Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 9-26-25 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed connecting means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the connecting means is detailed as in particular rivets.
Regarding claim 8, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed connecting devices and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the connecting devices are detailed as in particular screws.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-2, 4, 7-8 and 15-53 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 1 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed connecting means and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the connecting means is detailed as in particular rivets and the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of connecting means are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 8 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. Applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed connecting devices and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the connecting devices are detailed as in particular screws and the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of connecting devices are being contemplated by the claim.
Claim 30 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. It is unclear to whether the connecting devices detailed in claim 30 are the same or different than the connecting devices detailed in parent claim 8.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "link mounting discs" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, 14-24, 29-30, 33-43 and 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,491,806 to Kaisser et al.
Referring to claims 1 and 15-18, Kaisser et al. discloses a cutting device, being a chainsaw – see figure 1 and column 1 lines 34-40, comprising a saw chain – 3,6, and a drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, wherein the saw chain – at 3,6, comprises driving links – at 3, and connecting links – at 6, - wherein the connecting links – at 6, are connected to the driving links – at 3, by connecting means,– see rivets not labeled but shown in figures 1-2, (it is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed connecting means and Kaisser et al. discloses rivets commensurate with applicant’s disclosed connecting means), wherein cutting devices – not labeled but shown on the chain in figure 1, for cutting a material to be cut, for chipping wood or plastic, are provided on the driving links – at 3 – see figure 1, and/or connecting links – not required by the claim given the “and/or” clause, wherein the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, has a plurality of driving link mounts – at 1a, wherein a part of the respective driving link – at 3, is in engagement with the respective driving link mount – at 1a – see at 3a in figure 1, so that force can be transmitted from the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, to the driving links – at 3 – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 63 to column 3 line 2, in that the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, has a plurality of link mounts of the first type – at 8, in that the link mounts of the first type – at 8, are formed as projections, as teeth – see at 8 in figures 1-4, in that the link mounts of the first type – at 8, engage with the respective connecting links – at 6, in particular in a form-fitting manner – see at 6,8 in figure 1, and in that the link mounts of the first type – at 8, are designed to transmit force from the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, to the respective connecting links – at 6 – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 63 to column 3 line 2. Kaisser et al. further discloses in that several link mounts of the second type – at 8, are provided on the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9 – see figures 1-4 where items 8 on one of discs – at 9 can be the link mounts of the first type and items 8 on the other of discs – at 9 can be the link mounts of the second type in that applicant has not positively recited in the claim that the first and second types of link mounts have different shapes and/or configurations with respect to each other, and/or in that the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are formed as projections, as teeth – see figures 1-4, and/or in that the link mounts of the second type – at 8, engage with the respective connecting links – at 6, in a form-fitting manner – see at 6,8 in figures 1-4 where at the connection of item 7 to items 1a and 8, there is a form fit between the portion of the bottom of items 6 that engage the portion of the tops of items 8, (it is noted that applicant has not positively recited in the claim the degree to which the form fit is made such as detailing how much of the connecting link is fitted to the link mounts), and in that the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are designed to move the connecting links – at 6, in the running direction of the saw chain – at 3,6, so that the saw chain – at 3,6, can be driven – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 63 to column 3 line 2, and a nest – between items 8, for the respective connecting links – at 6, is formed on the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, by the link mounts of the first type – at 8 on any of items 9, and the link mounts of the second type – at 8 on the other of items 9 – see figures 1-4. Specific to claim 15, Kaisser et al. further disclose the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9 is adapted for use in the cutting device – see figures 1-4, column 1 lines 34-40 and column 2 line 63 to column 3 line 2.
Referring to claims 2 and 19, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounts of the first type – at 8, are in engagement with a first region, being a peripheral region, of the outer edge of the respective connecting link – see lower outer edge of 6 in figures 1-4, during force transmission – see figures 1-4 and column 2 line 63 to column 3 line 2.
Referring to claim 4, Kaisser et al. further discloses in that each link mount of the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are arranged on the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, in such a way that they engage with a second region of an outer edge of a respective connecting link – second bottom region of 6, during force transmission – see figures 1-2 and column 2 line 63 to column 2 line 2, and in that, optionally, the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are arranged on the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, in such a way that they optionally engage in the centre of the respective connecting link – at 6, during force transmission – see at 6,8 in figures 1-2 and column 2 line 63 to column 3 line 2.
Referring to claim 7, Kaisser et al. further discloses in that the drive wheel has guide discs – at 9, have connecting means recesses – see between items 8 in figures 1-4, (it is noted that applicant has not invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed connecting means recesses in that applicant claims specific structure being recesses for these claimed components), for guiding the connecting means – rivets shown in figures 1-4 – see figures 1-4, and in that, optionally, the connecting means recesses – between items 8, are formed for transmitting force from the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, to the saw chain – at 3,6, to the connecting means – via items 3,6 as seen in figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 8, Kaisser et al. further discloses in that the drive wheel comprises a driving link disc – at 2, is connected, to the drive device – at 15, of the cutting device – see figure 3, and in that, the other discs – at 9, being the link mounting discs – at 9, and/or guide discs – not required by the claim given the “and/or” clause, are connected to the driving link disc – at 2, to the drive device – at 2,15 – see figures 1-4, by means of connecting devices – see connecting elements not labeled but shown in figure 3 between items 2 and 9. Further, it is noted that applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed connecting devices and the connecting devices – not labeled but shown in figure 3 between items 2 and 9 of Kaisser et al. are at least functional equivalents to applicant’s disclosed screws in that they provide similar function to applicant’s disclosed screws being connecting the disc – at 2 to the drive – at 15 as seen in figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 20, Kaisser et al. further discloses the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, comprises a driving link disc – at 2, and two link mounting discs – at 9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 21, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link disc – at 2, and the link mounting discs – at 9, are arranged concentrically to one another – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 22, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, are provided on a centrally arranged disc – at 2, of the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, which comprises the driving link disc – at 2 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 23, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounting discs – at 9, are arranged on the driving link disc – at 2 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 24, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounts of the first type – at 8, and optionally the link mounts of the second type – others of 8, are provided on the link mounting discs – at 9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 29, Kaisser et al. further discloses the connecting means recesses – between items 8, are formed for transmitting force from the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, to the connecting means – rivets – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 30, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounting discs – at 9, and/or the guide discs – not required by the claim given the “and/or” clause, are connected to the drive device – at 15, exclusively by means of connecting devices – at the connecting elements not labeled but shown in figure 3 between items 2 and 9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 33, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, are provided on a circumference of the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 34, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, are evenly distributed on the circumference of the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, – see figures 1-4, and wherein the driving link mounts – at 1a, are provided on a circumference of a driving link disc – at 2 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 35, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounts of the first type – at 8, and the link mounts of the second type – others of items 8, are provided on a circumference of the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 36, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are evenly distributed on the circumference of the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, and wherein the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are provided on a circumference of link mounting discs – at 2 and 9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 37, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, the link mounts of the first type – at 8 on one of items 9, and the link mounts of the second type – at 8 on the others of items 9, are arranged symmetrically on the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 38, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, the link mounts of the first type – at 8, and the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are arranged symmetrically on a driving link disc of the drive wheel link mounting discs of the drive wheel, or a combination thereof – see on combination of driving link disc – at 2 and link mounting discs – at 9 as seen in figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 39, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, the link mounts of the first type – at 8, and/or the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are arranged evenly spaced apart from one another on the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 40, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, the link mounts of the first type – at 8, and/or the link mounts of the second type – at 8, are arranged evenly spaced apart from one another on a driving link disc of the drive wheel, link mounting discs of the drive wheel, or a combination thereof – see on combination of driving link disc – at 2 and link mounting discs – at 9 as seen in figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 41, Kaisser et al. further discloses the driving link mounts – at 1a, each have a driving link thrust surface – top surface of 1a and/or the inclined side surfaces of 1a, the driving link thrust surface being designed to transmit force to a driving link – any of items 3, of the driving links – at 3 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 42, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounts of the first type – at 8, each have a link thrust surface of the first type – see top surface of 8 and/or inclined sides of 8, wherein the link thrust surface of the first type is designed to transmit force to the respective connecting link – at 6 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 43, Kaisser et al. further discloses the link mounts of the second type – at 8, each have a link thrust surface of the second type – see top surface of 8 and/or inclined side surfaces of 8, wherein the link thrust surface of the second type is designed to transmit force to the respective connecting link – at 6 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 52, Kaisser et al. further discloses the drive wheel comprises guide discs – at 9, having an equal diameter to other discs – at 2, of the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9 – see figures 1-4.
