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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Australia on September 13, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the AU 2023 902942 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 – 10 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 recites the limitation “a protrusion extending outwardly from said operating plane.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a chain restrain for a pawl operated wire strainer having ... an operating plane of said wire strainer.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a ‘protrusion extending outwardly from said operating plane of said wire strainer,’ such that the claim is directed towards a combination of the ‘protrusion’ and the ‘pawl operated wire strainer,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to require the ‘protrusion’ to be functionally capable of extending from the ‘operating plane of the wire strainer.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a protrusion configured to extend outwardly from said operating plane.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said protrusion is formed on a link interconnecting said walker bar with a strain gauge ...” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a chain restraint for a pawl operated wire strainer having ... a walker bar.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require ‘said protrusion being formed on a link that is interconnected with the walker bar of said wire strainer,’ such that the claim is directed towards a combination of the ‘protrusion’ and the ‘pawl operated wire strainer,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to require the ‘protrusion’ to be functionally capable of being formed on ‘a link interconnecting the walker bar of the wire strainer with a strain gauge.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “said protrusion is configured to be located on a link interconnecting said walker bar with a strain gauge ...”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “approximately.” Because ‘approximately’ is a term of degree which is not expressly defined in the Specification, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation “the length.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a pair of said protrusions each extending from said plane in opposite directions.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a chain restrain for a pawl operated wire strainer having ... an operating plane of said wire strainer.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘pair of protrusion protrusions each extending from said operating plane of said wire strainer,’ such that the claim is directed towards a combination of the ‘pair of protrusions’ and the ‘pawl operated wire strainer,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to require the ‘pair of protrusions’ to be functionally capable of extending from the ‘operating plane of the wire strainer.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a pair of the protrusions each being configured to extend from said plane in opposite directions.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “each of said protrusions is formed on a corresponding one of a pair of links.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a chain restraint for a pawl operated wire strainer.” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require ‘said protrusions being formed on a corresponding one of a pair of links of the wire strainer,’ such that the claim is directed towards a combination of the ‘pair of protrusions’ and the ‘pawl operated wire strainer,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to require the ‘pair of protrusions’ to be functionally capable of being formed on ‘a corresponding one of a pair of links of the wire strainer with a strain gauge.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of said protrusions are configured to be located on a corresponding one of a pair of links.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said arm.” Examiner notes that claim 7, from which claim 8 is dependent, sets forth two ‘arms.’ Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to only one of the ‘arms’ previously set forth, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the ‘arms’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of said arms.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lillig (U.S. Patent Number 6,178,603).
As to claim 1, Lillig teaches a chain restraint for a pawl operated wire strainer (abstract), wherein said chain restraint comprises a protrusion configured to extend outwardly from an operating plane of the pawl operated wire strainer (figures 1 – 3, element 2 being the ‘chain restraint’ and element 16 being the ‘protrusion’; column 2, line 49 – column 3, line 6). Regarding the limitations which further define the ‘pawl operated wire strainer,’ including the ‘handle,’ ‘walker bar,’ ‘pair of pawls,’ and ‘operating plane,’ Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards the ‘chain restraint’ itself, wherein the ‘chain restraint’ is configured for use with the recited ‘pawl operated wire strainer.’ It is the position of the Examiner that the ‘chain restraint’ of Lillig is configured for use with the ‘pawl operated wire strainer’ recited by claim 1.
As to claim 2, Examiner notes that the limitations of claim 2 further describe the intended use of the protrusion. It is the position of the Examiner that the protrusion of Lillig is configured for use in the manner recited by the claim.
As to claim 3, Lillig teaches that that said protrusion comprises an arm of substantially inverted L-shaped configuration (figures 1 – 3, element 16).
As to claim 4, it is the position of the Examiner that the arm has a transverse extent approximately equal to a length of one link of the chain of the wire strainer which the chin restraint is configured for use (figures 1 – 3, element 16).
As to claim 5, Lillig teaches a pair of said protrusions each being configured to extend from said plane in opposite directions (figures 1 – 3, element 16 from each of elements 2 and 3 being the ‘pair of protrusions’; column 2, line 49 – column 3, line 6).
As to claim 6, it is the position of the Examiner that the pair of protrusions are each configured to be located on a corresponding one of a pair of links (figures 1 – 3, elements 16).
As to claim 7, Lillig teaches that each of said protrusions comprises an arm of substantially inverted L-shaped configuration (figures 1 – 3, element 16).
As to claim 8, it is the position of the Examiner that each of said arms have a transverse extent approximately equal to a length of one link of the chain of the wire strainer which the chin restraint is configured for use (figures 1 – 3, element 16).
As to claim 9, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 10, Lillig teaches a pair of the chain restraints facing in opposite directions and each being as claimed in claim 1 (figures 1 – 3, elements 2 and 3 being the ‘pair of chain restraints’; column 2, line 49 – column 3, line 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights