DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/14/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 6, 12-13 and 17 have been amended and claim 14 has been cancelled, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. Claim 21 has been newly added. In view of amendment, all previously raised drawing objections have been withdrawn. In view of further consideration, the allowance of claim 13 previously presented has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejections under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by Tessmer et al. (details below). Accordingly, claims 1-13 and 15-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 (‘Remark’, pages 8-11), regarding 35 USC § 102 and § 103 rejections of all the claims have been fully considered and - in light of amendment and in view of argument - are persuasive. In view of amendment, all the claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 and § 103 have been withdrawn; however, in view of further consideration – a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 102 and in an alternative, 35 USC § 103 (details below). Accordingly, all pending claims are rejected, as presented below.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tessmer et al. (US Pub. 20210196536 A1; hereinafter “Tessmer”).
Regarding claim 1, Tessmer discloses: a patient transport apparatus (100, figs. 1-19) operable by a user for transporting a patient along stairs [0007, lines 1-6], the patient transport apparatus (100) comprising:
a support structure (102, [0044]) including a rear support assembly (108) having a rear upright (114) defining a support channel (306, [0074-0075]);
a seat section (104, [0044]) and a back section (106) coupled to the support structure (102, fig. 1) for supporting the patient (“support to the patient”, [0044, line 4-6]); and
a track assembly (154, fig. 1 and 7A, [0051]) extending from the support structure (102), the track assembly (154, [0056]) including:
a rail (168) extending between a first rail end (168A) and a second rail end (168B),
a roller (172; [0056]) supported for rotation about an axis (para. 0081 teaches: “one or more rollers 172 for rotation about the roller axis RA (e.g., rotation relative to the axle 170)”) adjacent to the first rail end (168A; [para. 0056 teaches: “the track assemblies 154 each generally comprise a rail 168 extending between a first rail end 168A”]), a motor (188, [0057]) supporting a pulley (drive pulleys -174) for rotation adjacent to the second rail end (168B; [para. 0056 teaches: “adjacent to the second rail end 168B of each rail 168, a drive pulley 174 is supported for rotation about a drive axis DA”]),
a belt (156, [0051, line 13-20]) supported in engagement with the roller (172) and the pulley (174) and arranged for movement relative (via the roller axis RA) to the rail (168) in response to torque (“rotational torque”, [0057, line 14-18]) generated by the motor (188; [para. 0056 teaches: “an axle 170 defining a roller axis RA is disposed adjacent to the first rail end 168A of each rail 168, and a roller 172 is supported for rotation about the roller axis RA (compare figs. 9A-9B). For each of the track assemblies 154, the belt 156 is disposed in engagement with the roller 172 and is arranged for movement relative to the rail 168 in response to rotation of the roller 172”; thus, roller and the pulley are arranged for movement relative to the rail in response to torque generated by the motor]), and
a lateral brace (326, figs. 13A-15D; [0080]) operatively attached (via axle 170) to the rail (168) and defining a brace (left 326 at left 168 and right 326 at right 168) spaced from the axis (roller axis RA) and configured to abut (via relief catches 330, figs 15A-15D; [0090]) relative to axis (roller axis RA;[0090]) at least a portion of the belt (top portion of 156) to retain the belt in engagement (via 170, fig. 14; [0087]) with the roller (172) for limiting lateral movement of the belt (156) in a direction (plurality of axle position 170A, 170C, 170D; [0082]) along the axis (RA) relative to the rail (168) occurring in response to force acting (via limitation force sensor, [0060]) on the belt (156) between stairs and the roller (172) during operation of the motor (188; [fig. 4; see para. 0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Tessmer further teaches that the lateral brace (326) is arranged closer to the first rail end (168A) than the second rail end (168B) [shown in fig. 13A-15D, lateral brace 326 is positioned closer to first rail end 168A than the second rail end 168B.]
