DETAILED ACTION
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 – 12 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 12 each recite the limitation “substantially.” Examiner notes that “substantially” is a term of degree which is not clearly defined in the Specification. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the chain.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a pair of links.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the “link” previously set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant intends the limitation to set forth a second set of ‘links’ which are separate and independent from the ‘link’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a pair of the links.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein each of the pair of pawls engage links of a chain.” The limitation is indefinite for several reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pair of pawls.” This is because neither claim 11 nor claim 9 positively recite a ‘pair of pawls.’ Examiner recognizes that claim 1 sets forth a “pair of pawls,” and that claim 9 refers to the “chain restrains as claimed in claim 1.” However, the ‘pair of pawls’ recited in claim 1 refers to the ‘pair of pawls’ of the ‘pawl operated chain walking wire strainer’ to which to the ‘chain restraint’ of claim 1 is configured for use. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to require the ‘pawl operated chain walking wire strainer’ of claim 11 to include the ‘pair of pawls’ set forth in claim 1, or whether Applicant merely intends the limitation to refer to, and further define, the ‘pair of pawls’ which are functionally recited in claim 1. Secondly, Examiner notes that the Specification expressly teaches that the ‘pawl operated chain walking wire’ is configured for use with the ‘links of a chain’ of the limitation (page 4, lines 12 – 16). Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require the ‘pairs of pawls’ to engage with ‘links of a chain,’ such that the claim is directed towards both the ‘pawl operated chain walking wire strainer’ and the ‘chain,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘pair of pawls,’ such that the claim is directed only towards the ‘pawl operated chain walking wire strainer.’ For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation such that “the pair of pawls” refers to the functionally recited “pair of pawls” of claim 1, and that the recitation of “engage links of a chain” describes a functional use of the ‘pair of pawls.’
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 - 11 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 chain walking wire strainer (abstract), wherein said chain restraint comprises a protrusion located on a link (figures 1 – 3, elements 2 and 3 being the ‘chain restraint,’ element 16 being the ‘protrusion,’ and element 14 being the ‘link’; column 2, line 49 – column 3, line 6), wherein the protrusion is configured to extend outwardly from an operating plane and the link is configured to connect to a walker bar (figure 1, elements 16 and 14, wherein a vertical plane parallel to element 14 being the ‘operating plane’).
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 said protrusion comprises an arm of an 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 equal to a length of one link of a chain (figures 1 – 3, element 16).
As to claim 5, Lillig teaches a pair of said protrusion 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,’ see below; column 2, line 49 – column 3, line 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
1059
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Lillig teaches that each of said protrusions is configured to be located on a corresponding one of a pair of said links (figures 1 – 3, elements 16 and 14).
As to claim 7, the discussion of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 8, the discussion of claim 4 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 9, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 10, Lillig teaches a pair of the chin 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).
As to claim 11, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As to claim 12, AAPA teaches a pawl operated chain walking wire strainer (figures 1 – 3, element 10 being the ‘pawl operated chain walking wire strainer’; page 3, lines 7 - 11) comprising a chain restraint, a handle, a walker bar extending from the handle, and a pair of pawls pivoted on the walker bar (figures 1 – 3, elements 16 and 17 being the ‘chain restraint,’ element 11 being the ‘handle,’ element 12 being the ‘walker bar,’ and elements 13 and 14 being the ‘pair of pawls’; page 3, lines 7 – 11), the walker bar and pawls defining an operating plane of said wire strainer (figure 1, elements 13, 14, and 11, see below), wherein said chain restraint comprises a protrusion extending outwardly from said operating plane (figure 1, elements 16 and 17 being the ‘protrusion,’ see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
544
1124
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues, on page 4, that claim 9 is not a substantial duplicate of claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Examiner recognizes that the preamble of claim 9 positively recites “a pawl operated chain walking wire strainer,” which is not required by claim 1. However, the only positively required element of claim 9 is “at least one chain restraint as claimed in claim 1.” Therefore, it is the position of the Examiner that claim 9 is a “substantial duplicate” of claim 1.
Applicant next argues, on page 5, that Lillig does not teach a pair of pawls, as recited by claim 1. However, Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the claimed ‘chain restraint’ as being functionally configured for use with the ‘pair of pawls’ and, therefore, is not a positively required element of the claim. It is the position of the Examiner that the ‘chain restraint’ of Lillig is configured for use with a ‘pawl operated chain walking wire strainer’ having a ‘pair of pawls.’
Applicant next argues, on page 5, that the chain restraint of Lillig does not comprise a ‘link configured to connect to a walker bar’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards a ‘chain restraint’ as being functionally configured for use with the ‘walker bar.’ It is the position of the Examiner that the ‘link’ of Lillig is configured for use with a ‘pawl operated chain walking wire strainer’ having a ‘walker bar.’
Applicant next argues, on page 5, that the chain restrainer of Lillig does not include a ‘pair of protrusions’ each extending in opposite directions from an ‘operating plane.’ Examiner disagrees. Lillig teaches a ‘pair of protrusions,’ each of which extend from an ‘operating plane’ in opposite directions (figure 1, elements 16 being the ‘pair of protrusions’ and a vertical plane parallel with elements 14 being the ‘operating plane,’ see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
633
1059
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiebe (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0097594) teaches a chain restraint comprising a protrusion located on a link, wherein the protrusion extends outwardly from an operating plane.
Fox (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0056678) teaches a chain restraint comprising a protrusion located on a link, wherein the protrusion extends outwardly from an operating plane.
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 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