DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-17 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 03/06/2025.
Applicant filed an after final response on 05/22/2025, which was not entered on 06/02/2025.
Applicant filed a request for continued exanimation and amended claim 1 on 06/04/2025.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-17 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-17 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/04/2025 has been entered.
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 1-2, 5-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al. (US 2010/0331129) (Mukai) in view of Harada et al. (US 2018/10223953) (Harda).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-17
Mukai teaches a friction drive belt for transmitting power while being wound around a pulley such that a compression rubber layer provided on an inner periphery of a belt body is in contact with the pulley comprising a rubber compression layer possessing an air content of 5-40%. As shown in FIG. 1, a plurality of V-shaped ribs are formed in the compression rubber layer so as to project on an inner peripheral side of the belt. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001-0002], [0012-0015], [0021], [0038], [0041], [0044], [0053], [0108-0112], and FIG. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the surface portion of the rubber compression layer possesses an air content in an amount of 5-40%, in order to reduce the friction coefficient of the contact surface of the compression rubber layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Mukai does not explicitly teach the presence of a fabric layer.
With respect to the difference, Harada teaches a friction transmission belt comprising a compression rubber layer and a composite layer laminated on top of the compression rubber layer. The composite layer includes a knitted fabric impregnated with the same rubber composition as the compression rubber layer. The fibers of the knitted fabric are cellulose-based fibers. The fibers of the knitted fabric are embedded in the compression rubber layer and the rubber composition impregnated among the fibers of the composite layer. When the majority of the fibers are embedded, the appearance and durability of the belt can be improved. The composite layer improves bending resistance and durability of the belt. The composite layer possesses a thickness of 8 to 15 microns in view of bending resistance. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0018], [0025], [0027-0035], and [0054-0056].
Harada and Mukai are analogous art as they are both drawn to friction transmission belts.
In light of the motivation as provided by Harada, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a composite layer possessing a thickness of 8 to 15 microns on the compression rubber layer of Mukai, and ensure the knitted fabric comprising a cellulose-based fiber of the composite layer is majority embedded in the compression rubber layer and rubber impregnation, in order to improve the appearance and durability of the belt, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given the knitted fabric is embedded on the compression rubber layer, it follows the surface layer portion of the compression rubber layer comprises an object portion comprising rubber formed of the rubber composition of the rubber layer and fiber of the knitted fabric layer. Given the rubber layer includes an air content, i.e., voids, it follows the surface layer contains a void portion other than the object portion.
Given the knitted layer is majority embedded in the compression rubber layer and the rubber composition impregnated among the fibers of the composite layer, it follows the void content of the surface layer comes from the compression rubber layer, not the composite layer, which possesses an air content, i.e., void content, in the range of 5-40%, and therefore the void content of the surface layer is about 5-40%. For a surface layer that is 200 microns in a depth direction of the compression rubber layer, the composite layer possessing a thickness of 8 to 15 microns accounts for 4-7.5% of the total surface layer. The remainder is the compression rubber layer, as it is known in the art compression rubber layers for friction transmission belts are greater than 200 microns thick. Therefore, the void content of the surface layer ranges from about 4.6% to 38.4%. (0.05*92.5 = 4.6%; 0.4*96=38.4%).
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Given the friction transmission belt of Mukai in view of Harada is used for power transmission, it follows the belt body is capable of transmitting power to a pulley by a frictional force generated when coming into contact with the pulley. Further, given the fiber layer is applied to the surface of the compression rubber layer to be in contact with the pulley, it follows the fiber layer would contact the pulley.
In view of Applicant’s specification, it appears the necessary components to attain a friction transmission belt that meets the claimed decreases rate as indicated by equation 1 of claim 1 and decrease rate as indicated by equation 2 of claim 2 include the presence of a knitted fabric stacked on the rubber layer body of the compression rubber layer and a void ratio of a surface layer portion of the compression rubber layer of greater than 10%. Paragraphs [0129-0152] and Table 2.
Given that the structure and material of the power transmission belt of Mukai in view of Harada is substantially identical to the structure and material as used in the present invention, including the presence of a knitted fabric stacked on the rubber layer body and an overlapping void ratio of the surface layer portion of the compression rubber layer, as set forth above, it is clear that the power transmission belt of Mukai in view of Harada would intrinsically have a decrease rate of not greater than 20% as indicated by equation 1 and decrease rate of not greater than 20/n% in all the sections as indicated by equation 2, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (US 2020/0009813) (Tamura).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-17
Tamura teaches a frictional power transmission belt comprising a compression rubber layer possessing a surface in contact with a pulley and frictionally engaged with the pulley. The compression rubber layer comprises a rubber layer body formed of a rubber composition and a fiber member layer coated, i.e., stacked, on the rubber layer body, the surface to be in contact with the pulley. The fiber layer is a knitted fabric and contains cellulosic-based fibers. The fiber layer possesses a porosity from 50 to 98%. The fiber layer possesses a thickness from 10 to 300 microns. The fiber layer is coated on the rubber layer body via a fiber/resin mixture possessing a thickness of 10 to 300 microns. The thickness of the compression rubber layer is 2.5 to 12 mm. The compression rubber layer has a plurality of V-shaped ribs extending in parallel to each other in the belt length direction so as to project on an inner peripheral side. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0009-0012], [0028], [0033], [0040], [0059-0062], [0065-0066], [0068], [0070], [0078], and FIG. 1.