Regarding claim 6, Tessmer discloses: a patient transport apparatus (100, figs. 1-19) operable by a user for transporting a patient along stairs [0007, line 1-6], the patient transport apparatus (100) comprising:
a support structure (102, [0044]) including a rear support assembly (108) having a rear upright (114) defining a support channel (306, [0074-0075]);
a seat section (104, [0044]) and a back section (106) coupled to the support structure (102, fig. 1) for supporting the patient (“support to the patient”, [0044, lines 4-6]); and
a track assembly (154, fig. 1 and 7A, [0051]) extending from the support structure (102), the track assembly (154, [0056]) including:
a rail (168) extending between a first rail end (168A) and a second rail end (168B),
a roller (172; [0056]) supported for rotation about an axis (para. 0081 teaches: “one or more rollers 172 for rotation about the roller axis RA (e.g., rotation relative to the axle 170)”) adjacent to the first rail end (168; [para. 0056 teaches: “the track assemblies 154 each generally comprise a rail 168 extending between a first rail end 168A”]), a motor (188, [0057]) supporting a pulley (drive pulleys -174) for rotation adjacent to the second rail end (168b; [para. 0056 teaches: “adjacent to the second rail end 168B of each rail 168, a drive pulley 174 is supported for rotation about a drive axis DA”]),
a belt (156, [0051, lines 13-20]) supported in engagement with the roller (172) and the pulley (174) and arranged for movement relative (via the roller axis RA) to the rail (168) in response to torque (“rotational torque”, [0058, lines 14-18]) generated by the motor (188; [para. 0056 teaches: “an axle 170 defining a roller axis RA is disposed adjacent to the first rail end 168A of each rail 168, and a roller 172 is supported for rotation about the roller axis RA (compare figs. 9A-9B). For each of the track assemblies 154, the belt 156 is disposed in engagement with the roller 172 and is arranged for movement relative to the rail 168 in response to rotation of the roller 172”; thus, roller and the pulley and arranged for movement relative to the rail in response to torque generated by the motor]), and
a lateral brace (326, figs. 13A-15D; [0080]) operatively attached (via axle 170) to the rail (168) and defining a right brace and a left brace ( brace at left 168 and right 168, fig. 7B), with each brace spaced from the axis (RA, fig. 7B) and configured to abut (via relief catches 330, figs 15A-15D; [0090]) at least a portion of the belt (top portion of 156) to retain the belt in engagement (via 170, fig. 14; [0087]) with the roller (172) for limiting lateral movement of the belt (156) in a direction ( plurality of axle position 170A, 170C, 170D; [0082]) along the axis (RA) along the axis (RA) and relative to the rail (168) occurring in response to force acting (via limitation force sensor, [0061]) on the belt (156) between stairs and the roller (172) during operation of the motor (188; [fig. 4, see para 0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Tessmer further teaches that the left and right braces (left and right braces 326) are spaced (via DA, fig. 3) from each other on opposite sides (fig. 3 shows opposite side) of the rail (168), with the belt (156) positioned between the left and right braces (left and right braces- 326).
Regarding claim 8, Tessmer further teaches that the lateral brace (326; fig. 2) is arranged closer to the first rail end (168A) than the second rail end (168B) [shown in fig. 2 and 15B, lateral brace 326 is positioned closer to first rail end 168A than the second rail end 168B.]
Regarding claim 19, Tessmer includes all the limitation of claim 6 and further comprising a mid-brace (“lateral brace” 124, fig. 3, [0024]) separate from the lateral brace (brace 326), the mid-brace (124) configured to abut (via brace links 228 and pivot region 232; see [para. 0066]) at least a portion of the belt (156) to retain the belt (156) in engagement with the roller (172) for limiting lateral movement of the belt relative to the rail (168) occurring in response to force acting on the belt between stairs and the roller (172) during operation of the motor (188). See para. 0046-0048].
Regarding claim 20, Tessmer further teaches that the right and left braces (326) are mirror images of each other [shown in fig. 7B and 15B, each 326 is positioned left and right side of the rail wall 168 and are mirror image of each other; also, para. 0053 teaches that “while the representative embodiment of the patient transport apparatus 100 illustrated herein employs hubs 158 with "mirrored" profiles that are coupled to the respective rear uprights 114 and support discrete shafts 150 and wheel locks 160, it will be appreciated that a single hub 158 and/or a single shaft 150 could be employed. Other configurations are contemplated; thus, the right and left braces (326) are mirror images of each other.]
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 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 3-5, 9-13, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Tessmer; and in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tessmer in view of Eberle et al. (US Pub. 20090218198 A1; hereinafter, “Eberle”).
Regarding claim 3, Tessmer further teaches that the belt (156) defines an outer belt surface (“outer belt surface” 394, fig. 15C; [0095]) having a height (fig. 15C - showing height of the belt) and further defines a contact region (“follower portion” 376, fig. ; [0087]) arranged to abut the brace (326) to limit lateral movement of the belt relative to the rail (168, fig. 15C), with the contact region (376) defined as a zone (“radially spaced”; [0088]) within the outer belt surface (394) from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H; [para. 0088 teaches that the plurality of relief catches 330 are radially spaced (equivalent to a zone) along the follower portion 376, are spaced substantially (equivalent to 15% to about 85%) equidistant from each other (e.g., with respect to the follower axis FA), and have substantially arc-shaped profiles as depicted in fig. 15B and annotated fig. 15B below; thus, the belt relative to the rail, with the contact region defined as a zone within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H)]. Here, the relative positioning of the belt, brace, and rail in the reference figures necessarily results in a contact zone spanning a major intermediate portion of the belt height, falling within the claimed 15%-85% range.
Therefore, Tessmer anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the cited reference does not expressly anticipate the claim limitation where “contact region defined as a zone within the outer belt surface falls from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H)” as required by the claim, then Eberle in another conveyor belt guide similar to Tessmer teaches that the belt relative to the rail (fig. 1), with the contact region (“belt envelop”; ‘Abstract’) defined as a zone (“belt envelop cross-section”; [“abstract’]) within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H) [ ‘Abstract’ teaches that he belt envelope (equivalent to zone) is oriented such that the right and left walls are aligned with a desired path of the endless belt, and the endless belt passes through the belt opening]; it should be noted that the reference expressly discusses why contact should not merely occur at the extreme edge. The “belt envelop” concept defines a vertical contact zone along the belt height. Selecting a contact region somewhere between upper and lower extremes of the belt height was a predictable engineering optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of contact zone, equivalent to the “belt envelop” as taught by Eberle and adopt the measurement that falls 15%-85% range of the belt height into the invention of Tessmer so as to prevent lateral belt wandering, limiting both lateral and vertical movement and avoiding edge climb/curl damage because adopting the contact zone, spanning a major intermediate portion of the belt height, falling within the claimed 15%-85% range is the result of mere optimization of the measurement that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed measurement values, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of 15%-85% range would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
PNG
media_image1.png
586
819
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 15B of Tessmer.
Regarding claim 4, Tessmer further teaches that the outer belt surface (394) also defines an upper region (upper region of 394) above the contact region (376), wherein the upper region (upper region of 394) remains spaced (“radially spaced”; [0088]) from the brace (326). See annotated fig. 15B above where the upper region of remains spaced from the brace 326.
Regarding claim 5, Tessmer further teaches that the brace (326, fig. 15B) comprises a curved region (see annotated fig. 15B above) configured to retain (via 170, fig. 15B) the belt (156) about the roller (172), and a linear region (‘L’, annotated fig. 15B above) configured to retain the belt (156, fig. 15B) about the rail (168), with the linear region (‘L’) spaced from the roller (172) between the first rail end (168A) and the second rail end (168B). See figs 14-15D.
Regarding claim 9, Tessmer further teaches that the belt (156) defines an outer belt surface (“outer belt surface 394, fig. 15C; [0095]) having a height (fig. 15C - showing height of the belt) and further defines a contact region (“follower portion” 376, fig. ; [0087]) arranged to abut the brace (326) to limit lateral movement of the belt (fig. 15C) relative to the rail (168, fig. 15C), with the contact region (376) defined as a zone (“radially spaced”; [0088]) within the outer belt surface (394) from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H; [para. 0088 teaches that he plurality of relief catches 330 are radially spaced (equivalent to a zone) along the follower portion 376, are spaced substantially (equivalent to 15% to about 85%) equidistant from each other (e.g., with respect to the follower axis FA), and have substantially arc-shaped profiles as depicted in fig. 15B; thus, the belt relative to the rail, with the contact region defined as a zone within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H)]. Here, the relative positioning of the belt, brace, and rail in the reference figures necessarily results in a contact zone spanning a major intermediate portion of the belt height, falling within the claimed 15%-85% range.
Therefore, Tessmer anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the cited reference does not expressly anticipate the claim limitation where “contact region defined as a zone within the outer belt surface falls from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H)” as required by the claim, then Eberle in another conveyor belt guide similar to Tessmer teaches that the belt relative to the rail (fig. 1), with the contact region (“belt envelop”; ‘Abstract’) defined as a zone (“belt envelop cross-section”; [“abstract’]) within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H) [ ‘Abstract’ teaches that he belt envelope (equivalent to zone) is oriented such that the right and left walls are aligned with a desired path of the endless belt, and the endless belt passes through the belt opening]; it should be noted that the reference expressly discusses why contact should not merely occur at the extreme edge. The “belt envelop” concept defines a vertical contact zone along the belt height. Selecting a contact region somewhere between upper and lower extremes of the belt height was a predictable engineering optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of contact zone, equivalent to the “belt envelop” as taught by Eberle and adopt the measurement that falls 15%-85% range of the belt height into the invention of Tessmer so as to prevent lateral belt wandering, limiting both lateral and vertical movement and avoiding edge climb/curl damage because adopting the contact zone, spanning a major intermediate portion of the belt height, falling within the claimed 15%-85% range is the result of mere optimization of the measurement that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed measurement values, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of 15%-85% range would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 10, Tessmer further teaches that the outer belt surface (394) also defines an upper region (upper region of 394) above the contact region (376), wherein the upper region (upper region of 394) remains spaced (“radially spaced”; [0088]) from the brace (326). See annotated fig. 15B above where the upper region of 394 remains spaced from the brace 326.
Regarding claim 11, Tessmer further teaches that the left and right braces (326 at left 168 and 326 at right 168) independently comprise a curved region (‘curve’ region, annotated fig. 15B above) configured to retain (via 170, fig. 15B) the belt (156) about the roller (172), and a linear region (‘linear region’, annotated fig. 15B above) configured to retain the belt (156) about the rail (168), with the linear region (‘L’) spaced from the roller between the first rail end (168A) and the second rail end (168B). See figs. 14-15D.
Regarding claim 12, Tessmer further teaches that the curved region of the left brace (left 326), the curved region of the right brace (right 326), and the roller (172) are each arranged about the axis (‘RA’, figs. 2 and 14).
Regarding claim 13, Tessmer further discloses that the roller has a radius R1 (see annotated fig. 15B above), and the curved region (annotated fig. 15B above) of the left brace (left 326) and the curved region (annotated fig. 15B above) of the right brace (right 326) each have a radius (R2; annotated fig. 15B above) that is greater than (R1) [ as depicted in fig, 15B, radius R2 of each braces is greater than radius R1 of the rollers].
Regarding claim 15, Tessmer further teaches that the rail (168) includes a stair-side oriented towards the stairs during operation (fig. 12C) and a non-contact side opposite the stair-side (fig. 12C), and wherein the linear region of the left brace and the linear region of the right brace are configured to abut the belt about the stair-side [ para. 0066 discloses: “the connecting pivot regions 232 also comprise link stops 248 that are shaped and arranged to abut the brace links 228 in the deployed position 154B (see fig. 7B)”; thus, the linear region of the left brace and the linear region of the right brace are configured to abut the belt about the stair-side.]
Regarding claim 16, Tessmer further discloses that the left and right braces (left and right 326, fig. 15A-15C) independently include a leading edge configured to abut the belt along the curved region and the linear region of each brace [see figs. 15A-15C where brace leading edge that has curve, configured to abut along the curve region and the linear region of each brace 326], wherein the leading edges of the linear regions of the left and right braces are located along the stair-side of the rail [ fig. 7B shows along the stair side of the rail.]
Regarding claim 17, Tessmer further teaches that the belt defines a width (W2, annotated fig. 7B of Tessmer below); and a leading edge of the curved region of the left brace and a leading edge of the curved region of the right brace are spaced from each other by a distance (D) that is greater than the width of the belt (W2). See annotated fig. 7B of Tessmer below where D is greater than W2.
PNG
media_image2.png
890
1055
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7B of Tessmer
Regarding claim 18, Tessmer further teaches that the leading edge of the curved region of the left brace and the leading edge of the curved region of the right brace each independently taper laterally towards the belt. See annotated fig. 15B of Tessmer above where the leading edge of the curved region of the left brace (left 326) and the leading edge of the curved region of the right brace (right 326) each independently taper laterally towards the belt (156).
Regarding claim 21, Tessmer discloses: a patient transport apparatus (100, figs. 1-19) operable by a user for transporting a patient along stairs [0007, lines 1-6], the patient transport apparatus (100) comprising:
a support structure (102, [0044]) including a rear support assembly (108) having a rear upright (114) defining a support channel (306, [0074-0075]);
a seat section (104, [0044]) and a back section (106) coupled to the support structure (102. Fig. 1) for supporting the patient (“support to the patient”, [0044, line 4-6]);
and
a track assembly (154, fig. 1 and 7A, [0051]) extending from the support structure (102), the track assembly (154, [0056]) including:
a rail (168) extending between a first rail end (168A) and a second rail end (168B),
a roller (172; [0056]) supported for rotation (para. 0081 teaches: “one or more rollers 172 for rotation about the roller axis RA (e.g., rotation relative to the axle 170)”) adjacent to the first rail end (168A; [para. 0056 teaches: “the track assemblies 154 each generally comprise a rail 168 extending between a first rail end 168A”]),
a motor (188) supporting a pulley (“drive pulleys”-172) for rotation adjacent to the second rail end (168B; [para. 0056 teaches: “adjacent to the second rail end 168B of each rail 168, a drive pulley 174 is supported for rotation about a drive axis DA”]),
a belt (156, [0051, line 13-20]) supported in engagement with the roller (172) and the pulley (174) and arranged for movement relative (via the roller axis RA) to the rail (168) in response to torque (“rotational torque”, [0057, line 14-18]) generated by the motor (188; [para. 0056 teaches: “an axle 170 defining a roller axis RA is disposed adjacent to the first rail end 168A of each rail 168, and a roller 172 is supported for rotation about the roller axis RA (compare figs. 9A-9B). For each of the track assemblies 154, the belt 156 is disposed in engagement with the roller 172 and is arranged for movement relative to the rail 168 in response to rotation of the roller 172”; thus, roller and the pulley are arranged for movement relative to the rail in response to torque generated by the motor]), and
a lateral brace (326, figs. 13A-15D; [0080]) operatively attached (via axle 170) to the rail (168) and defining a right brace and a left brace (left 326 at left 168 and right 326 at right 168), with each brace configured to abut (via relief catches 330, figs 15A-15D; [0090]) at least a portion of the belt (top portion of 156) to retain the belt in engagement (via 170, fig. 14; [0087]) with the roller 9172) for limiting lateral movement of the belt (156) relative to the rail (168) occurring in response to force acting (via limitation force sensor, [0060]) on the belt (156) between stairs (fig. 12A) and the roller (172) during operation of the motor;
wherein the belt (156) defines an outer belt surface (“outer belt surface” 394, fig. 15C; [0095]) having a height (H)(fig. 15C - showing height of the belt) and further defines a contact region (“follower portion” 376, fig. ; [0087]) arranged to abut the brace (326) to limit lateral movement of the belt relative to the rail (168, fig. 15C), with the contact region (376) defined as a zone (“radially spaced”; [0088]) within the outer belt surface (394) from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H; [para. 0088 teaches that the plurality of relief catches 330 are radially spaced (equivalent to a zone) along the follower portion 376, are spaced substantially (equivalent to 15% to about 85%) equidistant from each other (e.g., with respect to the follower axis FA), and have substantially arc-shaped profiles” as depicted in fig. 15B and annotated fig. 15B above; thus, the belt relative to the rail, with the contact region defined as a zone within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H)]).