Referring to claim 53, Kaisser et al. further discloses the drive wheel comprises guide discs – at 9, projecting beyond or terminating with a driving link disc – at 2 – see terminating with in figures 1-4, link mounting discs – not required by the claim given the and/or clause, the driving link mounts – not required by the claim given the and/or clause, the link mounts of the first type – not required by the claim given the and/or clause, and/or the link mounts of the second type – not required by the claim given the an/or clause.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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) 25-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisser et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0366579 to Melin et al.
Referring to claim 25, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the drive wheel further comprises two guide discs. Melin et al. does disclose the drive wheel – at 25, further comprises two guide discs – at 14a,14b and/or 17a,17b – see figure 8. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the two guide discs of Melin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the drive wheel more durable and flexible as desired.
Referring to claim 26, Kaisser et al. as modified by Melin et al. further discloses the guide discs – at 14a,14b and/or 17a,17b, are arranged concentrically to the driving link disc – at 12, and the link mounting discs – at 16a,16b, of the drive wheel – at 25 – see figure 8 of Melin et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the two guide discs of Melin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the drive wheel more durable and flexible as desired.
Referring to claim 27, Kaisser et al. as modified by Melin et al. further discloses the guide discs – at 14a,14b and/or 17a,17b, are designed to guide the saw chain – at 3 – see figures 8-10 of Melin et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the two guide discs of Melin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the drive wheel more durable and flexible as desired.
Referring to claim 28, Kaisser et al. as modified by Melin et al. further discloses the guide discs – at 14a,14b, are arranged on the driving link disc – at 12, and the link mounting discs – at 15a,15b,16a,16b – see figures 8-10 of Melin et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the two guide discs of Melin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the drive wheel more durable and flexible as desired.
Claim(s) 31-32 and 44-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisser et al. as applied to claim 8 above.
Referring to claim 31, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the link mounting discs and/or the guide discs are connected to the drive device by means of screws. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and use any suitable connecting device including the claimed screws, so as to yield the predictable result of removably securing the link mounting discs to the drive device as desired.
Referring to claim 32, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the driving link disc is welded to the drive device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and use any suitable connection between the driving link disc and the drive device including the claimed welded connection, so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more durable for repeated use.
Referring to claim 44, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the driving link mounts have a height in the range from 10% up to and including 50%, of the height of the driving links. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed heights in that as seen in pages 13-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification these heights are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these heights are used in view of other values for the heights. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the drive link mount heights claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the link mounts and links to be securely removably connected to each other to facilitate movement of the chain as desired.
Referring to claim 45, Kaisser et al. does not disclose that the link mounts of the first type and the link mounts of the second type have a height in the range from 10% up to and including 50%, the height of the connecting links. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed heights in that as seen in pages 13-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification these heights are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these heights are used in view of other values for the heights. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the link mounts of the first and second types heights claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the link mounts and links to be securely removably connected to each other to facilitate movement of the chain as desired.
Referring to claim 46, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the driving link mounts project beyond the driving link disc by a range of 1 mm to 10 mm. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed projecting distances in that as seen in pages 13-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification these projecting distances are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these projecting distances are used in view of other values for the projecting distances. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the driving link mount projecting distances beyond the driving link disc claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the link mounts and links to be securely removably connected to each other to facilitate movement of the chain as desired.
Referring to claim 47, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the link mounts of the first type and the link mounts of the second type project beyond a respective link mounting disc by a range of 1 mm to 10 mm. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed projecting distances in that as seen in pages 13-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification these projecting distances are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these projecting distances are used in view of other values for the projecting distances. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the driving link mount projecting distances beyond the link mounting disc claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the link mounts and links to be securely removably connected to each other to facilitate movement of the chain as desired.
Referring to claim 48, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the driving link mounts project beyond the outer edge of the respective driving links in the direction of the respective connecting means by a range of 1 mm to 10 mm. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed projecting distances in that as seen in pages 13-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification these projecting distances are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these projecting distances are used in view of other values for the projecting distances. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the projecting distances of the drive link mounts claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the link mounts and links to be securely removably connected to each other to facilitate movement of the chain as desired.
Referring to claim 49, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the link mounts of the first type and the link mounts of the second type project beyond the outer edge of the respective connecting links in the direction of the respective connecting means by a range of 1 mm to 10 mm. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed projecting distances in that as seen in pages 13-15 of applicant’s originally filed specification these projecting distances are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these projecting distances are used in view of other values for the projecting distances. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the projecting distances of the link mounts of the first and second types claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the link mounts and links to be securely removably connected to each other to facilitate movement of the chain as desired.
Referring to claim 50, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the drive wheel has a diameter from 50 mm up to and including 150 mm. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed drive wheel diameters in that as seen in page 14 of applicant’s originally filed specification these drive wheel diameters are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these drive wheel diameters are used in view of other values for the drive wheel diameters. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the drive wheel diameters claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for proper force is applied to the chain via the drive wheel as desired.
Referring to claim 51, Kaisser et al. does not disclose the drive wheel has a thickness from 0.5 mm up to and including 10 mm. However, applicant places no criticality on the claimed drive wheel thicknesses in that as seen in page 15 of applicant’s originally filed specification these drive wheel thicknesses are detailed as being optional and there is not specific reason as to why these drive wheel thicknesses are used in view of other values for the drive wheel thicknesses. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kaisser et al. and add the drive wheel thicknesses claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for proper force is applied to the chain via the drive wheel as desired.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s amended abstract dated 9-26-25 obviates the objections detailed in the last office action dated 6-27-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 9-26-25 obviates the claim objections to claim 11 detailed in the last office action dated 6-27-25.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 9-26-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-15 detailed in the last office action dated 6-27-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 1, the Kaisser et al. reference US 3491806 discloses the link mounts of the second type – at 8, engage with the respective connecting links – at 6, in a form-fitting manner – see at 6,8 in figures 1-4 where at the connection of item 7 to items 1a and 8, there is a form fit between the portion of the bottom of items 6 that engage the portion of the tops of items 8, (it is noted that applicant has not positively recited in the claim the degree to which the form fit is made such as detailing how much of the connecting link is fitted to the link mounts), and Kaisser et al. also discloses a nest – between items 8, for the respective connecting links – at 6, is formed on the drive wheel – at 1,2,8,9, by the link mounts of the first type – at 8 on any of items 9, and the link mounts of the second type – at 8 on the other of items 9 – see figures 1-4 where the space between items 8 at least partially receives the bottom portions of the connecting links – at 6 and since the connecting links are disposed in the space between the link mounts – at 8 since the link mounts are disposed in the recesses – at 7 of the connecting links, there is a nesting arrangement between these components as claimed.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 14-15, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 1 discussed earlier.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 12-13, as detailed earlier in paragraph 5 of this office action applicant places no criticality to the claimed heights, projecting distances, diameters and thicknesses in that as seen in pages 13-15 of applicant’s originally filed disclosure all of these claimed dimensions are disclosed as being optional and therefore it would have been obvious to take the device of Kaisser et al. and have these dimensions for the claimed components as detailed earlier in paragraph 5 of this office action.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643