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 1 and 4-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites driving the press-on belt in in “a second direction of circulation or in a second direction of circulation opposite to the second direction of circulation” in the last three lines of the first page. However, there is already antecedent basis for a “second direction of circulation” in the claim, making it unclear if this second direction of circulation is the same or different from the first recited second direction of circulation. Furthermore, the first recitation of the “second direction of circulation” appears to be a required limitation, while the second recitation makes the second direction of circulation an optional alternative to an opposite direction, making it unclear if the second direction of circulation is required to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be read as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claims 4-14 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 5 the claim recites “the first arrangement of press-on elements and the second arrangement of press-on elements comprise the same press-on elements” and “the density of the press-on elements and/or the first arrangement or the second arrangement of the press-on elements in the first section and in the second section being different.” It is unclear how the density of the press-on elements could be different while still satisfying the limitation of “the first arrangement of press-on elements and the second arrangement of press-on elements comprise the same press-on elements,” making the intended scope of the claim unclear. Furthermore, the phrase “the first arrangement or the second arrangement…being different” is unclear. The term “or” in this phrase implies that only one of the first or second arrangements must be different. However, it is unclear from the claim what the first or second arrangement is different from. Are they intended to be different from each other? For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (US 2005/0136813, previously cited) in view of Boggs (US 2012/0295522, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Weber teaches a belt grinder (shown in fig 2) for grinding and structuring a flat workpiece (12), in which the workpiece passes through the belt grinder in a predetermined direction of passage (horizontally as viewed in fig 2), with at least one structuring device (structure of grinding belt); with at least one transport unit (10) for the transport of the workpiece in the predetermined direction of passage ([0014]) past a machining area of the structuring device, the structuring device comprising: an endless grinding belt (14) guided over deflection elements (16) in at least a second direction of circulation (over rollers described [0014]), the endless grinding belt extending over the belt grinder (as shown in fig 2), the deflection elements defining longitudinal axes of which are directed transversely to the direction of passage of the workpiece (longitudinal roller axes are perpendicular to direction of passage as shown in fig 2), an endless press-on belt (18) configured and arranged such that it exerts a force from the inside on the endless grinding belt in a press-on area (as shown in fig 2), the endless press-on belt being drivable with the aid of a drive unit ([0005]), a second direction of circulation of the press-on belt runs transversely to the first direction of circulation of the grinding belt at least in the press-on area (as shown in fig 2, the press-on belt runs perpendicular to the grinding belt), wherein the structuring device and the transport unit are configured and arranged such that the workpiece (12) guided past the structuring device is contacted by the machining area of the endless grinding belt ([0014]), wherein the drive unit of the press-on belt drives the endless press-on belt in the second direction of circulation or in a direction of circulation opposite to the second direction of circulation (while Weber does not disclose a specific direction of circulation of the press-on belt 18, as shown in fig 2, the press-on belt, which is driven as described [0005], is driven in one of the two optional directions of circulation around rollers 22; note that as currently claimed, only a single direction of circulation is necessary to meet the claim; see 112b rejection above) and the press-on belt (18) of the structuring device has a first section (section facing down towards workpiece as shown in fig 2) with a first arrangement of press-on elements (24) and at least one second section (section facing upward as shown in fig 2) with a second arrangement of press-on element (24; [0015]; press-on elements 24 span entire belt, including arrangements on lower and upper sections)
Weber does not teach a control unit controlling the drive unit of the press-on belt; or that the drive unit is controlled such that it moves the press-on belt back and forth according to a first drive pattern or a second drive pattern. Boggs teaches a belt grinder including a control unit ([0044]; “control system”) which controls a drive unit ([0029]; “motor or drive”) of a press-on belt (14; [0046]) in a first direction of circulation or a second direction of circulation ([0052]) and controls the drive unit such that it move the press-on belt back and forth according to a first drive pattern or a second drive pattern ([0046], [0052]; direction of press-on belt can be changed; note that only one of the drive patterns is necessary to meet the claim). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control unit for controlling the drive unit of the press-on belt of Weber, to move back an forth according to a first or second drive pattern as a control unit allows the system to provide different grinding recipes depending on the desired impression on the workpiece as taught by Boggs ([0052-0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Weber, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weber further teaches the first arrangement of press-on elements comprises press-on elements in a first arrangement and the second arrangement of press-on elements comprises press-on elements in a second arrangement (as shown in fig 2 and described in rejection of claim 1 above they are arranged on upper and lower sections of the belt).
Regarding claim 5, Weber, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weber further teaches the first arrangement of press-on elements and the second arrangement of press-on elements comprise the same press-on elements (elements 24 on top and bottom), wherein the first arrangement or the second arrangement of the press-on elements in the first section and in the second section being different (see 112b rejection above; as best understood; since some elements are on top and some are on bottom, the first and second sections have a different arrangement).
