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 .
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 2 and 9-11 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 2 recites the limitation "the teeth" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the teeth" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Should the rejection of claim 9 be overcome, the rejection of claims 10 and 11 so far as they are based on the rejection of claim 9 herein, would also be overcome.
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0256943 to Malki, hereinafter referred to simply as, “Malki”.
With respect to claim 1, Malki discloses a sprocket for a conveyor chain of a carwash conveyor (see [0056], second sentence), comprising:
a sprocket ring configured to engage links in the conveyor chain as the conveyor chain rides over the sprocket ring; and
first and second support rings flanking opposite sides of the sprocket ring, each of the first and second support rings including a hub portion and a flange at an axially outer end of the hub portion, the flanges of the first and second support rings being spaced apart axially from the sprocket ring so as to form a channel between the flanges, and each flange defining a radially-outward facing shoulder surface (see annotated Fig. 5B below):
.
PNG
media_image3.png
878
1085
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malki as set out above in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4207643 to Beer et al., hereinafter referred to simply as “Beer”.
With respect to claim 2, Malki discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the channel is sized to receive drive links of the conveyor chain through which the teeth of the sprocket ring extend as the conveyor chain rides over the sprocket.
Beer teaches wherein the channel is sized to receive drive links of the conveyor chain through which the teeth of the sprocket ring extend as the conveyor chain rides over the sprocket (col. 4, lines 35-38). The use of teeth in sprockets is well known in the industry as taught by Beer. It is a matter of using well known elements to produce a predictable result.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malki as set out above in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4970789 to Bell et al.
With respect to claim 3, Malki discloses all the claimed material but does not disclose wherein the sprocket ring includes a hub, a plurality of teeth spaced apart around the hub and extending radially from the hub, and a plurality of gullets, each gullet located between adjacent ones of the teeth and sized to receive alternating links of the conveyor chain.
Bell teaches wherein the sprocket ring includes a hub, a plurality of teeth spaced apart around the hub and extending radially from the hub, and a plurality of gullets, each gullet located between adjacent ones of the teeth and sized to receive alternating links of the conveyor chain (gullets, see numeral 42 in Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 46-48; and links, see 50 annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
731
831
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings Bell with the disclosure of Beer to reduce slippage and provide greater affirmative contact with the teeth, thereby providing a more efficient transfer of power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 12-14 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.
Claims 15-20 are allowed. Claim 15 is allowed because the prior art does not teach or disclose a unitary one-piece construction of a lug having a coupling portion having first and second noses that extend forward of the main body portion having multiple roller wheels mounted to it on an axle pin wherein the roller assembly can be detached and reversed. The combination with the rest of the claim language is not taught or fairly suggested in the prior art.
Claim 18 is allowed because the prior art does not teach or disclose first and second noses that ramp up toward the main body portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/LESTER RUSHIN, III/
Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights