DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious burden on the examiner and that the species restriction between the embodiments of figures 11 and 12 is improper as that they differ only in whether the “central bearing region” is on the outside of the pin ring. This is not found persuasive because a separate text search may be required. Additionally, the restriction pertains to Species A-N (Figures 1-26) Applicant has not presented any arguments specifically directed any other embodiments other than species D and E (figures 11 and 12).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 18-20, are withdrawn by the examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/6/2026. The examiner notes Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 18-20 are directed to non-elected species and are hereby withdrawn by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites “wherein the tooth crests of the internal toothing are arranged radially opposite the tooth crests of the external toothing” a feature previously claimed in claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doring US 5,437,580 A.
Doring discloses:
Claim 1- a toothed belt (4) comprising: an internal toothing (inner instances of 10); and an external toothing (outer instances of 10); wherein tooth crests of the internal toothing comprise a rounded region and wherein tooth crests of the external toothing comprise a rounded region (see figures 1-5), wherein the tooth crests of the internal toothing are arranged radially opposite the tooth bases of the external toothing so that the toothed belt comprises an offset gap arrangement in which the teeth of the internal toothing and the external toothing are offset from each other (see figures 1 and 2), and wherein the toothed belt comprises a smooth central bearing region (see 12 in figure 4).
Claim 3- wherein the toothed belt comprises a smooth central bearing region (see 12 in figure 4)
Claim 6- wherein an inner side of the toothed belt comprises a central bearing region (inside belt portion of 12, 14) which is provided in the form of a vertical circular cylinder, such that the internal toothing adjoins the central bearing region in axially opposite regions (see fig. 4).
Claim 8- wherein the toothed belt is made in one piece (see fig. 4).
Claim 9- wherein the toothed belt comprises plastic (col. 1 ln 9).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doring US 5,437,580 A.
Doring discloses the claimed invention except for steel alloy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a steel alloy for its strength and low cost, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17, and 21-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither discloses nor renders obvious the claimed combination including: at least one revolving transmitter which lifts the traction mechanism from the outer circumference of the inner gear and presses it against the inner circumference of the outer gear, and wherein the toothed belt comprises a smooth central bearing region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4072062 A discloses a similar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERENCE BOES whose telephone number is (571)272-4898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6:30.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
TERENCE BOES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/TERENCE BOES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618