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 .
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 1 - 2 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 includes the limitation “wherein when moving along the guide rail, the drag chain remains vertical throughout the entire travel stroke and is in constant rolling contact with the support roller and the auxiliary roller” in the last paragraph of the claim. This limitation is a method limitation that specifies a step of using the apparatus. Per MPEP 2173.05(p), such limitations are indefinite and for the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as though it read –wherein the drag chain is configured to remain vertical throughout the entire travel stroke and is in constant rolling contact with the support roller and the auxiliary roller when moving along the guide rail--.
All claims dependent on rejected claims are likewise rejected.
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) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholer (DE102012111545) in view of Ishikawa et. al (WO2014084207), hereinafter referred to as Ishikawa.
Re Claim 1, Scholer discloses a vertically-mounted micro friction drag chain mechanism, comprising: a supporting roller (see Fig. 1 illustrated below), and an auxiliary roller (see Fig. 1 illustrated below); a drag chain (laid down strand 1) disposed on a side of a guide rail with a surface of the drag chain placed vertically and parallel to the side wall of the guide rail (see Fig. 1, illustrated below); wherein a portion near end of the drag chain is disposed on the supporting roller (Fig. 1); another end of the drag chain extends from the supporting roller to the auxiliary roller, turns at the auxiliary roller and extends towards the supporting roller (Fig. 1); and the supporting roller is configured to drive the drag chain on the auxiliary roller so that the drag chain moves (There is a frictional force between the supporting roller and the drag chain which can drive the drag chain); a turning radius formed by the drag chain turning at the auxiliary roller (see Fig. 1 illustrated above) is less than a distance between two bounds (see Fig. 1 illustrated above); wherein when moving along the guide rail, the drag chain remains vertical throughout the entire travel stroke and is in constant rolling contact with the support roller and the auxiliary roller (laid down strand 1, as shown in Fig. 4, is vertical throughout the entire travel stroke and is in constant rolling contact with the support and auxiliary roller).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Scholer, illustrated
Scholer fails to disclose that the auxiliary roller comprises: two roller covers; a bearing, disposed between the two roller covers; a support shaft, disposed on a side of one of the two roller covers facing away from the bearing, an end of the support shaft is connected to the one of the two roller covers and another end of the support shaft is configured to be connected with the guide rail; wherein a turning radius formed by the drag chain turning at the auxiliary roller is less than a distance between the two roller covers.
Ishikawa teaches the auxiliary roller (chain block 10) comprising two roller covers (first frame 11 and second cover as identified in Fig. 4 of Ishikawa, illustrated below); a bearing (B1, B2), disposed between the two roller covers (first frame 11 and second cover as identified in Fig. 4 of Ishikawa, illustrated below); a support shaft (load sheave hollow shaft 20 and drive shaft 70), disposed on a side of one of the two roller covers facing away from the bearing (Fig. 4), an end of the support shaft is connected to the one of the two roller covers (Fig. 4), and another end of the support shaft is configured to be connected to a guide rail (groove nut 84).
PNG
media_image2.png
976
1183
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Ishikawa, illustrated
Scholer differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing the claimed structure of the auxiliary roller. Ishikawa teaches the claimed structure of an auxiliary roller and the function (“to move the load up or down” Line 1 of pg. 2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the auxiliary roller of Scholer for the chain block of Ishikawa and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the results to be predictable. Examiner notes that after combination the turning radius formed by the drag chain turning at the auxiliary roller (as identified in Scholer) is less than a distance between the two roller covers (as incorporated from Ishikawa).
Re Claim 2, Scholer, in view of Ishikawa, discloses the vertically-mounted micro friction drag chain mechanism as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a drag chain groove disposed under the supporting roller is configured to support the drag chain (Fig. 2) and place a motor (“By means of a power supply unit” [0002]) drive line required for driving a trolley or a drive line matched with a guide rail.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 25th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
The new claim 1 can be accepted under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being not anticipated by Scholer and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Scholer (DE102012111545) in view of Ishikawa et. al (W02014084207).
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, filed May 25th, 2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by Scholer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Scholer in view of Ishikawa.
Scholer discloses Branch 1 and Branch 2. Branch 2 is arranged on a plurality of rollers 5, while the other branch, Branch 1, is disposed on a storage portion 4. The entire bottom surface of Branch 1 is in full contact with the storage portion4, resulting in sliding contact between the bottom surface of Branch 1 and the surface of the storage portion 4. When Branch 1 moves on the storage portion 4, the entire bottom surface is subject to sliding friction. As the travel stroke of Branch 1 increases, the sliding contact area and friction force between Branch 1 and the storage portion 4 continuously change.
As shown in the figure above, the present invention discloses that, the first section of the drag chain 7 is arranged on a set of support rollers and a set of auxiliary rollers (the same as disclosed in Scholer), and the second section of the drag chain 7 is disposed only on the set of auxiliary rollers (unlike the storage portion 4 disclosed in Scholer). When the second section of the drag chain 7 moves on the set of auxiliary rollers, the bottom surface of the drag chain 7 is subjected to rolling friction. With the increase in the travel stroke of the second section of the drag chain 7, the rolling contact area and friction force between the bottom surface of the drag chain 7 and the set of auxiliary rollers remain unchanged and are maintained at a minimal level.
