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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 7/3/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1, 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2018/0223953 to Harada or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2018/0223953 to Harada in view of USPN 5,776,294 to Nagel, USPAP 2005/0085593 to Tsukada, and/or USPAP 2014/0235393 to Sakanaka.
Claims 1, 5 and 7, Harada discloses a V-ribbed belt comprising a plurality of V-shaped ribs, wherein each of the plurality of V-shaped ribs includes a V-shaped rib body formed from a crosslinked rubber composition and a fiber member covering a surface of the V-shaped rib body, the crosslinked rubber composition is a crosslinked product of an uncrosslinked rubber composition containing a rubber component, a crosslinking agent, and at least either an unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt or a maleimide compound, and a total amount of the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt and/or the maleimide compound per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is 10 to 40 parts by mass, wherein the rubber component may be an ethylene-α-olefin elastomer, wherein the fiber member contains a cellulose-based fiber, and wherein the proportion of the cellulose-based fiber in the fibers contained in the fiber member is not less than 70% by mass, and wherein the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt comprises at least one of zinc diacrylate and zinc dimethacrylate (see entire document including [0014], [0025], [0026], [0029], [0030], [0035], [0040], [0041], [0042], [0049], [0050], [0051] and [0074]).
Regarding the fiber member surface serving as a pulley contact surface, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical V-ribbed belt in terms of structure and materials, the surface of the V-shaped rib fiber member covering is inherently capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding the rubber composition containing either zinc diacrylate or zinc dimethacrylate (unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salts) or a maleimide compound, Harada discloses that the rubber composition may include a bismaleimide-based accelerator [0050] and/or zinc (meth)acrylate [0051]. In the event that it is shown that Harada fails to sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed rubber composition components, the Office relies upon the teachings of Nagel, Tsukada, and/or Sakanaka which disclose that it is known in the belt art to use zinc diacrylate or zinc dimethacrylate as the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt of a belt rubber composition to provide a belt with improved cold resistance, improved oil resistance, and/or improved adhesion to fibers (see entire documents including column 2, lines 31-64 and Table 1 of Nagel, [0005], [0006] and [0031] of Tsukada, and [0002], [0023] and [0024] of Sakanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt of Harada [0041] from zinc diacrylate or zinc dimethacrylate, to provide the belt with improved cold resistance, improved oil resistance, improved adhesion to fibers, and/or because 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 and desired characteristics.
Claim 3, the fiber member is not subjected to an adhesion treatment ([0014] and [0074]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2010/0167860 to Mori in view of USPAP 2018/0223953 to Harada and (if necessary) further in view of USPN 5,776,294 to Nagel, USPAP 2005/0085593 to Tsukada, and/or USPAP 2014/0235393 to Sakanaka.
Claims 1, 5 and 7, Mori discloses a V-ribbed belt comprising a plurality of V-shaped ribs, wherein each of the plurality of V-shaped ribs includes a V-shaped rib body formed from a crosslinked rubber composition and a fiber member placed covering a surface of the V-shaped rib body, wherein the fiber member contains a cellulose-based fiber, and wherein the proportion of the cellulose-based fiber in the fibers contained in the fiber member is not less than 70% by mass (see entire document including [0002], [0005], [0006], [0022], [0073], [0076] and [0079]).
Mori does not appear to mention specific rubber compositions but Harada discloses that it is known in the art to use a crosslinked product of an uncrosslinked rubber composition containing an ethylene-α-olefin elastomer rubber component, a crosslinking agent, and at least either an unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt or a maleimide compound, and a total amount of the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt and/or the maleimide compound per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component is 10 to 40 parts by mass and wherein the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt comprises at least one of zinc diacrylate and zinc dimethacrylate (see entire document including [0014], [0024], [0025], [0026], [0029], [0030], [0035], [0040], [0041], [0042], [0049], [0050], [0051] and [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the rubber from any suitable rubber composition, such as disclosed by Harada, because 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 and desired characteristics.
Regarding the fiber member surface serving as a pulley contact surface, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical V-ribbed belt in terms of structure and materials, the surface of the V-shaped rib fiber member covering is inherently capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding the rubber composition containing either zinc diacrylate or zinc dimethacrylate (unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salts) or a maleimide compound, Harada discloses that the rubber composition may include a bismaleimide-based accelerator [0050] and/or zinc (meth)acrylate [0051]. In the event that it is shown that Harada fails to sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed rubber composition components, the Office relies upon the teachings of Nagel, Tsukada, and/or Sakanaka which disclose that it is known in the belt art to use zinc diacrylate or zinc dimethacrylate as the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt of a belt rubber composition to provide a belt with improved cold resistance, improved oil resistance, and/or improved adhesion to fibers (see entire documents including column 2, lines 31-64 and Table 1 of Nagel, [0005], [0006] and [0031] of Tsukada, and [0002], [0023] and [0024] of Sakanaka). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the unsaturated carboxylic acid metal salt of Harada [0041] from zinc diacrylate or zinc dimethacrylate, to provide the belt with improved cold resistance, improved oil resistance, improved adhesion to fibers, and/or because 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 and desired characteristics.
Claim 3, the fiber member may not be subjected to an adhesion treatment [0032].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789