Regarding claim 6, Weber, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weber further teaches the first section and the second section are arranged behind one another relative to the second direction of circulation of the press-on belt (the rolling movement causes the top and bottom of the belt to be one behind another when in motion).
Regarding claim 7, Weber, as modified by Boggs, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Boggs further teaches the control unit (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) of the structuring device controls the drive unit for driving the press-on belt such that alternately the first and the second section of the press-on belt press against the endless grinding belt from the inside (due to rotation of the belt, the first and second sections would alternately press the grinding belt from the inside as shown in fig 2 of Weber).
Regarding claim 8, Weber, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weber does not teach the shape, size and/or spacing of the press-on elements continuously changes along a circumference of the press-on belt. Boggs teaches a belt grinder having a press-on belt (14) with an arrangement of press-on elements (38; figs 4,5) characterized in that the shape, size, and/or spacing of the press-on elements continuously changes along a circumference of the press-on belt ([0030-0031] describes that each press-on element or portion of press-on elements can have a different shape or size on the belt). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use press-on elements which continuously change chape, size or spacing along the circumference of the press-on belt of Weber, as the arrangement of press-on elements allows the grinder to form different impressions on the workpiece as taught by Boggs ([0030-0031]).
Regarding claims 9-11, Weber, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weber further teaches the press-on belt is guided over at least two deflection elements (22; fig 2), and that the drive unit drives at least one deflection roller for driving the press-on belt ([0006]); the deflection elements of the structuring device are deflection rollers (16), the endless grinding belt being guided over at least three deflection rollers (fig 2); wherein between the press-on belt and the endless grinding belt a sliding layer (26) is arranged ([0015]; fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, Weber, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Weber does not teach the structuring device comprising at least one pressure beam exerting force from the inside onto the press-on belt. Boggs teaches a belt grinder including a pressure beam (including elements 16a-c; fig 6) by which a force can be exerted from the inside onto a press-on belt (14) in the direction of a grinding belt (12; [0038-0039]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one pressure beam exerting force onto the press-on belt toward the endless grinding belt of Weber, in order to allow the grinder to selectively apply detail to the workpiece for providing desired detailing as taught by Boggs ([0038-0039]).
Regarding claim 13, Weber, as modified by Boggs, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as described above. Weber further teaches the press-on belt (18) exerts a force from the inside on the endless grinding belt (14) at least in a part of the press-on area (as shown in fig 2), when a pressure element (Boggs elements 16a-16c) of the pressure beam (included from Boggs as described in the rejection of claim 12 above) is activated, the pressure beam comprising several individually controllable pressure elements (16a-16c) arranged behind one another in the direction of circulation of the press-on belt (as shown in Boggs fig 6), which pressure elements are activatable, when controlled accordingly, for generating a press-on force in the press-on area (Boggs; [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Weber, as modified by Boggs, teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as described above. Boggs further teaches the at least one pressure beam (elements 16a-16c included as described in the rejection of claim 12) is controllable ([0039]) such that the press-on elements of the press-on belt that are present between the at least one pressure beam and the endless grinding belt exert a force on the inner side of the grinding belt (as shown in fig 6 of Boggs, the pressure elements exert a force onto the grinding belt through the press-on belt, which has press-on elements when applied to the belt of Weber).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 Jun 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments have overcome the previous objections and 112b rejections. While the objection to the abstract has been withdrawn and many of the 112b rejections have been alleviated, there are still issues of clarity as detailed in the 112b rejections above.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that the prior art does not discloses a first pattern and a second drive pattern different from the first drive pattern. However, as currently claimed, the claim only requires moving the press-on belt according to a first drive pattern or a second drive pattern, and thus only a single drive pattern is necessary to meet the claim. Furthermore, Boggs clearly describes that the pattern of movement or “recipe” of the press-on belt can be selected as desired ([0046]), indicating that multiple drive patterns can be employed by the controller, contrary to applicant’s arguments.
Applicant further argues that Weber does not teach the claimed first and second arrangements of press-on elements, stating that the press-on elements 24 of Weber identified in the rejection cannot reasonably be considered press-on elements. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as elements 24 of Weber press against the grinding belt as shown in fig 2. Applicant further argues that there is not a first and second arrangement of these elements as claimed. However, as broadly claimed, as some of the press-on elements are arranged on a downward facing side of the press-on belt and some are arranged on an upward facing side of the press-on belt, these are considered first and second arrangements as claimed. Claim 1 does not define any details of the first and second arrangements and does not define that any particular aspect of these arrangements is different from one another.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723