Therefore, Scholer fails to disclose that Branch 1 is only placed on one set of auxiliary rollers.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Branch 1 is only placed on one set of auxiliary rollers”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Scholer further discloses side walls (12, 13). For the Branch 1, the side wall 13 is closely attached to the side wall surface of the Branch 1, and the side wall surface of the Branch 1 is subjected to substantial sliding friction during movement. For the Branch 2, rollers 6 are arranged on the side wall 12 to achieve rolling contact with the side wall surface of the Branch 2. In addition, fixing seats (8, 9) and arm portions (7) connected to the fixing seats (8, 9) are provided at the upper ends of Branch 1 and Branch 2, so as to ensure that the bending section 11 can pass beside the limiting members (15, 16). Accordingly, Scholer discloses that, both the bottom surface and side wall surface of the Branch 1 and Branch 2 are subject to considerable sliding and rolling friction.
In the present invention, the side walls (12, 13) are omitted. Meanwhile, a turning radius of the drag chain (7) at the set of auxiliary rollers (2) is smaller than the distance between the two roller covers (3), such that a gap is reserved between the drag chain (7) and the roller covers (3) without any contact, and no friction is exerted on the surface of the drag chain. Consequently, friction is only generated at three contact positions where the bottom of the drag chain contacts the set of support rollers and the set of auxiliary rollers. Scholer fails to disclose the arrangement structure of the drag chain, the support rollers and the auxiliary rollers according to the present invention.
For the clarity record, Applicant’s invention does not omit sidewalls. The supporting shaft connects the roller cover to a sidewall.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “friction is only generated at three contact positions where the bottom of the drag chain contacts the set of support rollers and the set of auxiliary rollers.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is: in the precision detection application of ultra-long guide rails (e.g., over 50 meters), how to reduce and eliminate the non-constant external force generated by lamination and sliding friction with the contact surface during the operation of the drag chain, so as to ensure that the drag chain is subjected to uniform and micro friction force within the full travel range, thereby meeting the micron-level precision positioning requirements.
In response to applicant's argument that Scholer is nonanalogous art, Examiner notes that claim 1 was originally rejected under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Scholer. Analagous art is an argument against obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103, not anticipation rejections under 35 USC 102.
In response to applicant's argument that Scholer is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Scholer is in the same field of endeavour. Both Scholer and the instant application deal with cable chains (instant application, spec [0001]; Scholer, “The subject matter of the invention relates to an energy guiding system having at least one energy guiding unit for guiding lines, cables, hoses or the like between a stationary and a movable connection region” [0001] and the energy guiding system is shown to comprise cable chains in Fig. 1)
Scholer disclosed in Paragraph [0006] mentions that friction may cause prominent problems in long-stroke operation. Its proposed solution is to adopt rollers 5 to support Branch 2, yet it fails to address the sliding friction between Branch 1 and the storage portion 4 as well as the sliding friction on Branch 1 caused by the rigid constraint of the side wall 13. Moreover, the friction force inevitably varies with the change in the length of Branch 2. Meanwhile, Scholer further discloses that Branch 2 is supported by rolling means while Branch 1 is supported by sliding means, and the storage portion is configured to compensate for the height difference between Branch 2 and Branch 1, which implies that a person skilled in the field generally recognizes that the supporting modes for Branch 2 and Branch 1 must be different of sliding support and rolling support.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The present application creatively adopts rolling support for both the first section and the second section of the drag chain, completely eliminates the rigid binding force and sliding friction applied on the side wall surface and bottom surface of the drag chain, and provides three rolling contact support points for the drag chain through only one set of support rollers and one set of auxiliary rollers. It simultaneously realizes the support and rolling guidance of the drag chain, and keeps the drag chain in a stress state of "pure rolling and stable minimal friction".
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “rolling support for both the first section and the second section of the drag chain” and “three rolling contact support points for the drag chain through only one set of support rollers and one set of auxiliary rollers”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For a person skilled in the field, there is no motivation to replace the storage portion 4 disclosed in Scholer with an auxiliary roller, no motivation to change the supporting mode (change sliding support to rolling support) and friction type change a sliding support to a rolling support (change sliding friction to rolling friction) received by Branch 2, thereby obtaining pure rolling support for the drag chain 7, which can achieve an unexpected technical effect of "constant micro-friction throughout the entire process".
Obviously, Scholer fails to disclose the technical solution of the present application. Similarly, Ishikawa also fails to disclose the technical solution of the present application.
As to the arguments against the original rejections of Claim 1 as anticipated by Scholer, rolling support for both the first section and the second section of the drag chain is not claimed so there is no need to replace the storage portion disclosed in Scholer with a rolling support.
As to the arguments against the new rejections of claim 1 (and original rejection of claim 3) as obvious over Scholer and Ishikawa, Examiner notes that Ishikawa discloses the claimed features not disclosed by Scholer as shown in the claim mapping above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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.
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 10:00 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 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights