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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “22” and “24” within Para.[0048], line 1 and “140” within Para.[0060], line 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2: “the slot” should be “the first slot”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4-6 and 9-18 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.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the indefinite pronoun “it” within line 2. Please replace with the noun to which it refers to positively recite the limitations of the claims. Examiner recommends replacing “it” with “the lifting element”.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the roller has a first position and a second position, wherein when the lifting element is in the first position, the lifting element lifts the conveyor belt away from the first wear plate and further wherein when the lifting element is in the second position, the lifting element allows the conveyor belt to contact the first wear plate in the vicinity of the lifting element.” It is unclear if Applicant intends to maintain the limitation of the lifting element being a roller as claimed within claim 7. Examiner recommends changing “the lifting element” to “the roller” to maintain consistency of the claimed limitations as cited within further dependent claims.
Claim 14 recites “the rollers” which is unclear to Examiner since only a single roller has been recited. Examiner recommends changing “the rollers” to “the roller” to provide antecedent basis to this limitation within the claim and positively claim previously cited limitations.
Claims 5-6, 10-13 and 15-18 are rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brixius et al. (US 7131523 B2).
Regarding claim 1: Brixius discloses a conveyor belt system (1; Fig.1) comprising: a structural frame comprising a first end and a second end (Fig.1); a first wear plate disposed on a top of the structural frame (2a; Fig.1); a conveyor belt configured to traverse over the first wear plate (7; Fig.1); a conveyor belt lifting element disposed beneath the conveyor belt (12a; Fig.1), wherein the conveyor lifting element is configured to lift the conveyor belt away from the first wear plate and allow the conveyor belt to traverse over the first wear plate without touching the wear plate in a vicinity around the lifting element (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 2: Brixius further discloses the conveyor belt system of claim 1 wherein the first wear plate comprises a first slot, wherein the lifting element is disposed within the slot when it lifts the conveyor belt away from the first wear plate (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 3: Brixius further discloses the conveyor belt system of claim 1 further comprising a second wear plate disposed adjacent to the first wear plate (multiple sections of 2a; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4: Brixius further discloses the conveyor belt system of claim 3 further comprising: a space between the first wear plate and the second wear plate, wherein the lifting element is disposed within the space between the first wear plate and the second wear plate when it lifts the conveyor belt away from the first wear plate (apparent from Fig.1).
Regarding claim 6: Brixius further discloses the conveyor belt system of claim 4 wherein the lifting element is a roller (12a; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 7: Brixius further discloses the conveyor belt system of claim 1 wherein the lifting element is a roller (12a; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 8: Brixius further discloses the conveyor belt system of claim 7 wherein the roller comprises a gripping surface (Fig.1 and Col.4; lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 19: Brixius further discloses the conveyor belt system of claim 1 wherein the conveyor belt is configured to traverse over the top of the structural frame, wrap around the first end of the structural frame, traverse beneath the top of the structural frame, and wrap around the second end of the structural frame (apparent from Fig.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Brixius.
Regarding claim 5: Brixius teaches the conveyor belt system of claim 4 further comprising: a
Brixius teaches the claimed invention except for a plurality of lifting elements within the space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of rollers within the space, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius in view of McKnight et al. (US 2985278 A).
Regarding claim 9: Brixius teaches the conveyor belt system of claim 7 wherein the roller has a first position, wherein when the lifting element is in the first position, the lifting element lifts the conveyor belt away from the first wear plate (Fig.1). Brixius does not teach the roller having a second position wherein the lifting element allows the conveyor belt to contact the first wear plate in the vicinity of the lifting element.
However, McKnight teaches the use of a roller with a second position wherein the roller lowers upon a loading force upon the belt (32; Figs.1,3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Brixius with the biased roller of McKnight to provide a smooth transport of heavier loads upon the conveyor belt and provide belt support for belt longevity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Brixius teaches the conveyor belt system of claim 9 wherein the roller has a first position (Fig.1). Brixius does not teach a roller biased into the first position.
However, McKnight teaches the use of a biased roller (32; Fig.1) to provide support to a conveyor belt (20; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Brixius with the biased roller of McKnight to reduce friction of the conveyor belt during operation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11: Brixius teaches the conveyor belt system of claim 10 wherein the roller has a first position (Fig.1). Brixius does not teach a roller biased into the first position with a spring.
However, McKnight teaches the use of a biased roller (32; Fig.1) with a spring (50; Figs.1,3) to provide support to a conveyor belt (20; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Brixius with the biased roller of McKnight to reduce friction of the conveyor belt during operation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12: Brixius teaches the conveyor belt system of claim 9 wherein the roller has a first position (Fig.1). Brixius does not teach a roller being configured to move to the second position via a drawbar.
However, McKnight teaches the use of a biased roller (32; Fig.1) moved into a second position via a drawbar (34; Fig.3) to provide support to a conveyor belt (20; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Brixius with the biased roller of McKnight to provide a smooth transport of heavier loads upon the conveyor belt and provide belt support for belt longevity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13: Brixius further teaches the conveyor belt system of claim 12 wherein the roller is attached to a roller shaft allowing the roller to freely roll thereon (12a; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 14: Brixius does not teach wherein the roller shaft is connected to a pivot shaft through a first plate, wherein movement of the drawbar causes the pivot shaft to rotate, thereby rotating the first plate around the pivot shaft and moving the rollers between the first position and the second position.
However, McKnight teaches wherein the roller shaft is connected to a pivot shaft (13,33; Figs.1,3) through a first plate (31; Fig.3), wherein movement of the drawbar causes the pivot shaft to rotate, thereby rotating the first plate around the pivot shaft and moving the rollers between the first position and the second position (Fig.3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Brixius with the biased roller of McKnight to provide a smooth transport of heavier loads upon the conveyor belt and provide belt support for belt longevity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15: Brixius does not teach wherein the roller shaft comprises a plurality of rollers thereon.
However, McKnight teaches wherein the roller shaft comprises a plurality of rollers thereon (right side 32; Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Brixius with the plurality of rollers of McKnight to reduce friction of the conveyor belt during operation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16: Brixius further teaches the conveyor belt system of claim 15 wherein the first wear plate has a plurality of roller slots configured to align with the plurality of rollers disposed on the roller shaft (multiple openings for 12a; Fig.1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brixius in view of Stephenson et al. (US 20190225427 A1).
Regarding claim 20: Brixius teaches the use of the conveyor belt system of claim 1 (see corresponding 102 rejection above). Brixius does not teach the use of the system in a car wash.
However, Stephenson teaches a car wash conveyor system with an endless belt (Fig.1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Brixius to be utilized within a car wash to provide a supported conveyor belt when not under load to lengthen belt life and reduce maintenance costs of the belt with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claim 17.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach drawbar is configured to move via a hydraulic cylinder. It would require an improper level of hindsight to modify the above prior art to include this limitation since the movement of the roller into the second position is dependent upon belt load within McKnight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615