wherein the left and right braces (left 326 at left 168 and right 326 at right 168) independently comprise a curved region [see figs. 15A-15C where brace leading edge that has curve, and the linear region of each brace 326] configured to retain the belt (156) about the roller (172), and a linear region (‘linear region’, annotated fig. 15B above) configured to retain (fig. 14) the belt (156) about the rail (168), with the linear region spaced from the roller (172) between the first rail end (168A) and the second rail end (168B);
wherein the curved region (annotated fig. 15B above) of the left brace (left 326), the curved region (annotated fig. 15B above) of the right brace (right 326), and the roller (172) share a common axis (RA, FIG. 14 and 15B); and
wherein the roller (172) has a radius (R1; (see annotated fig. 15B above)), and the curved region (see annotated fig. 15B above) of the left brace (left 326) and the curved region (see annotated fig. 15B above) of the right brace (right 326) each have a radius (R2; annotated fig. 15B above) that is greater than (R1) [ as depicted in fig, 15B, radius R2 of each braces is greater than radius R1 of the rollers].
Therefore, Tessmer anticipates the claimed invention.
Additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the cited reference does not expressly anticipate the claim limitation where “contact region defined as a zone within the outer belt surface falls from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H)” as required by the claim, then Eberle in another conveyor belt guide similar to Tessmer teaches that the belt relative to the rail (fig. 1), with the contact region (“belt envelop”; ‘Abstract’) defined as a zone (“belt envelop cross-section”; [“abstract’]) within the outer belt surface from about 15% to about 85% of the height (H) [ ‘Abstract’ teaches that he belt envelope (equivalent to zone) is oriented such that the right and left walls are aligned with a desired path of the endless belt, and the endless belt passes through the belt opening]; it should be noted that the reference expressly discusses why contact should not merely occur at the extreme edge. The “belt envelop” concept defines a vertical contact zone along the belt height. Selecting a contact region somewhere between upper and lower extremes of the belt height was a predictable engineering optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of contact zone, equivalent to the “belt envelop” as taught by Eberle and adopt the measurement that falls 15%-85% range of the belt height into the invention of Tessmer so as to prevent lateral belt wandering, limiting both lateral and vertical movement and avoiding edge climb/curl damage because adopting the contact zone, spanning a major intermediate portion of the belt height, falling within the claimed 15%-85% range is the result of mere optimization of the measurement that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the claimed measurement values, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly, arriving at the claimed arrangement of 15%-85% range would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20080026895 A1 to Johnson teaches: in one example, the chain-drive system comprises a chain guide defining a channel having at least one non-linear region
US 20030132585 A1 to Way discloses: this includes the new wheelchair 8th with belt guide at least two vertically mounted guide rollers 1 via a plate-like guide roller frame 5 using guide roller plates 6 with the roller chair frame 11 connected.
DE 202004014570-U1 to Frank discloses: wheelchair (8) with a belt guide has at least two vertical guide rollers (1) located over a plate-type guide roller frame (5) and/or guide roller tabs (6) connected with a roller bearer frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Neacsu, Valentin can be reached on (571) 272-6265. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612.
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights