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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the belt is flexible requiring low-temperature processing and that the neighboring regions do not need to be masked) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments that the cited references do not deal with repair operations, it is noted that the operations of Tyrer involve removing the plastic coating, performing a weld, and replacing the coating with a new or identical coating. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the general steps can be applied to a repair process as well.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrer WO 1995029033 A1, provided by the applicant, in view of Cretteur et al. US 20170304952 A1, Manfred et al. EP 1847330 A2, and Pierre US 20100062169 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tyrer discloses a method for repairing (Pg. 1, Para. 1 wherein a person of ordinary skill would apply the same tactic of welding to repair as it involves removing a coating to process the metal) an endless belt (Pg. 4, Para. 2, Lines 1-2 wherein an example use case is with a food can which would be an endless belt) with a belt body (Fig. 1A, Ref. 12) and a coating having at least one layer (Fig. 1A, Ref. 11), wherein the belt body has a first surface (Fig. 1B as annotated below) and a second surface (Fig. 1B as annotated below), wherein the first surface and the second surface are connected to each other by means of side surfaces (Fig. 1B as annotated below), wherein each of the side surfaces is smaller than each of the surfaces (Fig. 1B as annotated below), wherein the coating coats at least one of the surfaces of the belt (Fig. 1A, Ref. 11), the method comprising the steps of: creating a recess (Fig. 1C as annotated below) interrupting the coating around a region of the belt body to be processed (Fig. 1C shows the recessed coating area being processed), wherein the recess is at least partially delimited by opposite sections of the at least one coating (Fig. 1C, Ref. 11) removing the coating in a region of the recess (Fig. 1B shows the coating being removed) until the first surface of the belt body is exposed (Fig. 1 B shows the belt body, Ref. 12, exposed); after removing the coating in the region of the recess, processing the belt body by grinding, by cutting out parts of the belt body or by inserting material into the belt body (Fig. 1B shows Ref. 14 laser welding the belt body); to provide a refilled coating wherein the coating is made from a plastic material (Pg. 1, Para. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
253
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
193
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tyrer does not specifically disclose wherein the opposite sections of the coating delimiting the recess are staggered toward a middle of the recess, forming an upper side and steps adjoining the upper side and having front sides, wherein a level of the upper side of the steps decreases from an edge of the recess towards the middle of the recess with respect to the first surface of the belt body; and filling the recess at least partially by spraying the recess with at least one material of the same type as the at least one layer of the coating, and wherein a staggered configuration of the opposite sections of the coating ensures an approximately uniform thickness of the refilled coating and prevents overspray into adjacent regions.
However in the same field of endeavor, Cretteur teaches wherein the opposite sections of the coating delimiting the recess are staggered toward a middle of the recess (Fig. 3, Refs. 18, 19, and 20), forming an upper side and steps adjoining the upper side and having front sides (Fig. 3, Refs. 18, 19, and 20), wherein a level of the upper side of the steps decreases from an edge of the recess towards the middle of the recess with respect to the first surface of the belt body (Fig. 3, Refs. 18, 19, and 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orientation of the coating in Tyrer with the staggered recess of Cretteur to create a clearance between the coatings to promote the deposit of the filler metal (Cretteur Para. 194).
In the same field of endeavor, Manfred teaches filling the recess at least partially by spraying the recess with at least one material of the same type as the at least one layer of the coating (Paras. 11 and 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess filling operation of Tyrer with the spraying method of Manfred to seal the weld seam and produce a corrosion-free seam (Manfred Para. 10).
In the same field of endeavor, Pierre teaches wherein a staggered configuration of the opposite sections of the coating ensures an approximately uniform thickness of the refilled coating and prevents overspray into adjacent regions (Fig. 1B shows the designated spray area and a way to collect the overspray to ensure optimal coating (Para. 73)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recess filling operation of Tyrer with the spraying method of Pierre to ensure optimal coating (Pierre, Para. 73).
Regarding claim 2, Tyrer discloses wherein the belt body is made of metal (Pg. 1, Para. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Tyrer discloses wherein a bottom of the recess is formed by a coating-free section of the surface (Fig. 1C as annotated below) of the belt body, wherein opposite sections of the coating at least partially delimiting the recess are separated from each other by the coating-free section of the surface of the belt body (Fig. 1C, Ref. 11).
PNG
media_image2.png
193
268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyrer WO 1995029033 A1, provided by the applicant, in view of Cretteur et al. US 20170304952 A1 and Manfred et al. EP 1847330 A2, and in further view of Weine Ramsey US 20070082964 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Tyrer discloses the coating is made of a plastic material, but does not specifically disclose wherein the plastic material comprises a polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE).
However in the same field of endeavor, Weine Ramsey teaches wherein the plastic material comprises a polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) (Para. 97) to produce a corrosion resistance coating which may be applied to metals in one coat, provide energy savings, provide cost savings, and decrease production time (Para. 25)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plastic coating of Tyrer with the polytetrafluorethylene of Weine Ramsey to produce a corrosion resistance coating which may be applied to metals in one coat, provide energy savings, provide cost savings, and decrease production time (Para. 25).
Conclusion
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 KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761