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 .
This is a non-final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 02/12/2026.
Claims 9 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 have been canceled.
Claims 9-28 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodziak (US Patent No. 10,344,824), in view of Benecke (US Patent No. 7,231,759).
Regarding claim 9, Brodziak discloses a chain block lock configured to connect two chain ends, comprising:
two elongated block lock halves configured to be connected to each other, and extending in a longitudinal direction along a chain length direction, wherein the two elongated block lock halves, in a connected configuration, comprise a receptacle space to receive the two chain ends (see annotated Fig. 4);
a bolt (12) inserted on one end of the chain block lock in the longitudinal direction, the bolt configuring a pivot axis between the two elongated block lock halves (see annotated Fig. 4, and Fig. 7); and
a locking element (18) inserted on an opposite end of the chain block lock in the longitudinal direction, the locking element coupling together the two elongated block lock halves (see annotated Fig. 4, and Fig. 7),
Brodziak does not disclose wherein only one block lock half of the two elongated block lock halves comprises a widening at an upper edge on both of the end and the opposite end, the widening extending over at least 80% of a length of the one block lock half in the longitudinal direction, and the widening protruding laterally beyond a side of the one block lock half, and the widening extends in the longitudinal direction of the chain block lock above the receptacle space.
However, Benecke teaches wherein only one block lock half of the two elongated block lock halves comprises a widening at an upper edge on both of the end and the opposite end, and the widening protruding laterally beyond a side of the one block lock half, and the widening extends in the longitudinal direction of the chain block lock above the receptacle space (see annotated Figs. 3-5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one block lock half from Brodziak with a widening at an upper edge on both of the end and the opposite end of the widening as taught by Benecke, in order to permit good pivoting and to prevent jamming.
Also, Brodziak discloses the claimed invention except for the widening extending over at least 80% of a length of the one block lock half in the longitudinal direction. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the widening extending over at least 80% of a length of the one block lock half in the longitudinal direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening at a required length along the longitudinal direction, in order to prevent jamming.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
504
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses, wherein the chain block lock comprises a constant width, except for where the widening is present (see Figs. 4a and 4b from Benecke).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses, wherein a wall of the chain block lock merges in cross section with an inner radius into the widening (see Figs. 4a and 4b from Benecke).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for the widening extends over an entire length of the chain block lock. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the widening extends over an entire length of the chain block lock, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening at an entire length along the longitudinal direction, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the widening is 10% to 30% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a width of the widening is 10% to 30% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening width at an optimal width, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses, wherein the widening comprises a wavy course in the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 4a and 4b from Benecke).
Regarding claim 15, Brodziak further discloses, comprising a middle web separating the receptacle space into two receptacle spaces (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Brodziak discloses, wherein the two elongated block lock halves are configured to lock with one another at respective end faces (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for the widening extends over 90% of the length of the one block lock half. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the widening extends over 90% of the length of the one block lock half, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening at an optimal length along the longitudinal direction, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the widening is 15% to 25% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a width of the widening is 15% to 25% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening width at a requird width, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 19, Brodziak discloses a chain block lock configured to connect two chain ends, comprising:
two elongated block lock halves configured to be connected to each other, and extending in a longitudinal direction along a chain length direction, wherein the two elongated block lock halves, in a connected configuration, comprise a receptacle space to receive the two chain ends (see annotated Fig. 4);
a bolt (12) inserted on one end of the chain block lock in the longitudinal direction, the bolt configuring a pivot axis between the two elongated block lock halves (see annotated Fig. 4, and Fig. 7); and
a locking element (18) inserted on an opposite end of the chain block lock in the longitudinal direction, the locking element coupling together the two elongated block lock halves (see annotated Fig. 4, and Fig. 7),
Brodziak does not disclose wherein only one block lock half of the two elongated block lock halves comprises a widening at an upper edge on both of the end and the opposite end, the widening extending over at least 80% of a length of the one block lock half in the longitudinal direction, and the widening protruding laterally beyond a side of the one block lock half, and the widening protruding laterally beyond a side of the one block lock half, and the widening extends in the longitudinal direction of the chain block lock above the receptacle space.
However, Benecke teaches wherein only one block lock half of the two elongated block lock halves comprises a widening at an upper edge on both of the end and the opposite end, and the widening protruding laterally, in a direction along the pivot axis, beyond opposite sides of the one block lock half, and the widening protruding laterally beyond a side of the one block lock half, and the widening extends in the longitudinal direction of the chain block lock above the receptacle space (see annotated Figs. 3-5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one block lock half from Brodziak with a widening at an upper edge on both of the end and the opposite end of the widening as taught by Benecke, in order to permit good pivoting and to prevent jamming.
Also, Brodziak discloses the claimed invention except for the widening extending over at least 80% of a length of the one block lock half in the longitudinal direction. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the widening extending over at least 80% of a length of the one block lock half in the longitudinal direction, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening at an optimal length along the longitudinal direction, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses, wherein the chain block lock comprises a constant width, except for where the widening is present (see Figs. 4a and 4b from Benecke).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses, wherein a wall of the chain block lock merges in cross section with an inner radius into the widening (see Figs. 4a and 4b from Benecke).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for the widening extends over an entire length of the chain block lock. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the widening extends over an entire length of the chain block lock, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening at an entire length along the longitudinal direction, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the widening is 10% to 30% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a width of the widening is 10% to 30% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening width at an optimal width, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses, wherein the widening comprises a wavy course in the longitudinal direction (see Figs. 4a and 4b from Benecke).
Regarding claim 25, Brodziak further discloses, comprising a middle web separating the receptacle space into two receptacle spaces (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 26, Brodziak discloses, wherein the two elongated block lock halves are configured to lock with one another at respective end faces (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for the widening extends over 90% of the length of the one block lock half. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the widening extends over 90% of the length of the one block lock half, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening at an optimal length along the longitudinal direction, in order to prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Brodziak in view of Benecke discloses the claimed invention except for a width of the widening is 15% to 25% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a width of the widening is 15% to 25% greater in relation to a width of the chain block lock, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to extend the widening width at an optimal width, in order to prevent jamming.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 6-9, filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 9 and 19 Brodziak, in view of Benecke:
Benecke teaches the widening extends in the longitudinal direction of the chain block lock above the receptacle space (see annotated Figs.3 and 4b).
Benecke clearly teaches the widening (outbulging A) extends in the longitudinal direction of the chain block lock in order to prevent jamming, same as the instant application (see Col. 4, lines 42-52). The applicant's original specification does not clearly explain the widening above the receptacle space is to prevent jamming and permits smooth pivoting of the chain block lock when engaging a sprocket.
It is obvious to extend the widening (outbulging A) from Benecke to a required length along the longitudinal direction, in order to prevent jamming.
The reasonable obvious combination of Brodziak, in view of Benecke is to modify the one block lock half from Brodziak with a widening extended above the receptacle space from Benecke in order to permit good pivoting and to prevent jamming.
Applicant's arguments are more limiting than the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677