein the protrusions of one circular disc-shaped part cooperate with the regions with reinforced strength that neighbour one another in the longitudinal direction of the energy chain on one side thereof, while the radial protrusions of the other circular disc-shaped part cooperate with the regions with reinforced strength that neighbour one another in the longitudinal direction of the energy chain on the other side thereof.
Igus teaches wherein the drive roller of the drive unit has two circular disc-shaped parts (13-1, 13-2) (Fig. 1E) that are arranged on its end faces, are connected to one another in a rotationally fixed manner (see machine translation, Igus, para. [0040], lines 8-11) and each have the radial protrusions (as seen in Fig. 1E), wherein the protrusions of one circular disc-shaped part (13-2) cooperate with the regions with reinforced strength that neighbour one another in the longitudinal direction of the energy chain (11, 12) on one side thereof (as seen in Fig. 1E, the disc-shaped part 13-2 is on the left side of the chain), while the radial protrusions of the other circular disc-shaped part (13-1) cooperate with the regions with reinforced strength that neighbour one another in the longitudinal direction of the energy chain on the other side thereof (as seen in Fig. 1E, the disc-shaped part 13-2 is on the right side of the chain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive roller of Raasch to include two circular disc-shaped parts interacting with the energy chain on opposite sides from one another as taught by Igus with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing weight and material required (see Igus, para. [0026]).
Claim(s) 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raasch (DE 4341926 A1) in view of Hermey (US 20150128556 A1) and Igus (DE 202011107804 U1).
In regards to claim 41, the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches a system, consisting of an energy chain and a drive unit according to claim 25, and
Raasch does not teach a storage unit for the energy chain, wherein at least one portion of the energy chain can be wound up in the storage unit in the form of a spiral, wherein the fixed connector region of the energy chain is arranged stationary inside the spiral-shaped winding and the movable connector region is arranged on a run of the energy chain extending through an opening of the storage unit.
Igus teaches a storage unit (4) (Fig. 5) for the energy chain (11), wherein at least one portion of the energy chain can be wound up in the storage unit in the form of a spiral (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the fixed connector region (10) of the energy chain is arranged stationary inside the spiral-shaped winding (as seen in Fig. 2) and the movable connector region (5) is arranged on a run of the energy chain extending through an opening of the storage unit (as seen in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Raasch to include a storage unit wherein the energy chain is wound up in the storage unit and the drive unit cooperating with the energy chain extending out of the storage unit through the opening as taught by Igus with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of decreasing weight and material required (see machine translation, Igus, para. [0005], lines 13-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33, 37-40, and 42-48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 33, while the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 32, wherein the regions with reinforced strength are
Hermey does not teach wherein the regions with reinforced strength are moulded in one piece on the lateral parts neighbouring them.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the regions with reinforced strength to be moulded in one piece on the lateral parts neighbouring them as the modifications needed would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications necessary would require improperly modifying a secondary reference.
Thus, claim 33 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 36, while the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 25, wherein the drive roller has, on at least one
Raasch does not teach the drive roller including an annular flange extending radially beyond the protrusions and overhanging the later parts of the chain links on its outwardly facing end faces.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive roller of Raasch to include an annular flange extending radially beyond the protrusions and overhanging the later parts of the chain links on its outwardly facing end faces. The examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the drive roller of Raasch to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 36 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Furthermore, claim 36 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 37, while the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey above teaches the energy chain and drive unit according to claim 25, wherein the drive unit has, on the side of the
Raasch does not teach a rotatably mounted roller on the side of the energy chain lying opposite the drive roller wherein the rotatably mounted roller engages the chain links to ensure they are held in engagement with the drive roller.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive unit of Raasch to include a rotatably mounted roller on the side of the energy chain lying opposite the drive roller wherein the rotatably mounted roller engages the chain links to ensure they are held in engagement with the drive roller. The examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the drive roller of Raasch to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 37 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 38-40 are also allowable due to dependence upon claim 37 but are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations as recited in claim 42, while the combination of Raasch as modified by Hermey and Igus above teaches the system according to claim 41, wherein the spiral-shaped winding has
Raasch does not teach wherein the spiral-shaped winding has two winding shafts arranged at a distance from one another, wherein the spiral-shaped winding consists of deflection regions and runs of the energy chain connecting them to one another.
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive unit of Raasch to include two winding shafts arranged at a distance from one another, wherein the spiral-shaped winding consists of deflection regions and runs of the energy chain connecting them to one another as the modifications necessary would require an improper amount of hindsight, i.e., the modifications needed would require improperly modifying a secondary reference. Furthermore, the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify the drive roller of Raasch to meet the claimed limitations.
Thus, claim 42 is non-obvious in view of the prior art of record but is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 43-48 are also allowable due to dependence upon claim 42 but are also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Howold (US 20200014186 A1) discloses an energy guide chain and roller module.
Seigneur (CN 110234908 A) discloses a thrust chain device.
Hermey (US 20190173269 A1) discloses a connection arrangement and line routing device.
Dommnik (US 20190145497 A1) discloses a side portion, chain link, and energy guiding chain.
Tetsuka (CN 108350985 A) discloses strips and a guide rail of the guide device with lower guide rollers, however the guide roller does not engage up against an energy chain to force the chain towards a drive roller.
Hermey (US 20170292588 A1) discloses a line guide device.
Blasé (US 9328795 B2) discloses an energy guide chain with deformable joint elements.
Jaeker (US 20150089917 A1) discloses an energy guiding chain with rollers.
Oitaka (US 8776491 B2) discloses a lifting engagement chain unit.
Shi (CN 203395125 U) discloses a towline as a matrix power mechanism.
Hirai (CN 101210606 B) discloses a chain transmission device.
Nehring (US 20080251630 A1) discloses a transverse limb and member of a line guide device with a transverse limb.
Young (BR 0309806 A) discloses a cushioning sprocket with improved inverted tooth chain for use with it.
Blasé (US 5711733 A) discloses a power transmission chain.
Tatsuta (DE 4225016 A1) discloses a cable tracking chain.
Hackenberg (US 4600817 A) discloses an apparatus for guiding flexible supply lines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights