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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Benedict explicitly teaches away from the use of a metal belt noting Benedict recites “the backings or substrates used in coated abrasive articles are typically made of paper, polymeric materials, cloth, non-woven materials, vulcanized rubber, or combinations of these materials” (Col. 1, Lines 45-48).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion noting that Benedict goes on to recite many of these materials “provide unacceptable backings for certain applications because they are not of sufficient strength, flexibility, or impact-resistance” and “age too rapidly” (Col. 1, Lines 48-55) in a discussion of the state of the prior art. Further, Benedict also contemplates the use of a carrier web with acceptable materials such as paper, polymeric film, rubber webs, cloth, vulcanized fiber, metallic belts, and treated versions thereof and combinations thereof (Col. 30, Lines 45-5; emphasis added). Thus, Benedict does not explicitly teach away from the use of a metal belt.
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 32-38 and 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al (PGub 2018/0037765) in view of Benedict et al (US Pat. 5681612 cited in IDS), and Stueckler et al (PGPub 2015/0314395), and Szigethi (WO2016123645 cited in IDS, with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 32, Tamura teaches a method for producing an endless belt (Abstract; [0001]- discussing a coated article; [0016]- the coated article includes a substrate and a coating film; [0096]- the coated article can be used in applications utilizing non-adhesiveness such as conveyor belts), the method comprising:
providing a belt body ([0085]- substrate; [0096]- the coated article can be used in applications utilizing non-adhesiveness such as conveyor belts), which comprises a first main surface and a second main surface ([0085]- a substrate necessarily has a top surface and a bottom surface), wherein the first main surface and the second main surface of the belt body are connected to one another via lateral edges ([0085]- the top and bottom surface of a substrate are necessarily connected via lateral edges).
applying a coating directly to the first main surface of the belt body being opposite to an inner side of the endless belt in a finished state of the endless belt ([0093]- the coating film can be formed by applying the coating composition to the substrate), wherein the coating forms an outer side of the endless belt ([0093]- the coating film can be formed by applying the coating composition to the substrate; [0096]- the substrate may be a conveyor belt),
applying at least one base material to the first main surface of the belt body as the coating ([0093]- the coating film can be formed by applying the coating composition to the substrate), to form a matrix for hard particles, into which the hard particles, which comprise at least one material with a hardness measured according to Vickers of more than 500 [HV] are embedded ([0075]- the coating composition has a Mohs hardness of 7 or higher (Vickers hardness of at least 1200 [HV]).
Tamura does not teach reinforcement elements inserted into the base material wherein fibers are used as reinforcing elements.
Benedict teaches an alternative coated substrate (Abstract) wherein coating includes an effective amount of fibrous reinforcing materials (Col. 15, Lines 41-55) in order to increase the tear and stretch-resistance of the substrate (Col. 15, Lines 41-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tamura to include an effective amount of fibrous reinforcing materials as taught by Benedict with reasonable expectation of success to increase the tear and stretch-resistance of the substrate (Col. 15, Lines 41-55) thus meeting the instant limitation of reinforcement elements inserted into the base material wherein fibers are used as reinforcing elements.
Tamura further teaches a generic substrate that may be a conveyor belt [0096] but does not specify the belt body is made of metal, wherein the belt body is closed to form an endless ring before the coating is applied.
Stueckler teaches an alternative endless belt (Abstract) wherein the belt body is made of metal [0007] wherein the belt body is closed to form an endless ring (Fig. 1) in order to produce an endless belt for a wheel drive belt [0004] for automobile test rigs [0004]; [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tamura and Benedict to include metal belt body as taught by Stueckler with reasonable expectation of success to produce an endless belt for a wheel drive belt [0004] for automobile test rigs [0004]; [0017].
Stueckler also does not specify the belt body is closed before the coating is applied.
Szegethi teaches an alternative endless belt (Abstract) wherein the belt body is made of metal [0007], and the belt body is closed to form an endless ring before the coating is applied [0007] in order to compensate for welds and unevenness of the endless belt [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Tamura, Benedict, and Stueckler to include metal belt body as taught by Szegethi with reasonable expectation of success to compensate for welds and unevenness of the endless belt [0008].
Regarding Claim 33, Benedict further teaches the fibers are mineral fibers and/or glass fibers and/or plastic fibers and/or metal fibers (Col. 16, Lines 28-40).
Regarding Claim 34, Benedict further teaches the reinforcing elements form at least a long-range order in the form of a mesh, grid or fabric (Fig. 1; Col. 18, Lines 12-23; Col. 20, Lines 32-42), or are statistically distributed in the base material in the form of cotton flocks, glass fiber shavings, or carbon fiber shavings (Fig. 2; Col. 16, Lines 28-39).
Regarding Claim 35, Benedict further teaches the reinforcing elements each have a ratio of length to diameter of at least 3:1 (Col. 17, Lines 3-7; Col. 17, Line 53-Col. 18, Line 11).
Regarding Claim 36, Benedict further teaches a share of the reinforcing elements amounts to between 10 and 45 percent by weight of the base material or the coating (Col. 9, Line 65-Col. 10, Line 4- the binder material is 40-99 wt% thus the fiber material is 1-60 wt%).
Regarding Claim 37, Tamura further teaches the base material is made of at least one polymer or a mixture of polymers selected from the group of polyimide (PI), polypropylene (PP), monoaxially oriented polypropylene (MOPP), biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP), polyethylene (PE), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) polyetherketone (PEK), polyethyleneimide (PEI), polysulfone (PSU), Polyaryletherketone (PAEK), Polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), Liquid crystalline polymers (LCP), Polyester, Polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polyamide (PA), Polycarbonate (PC), Cycloolefin copolymers (COC), Polyoxymethylene (POM), Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polyvinyl carbonate (PVC), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinyl fluoride (PVF), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and/or ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene-fluoropolymer (EFEP) [0012]; [0020].
Regarding Claim 38, Tamura further teaches organic particles and/or inorganic particles are used as the hard particles [0076].
Regarding Claim 40, Szegethi further teaches the belt body, which is closed to form the endless ring (Fig. 3; [0028]), is circumferentially arranged between two rollers (Fig. 3- rollers 10, 11; [0028]) before the coating is applied (Fig. 3; [0028]).
Regarding Claim 41, Tamura further teaches the coating composition may be applied by any method such as spray coating, roll coating, doctor blade coating, dip (immersion) coating, impregnation coating, spin-flow coating, and curtain-flow coating [0087] thus meeting the instant limitation of the base material is applied in a liquid to the first main surface of the belt body and is distributed uniformly on the first main surface of the belt body.
Regarding Claim 42, the combination of Tamura, Benedict, Stueckler and Szegethi further teaches the base material and the reinforcing elements as well as the hard particles are applied to an upper run of the belt body formed into a closed ring and distributed uniformly on the upper run (Tamura [0087]; Szegethi Fig. 3 and [0028]), wherein the belt body is moved further in a circumferential direction during or after the distribution of the base material and the hard particles ((Tamura [0087]; Szegethi Fig. 3 and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 43, the combination of Tamura and Benedict further teaches the hard particles and the reinforcing elements are mixed into the base material forming the matrix for the hard particles prior to application to the first main surface of the belt body (Tamura [0093]; Benedict Col. 15, Lines 41-55).
Regarding Claim 44, Tamura further teaches the base material is sprayed, brushed, rolled and/or troweled onto the first main surface [0087].
Regarding Claim 45, Tamura further teaches the hard particles have a grain size of between 0.01 mm and 3 mm ([0111]- average particle size- 18 μm (0.018mm)).
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 Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 2/18/26/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748