Given the friction transmission belt of Tamura is used for power transmission, it follows the belt body is capable of transmitting power to a pulley by a frictional force generated when coming into contact with the pulley.
The frictional power transmission of Tamura comprises a rubber layer body formed of a rubber composition and a fiber layer stacked on the rubber layer body via a fiber/resin layer. The fiber layer contains a void ratio of 50 to 98%. Therefore, the frictional power transmission comprises a surface layer comprising an object portion and a void portion other than the object portion, wherein the object portion comprises rubber formed of the rubber composition forming the rubber layer body and fibers of the fiber layer. The void ratio of the surface layer is necessarily less than the void ratio of the fiber layer. For a surface layer that is 200 microns in a depth direction of the compression rubber layer, the fiber layer possesses a thickness in the range of 10 to 300 microns accounts for 5-100% of the total surface layer the fiber/resin mixture layer possesses a thickness in the range of 10 to 300 microns. The ranges of thickness of the fiber layer and fiber/resin mixture layer includes embodiments where the surface layer includes objection portions comprising rubber formed of the rubber composition of the rubber layer and fibers of the fiber layer. The void ratio of the surface layer ranges from greater than 2.5% and less than 98%. (0.5*50=2.5%; 1.0*98=98%).
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In view of Applicant’s specification, it appears the necessary components to attain a friction transmission belt that meets the claimed decreases rate as indicated by equation 1 of claim 1 and decrease rate as indicated by equation 2 of claim 2 include the presence of a knitted fabric stacked on the rubber layer body of the compression rubber layer and a void ratio of a surface layer portion of the compression rubber layer of greater than 10%. Paragraphs [0129-0152] and Table 2.
Given that the structure and material of the power transmission belt of Tamura is substantially identical to the structure and material as used in the present invention, including the presence of a knitted fabric stacked on the rubber layer body and an overlapping void ratio of the surface layer portion of the compression rubber layer, as set forth above, it is clear that the power transmission belt of Tamura would intrinsically have a decrease rate of not greater than 20% as indicated by equation 1 and decrease rate of not greater than 20/n% in all the sections as indicated by equation 2, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims and the arguments set forth on page 8 of the remarks filed 05/22/2025, it is agreed the previous 35 U.S.C 103 rejection does not meet the presently claimed. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new reference has come to the attention of the Examiner. Therefore, a new set of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections is set forth above.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2025 with respect to Tamura and Mukai have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth below.
Applicant primarily argues the fiber/resin mixture layer of Tamura does not correspond to the claimed is not “rummer formed of the rubber composition forming the rubber layer body” of the compression rubber layer as recited in claim 1. Remarks, pages 7-8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, claim 1 recites, the compression rubber layer comprises a rubber layer body formed of a rubber composition and a fiber member layer stacked on the rubber layer body. The claim does not exclude additional components from the rubber layer body. Therefore, frictional transmission belt of Tamura comprising a rubber layer body formed of a rubber composition and a fiber layer coated on the rubber layer body via a fiber/resin mixture layer reads on the compression rubber layer as claim 1 does not exclude the presence of a fiber/resin mixture layer.
Secondly, the fiber/resin mixture layer is not used to read on the rubber layer body in the rejection set forth above. Instead, Tamara teaches a rubber layer body formed of a rubber composition, as discussed in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues Mukai is aimed at reducing a friction coefficient to suppress nose while Applicant’s invention is aimed at suppressing a reduction in friction coefficient. Remarks, pages 8-9.
Firstly, in response to Applicant’s argument that Mukai is aimed at reducing a friction coefficient, while the present invention is aimed at suppressing a reduction in friction coefficient. Mukai is aimed at reducing a friction coefficient, while the present invention is aimed at suppressing a reduction in friction coefficient between two slipping speeds. The fact remains that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Secondly, it is noted the prior art does not need to teach the structure and properties of the product in order to attain the same result or advantage as found by Applicant. The fact remains, for the reasons set forth in the Office Action above, the friction transmission belt of Muaki in view of Harada reads on the present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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 at (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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789