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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action on the merits for application 19/018809. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 20 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 7-20 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 7 recites the limitation “the outer edge” in line 8 of the claim. It is uncertain if this refers to “an outer top edge” or “an outer bottom edge” or a different outer edge in Claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an outer edge” in line 1 of the claim. It is uncertain if this refers to “an outer top edge,” “an outer bottom edge,” “the outer edge,” or a new outer edge in Claim 7.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "circular metal piece" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an outer edge” in line 6 of the claim. It is uncertain if this refers to “an edge” on line 3 in Claim 14 or is a different edge.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
A close prior art, SCHMID (2010/0279807), teaches a sprocket with a roughened tooth contour, but does not teach whereby drive chain rollers may intermittently slip over a knurled surface on an edge of the minimum grip drive sprocket in Claim 1.
Claims 7-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
A close prior art, SCHMID (2010/0279807), does not teach a minimum grip drive sprocket comprising: a circular piece having an outer circumference, a top side, and, a bottom side, the circular piece including: a top circular bevel extending from an outer top edge of the circular piece and thickening towards a center of the circular piece, a bottom circular bevel extending from an outer bottom edge of the circular piece and thickening towards the center of the circular piece; and a roughened surface treatment applied to the outer edge with the other elements in Claim 7.
A close prior art, SCHMID (2010/0279807), does not teach a minimum grip drive sprocket comprising: a circular shaped sprocket body having a top side, and a bottom side, in which a thickness of the sprocket around an edge of the circular shaped sprocket body is sized so that a roller disposed between a pair of parallel links of a coupled drive chain do not contact the top side and the bottom side of the sprocket body ; anda roughened surface disposed on an outer edge of the circular shaped sprocket body that engages the rollers of the drive chain in Claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY Y LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7018. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 ET.
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, MICHAEL MANSEN can be reached at 5712726608. 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.
HENRY Y. LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/HENRY Y LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654