DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 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.
Claim 8 is indefinite due to the fact that the phrase “at least of curved portions” fails to specify a minimum number, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 8-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sunde (US1635017A).
Regarding claim 1, Sunde discloses a connecting element (7 “body portion”, 9 “coupling members”, and 10 “inturned bill”, when considered together, correspond to the claimed connecting element; Figs. 1 and 2; Lines 70-82 on page 1) for connecting link chains (3 and 4 “tread chain sections”), comprising: a base portion (7 and 9) defining a centre hole (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) comprises a plurality of curved portions (10; Fig. 2) extending from the base portion (7 and 9), to which curved portions ends of link chains (3 and 4) can be releasably connected (The phrase “can be releasably connected” merely describes a possible used of the curved portions and does not impose a structural limitation on the connecting element), and wherein each of the plurality of curved portions (10) is curved towards the centre hole (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Sunde discloses the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) according to claim 1, wherein tips (Refer to the tips in the below annotated Fig. 2) of the plurality of curved portions (10) are arranged to extend in an essentially perpendicular manner in relation to a plane defined by the base portion (7 and 9; Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Sunde
Regarding claim 8, Sunde discloses the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) comprises at least of curved portions (10; Claim 8 is interpreted as requiring the connecting element to comprise curved portions).
Regarding claim 9, Sunde discloses the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) has an even number of curved portions (10; Figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the curved portions (10) are arranged in pairs opposite to each other (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 10, Sunde discloses the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) according to claim 1, wherein the base portion (7 and 9) has a flat or curved shape (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Sunde discloses the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) according to claim 1, wherein the base portion (7 and 9) has a form of a circular or polygonal ring (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 14, Sunde discloses the connecting element (7, 9, and 10) according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element is made of iron alloy (Lines 52-56 on page 1).
Regarding claim 15, Sunde discloses a traction chain (1 “chain”; Fig. 1), comprising:
wherein the traction chain (1) comprises a plurality of the connecting elements (7, 9, and 10) of claim 1 releasably connecting (Fig. 2; The hook-like coupling members 9 having inturned bills 10 releasably engage links 11, thereby providing detachable connection of the tread chain sections) the plurality of link chains (3-6) to each other (Although only a single connecting element is shown in Fig. 1, the disclosed traction chain necessarily comprises multiple instances of the anti-skid device to interconnect the plurality of tread chain sections).
6. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Daniel (US4020886).
Regarding claim 1, Daniel discloses a connecting element (1 “ring” and 3 “plate member”, when welded together, form a unitary structure corresponding to the claimed connecting element; Col. 2, lines 6-34; Figs. 1 and 2) for connecting link chains (2a “end link”; Fig. 2), comprising: a base portion (1) defining a centre hole (Fig. 1), wherein the connecting element (1 and 3) comprises a plurality of curved portions (Refer to the curved portions in the below annotated Fig. 2; Daniel further discloses that an alternative suitable shape of the plate member 3 is elliptical, which teaches the claimed curved portions, although the embodiment shown in the figures is trapezoidal; Col. 2, lines 6-19) extending from the base portion (1), to which curved portions ends of link chains (2a) can be releasably connected (The phrase “can be releasably connected” merely describes a possible used of the curved portions and does not impose a structural limitation on the connecting element), and wherein each of the plurality of curved portions is curved towards the centre hole (Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
331
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Daniel
Regarding claim 4, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of curved portions has planar sides (Refer to the above annotated Fig. 2 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of curved portions has an inner edge having a semi-circular cross section (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
334
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Daniel
Regarding claim 7, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 6, wherein a distance between the inner edge and an outer edge of the curved portion decreases towards the tip of the curved portion (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
425
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Daniel
Regarding claim 8, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element (1 and 3) comprises at least of curved portions (Refer to the curved portion in the above annotated Fig. 3; Claim 8 is interpreted as requiring the connecting element to comprise curved portions).
Regarding claim 9, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element (1 and 3) has an even number of curved portions (Figs. 1-3) and wherein the curved portions are arranged in pairs opposite to each other (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein the base portion (1) has a flat or curved shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein the base portion (1) has a form of a circular or polygonal ring (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element (1 and 3) is made from several parts (1 and 3) that are joined together by welding (Col. 2, lines 6-29).
Regarding claim 14, Daniel discloses the connecting element (1 and 3) according to claim 1, wherein the connecting element (1 and 3) is made of iron alloy (“The tire chain according to the invention comprises a plurality of identical, relatively large annular elements or steel rings 1” per col.1, lines 59-62; “The plate member 3 is shown in detail in Fig. 3. It is made from special steel” per col.2, lines 6-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunde, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Coles et al (US10266021B2).
Regarding claim 3, Sunde fails to disclose the tips of the plurality of curved portions are arranged to extend into the centre hole.
Coles et al, however, teaches the tips of the plurality of curved portions are arranged to extend into the centre hole (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
663
867
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Coles et al
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the connecting element of Sunde by extending the tips of the curved portions into the centre hole as taught by Coles et al, with the motivation to improve retention of the connected link chains and reduce the risk of disengagement.
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel, as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Coles et al (US10266021B2).
Regarding claim 5, Daniel fails to the planar sides of the curved portions are tilted relative to each other.
Coles et al, however, teaches the planar sides (6 and 7 “first and second side faces”; Figs. 4-7) of the curved portions (Refer to the curve portions in the below annotated Fig. 5) are tilted relative to each other (Figs. 6 and 7).
PNG
media_image6.png
614
760
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 5 of Coles et al
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the connecting element of Daniel by configuring the planar sides of the curved portions to be tilted relative to each other as taught by Coles et al with the motivation to facilitate manufacturing of the connecting element, angled side walls being conventionally provided in formed or forged components to enable proper forming and removal from tooling.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baldry (EP0049570A2).
Regarding claim 12, Daniel fails to the connecting element is made in one piece by casting or forging.
Baldry, however, teaches the connecting element (15 “tri-radial connector element”; Figs. 3, 5, and 6) is made in one piece by casting or forging (Refer to the highlighted portions on pages 3 and 5 of the attached document of Baldry; Claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the connecting element of Daniel by forming it as a one-piece forged structure as taught by Baldry, with the motivation to replace the welded structure with a known cast or forged alternative while maintaining the same chain-interconnecting function.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose a connecting element for interconnecting traction chain links.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615