DETAILED ACTION
This is a first reissue action following a Request for Continued Examination dated 14 November 2025 of U.S. Patent 11,006,578 B2 (hereafter “the ‘578 patent” and equivalent). The following is the status of the claims as presented:
Claims 1-24 are pending. Of those,
Claims 1, 2 and 5-8 are twice amended
Claims 3 and 4 are as patented
Claims 9, 10, 13, 20, 22 and 23 are new and twice amended
Claims 11, 12, 14-19, 21 and 24 are new
No claims are cancelled or withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14 November 2025, has been entered.
Maintenance Fees
Review of the record indicates the maintenance fees are current. The next maintenance fee has a window that opens 18 May 2028.
Amendments
The amendment to the claims filed on 14 November 2025, is objected to as not complying with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d)(1)&(2) because each change relative to the ‘578 patent has not been properly marked. 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and (d)(1)&(2) state:
(b) Making amendments in a reissue application. An amendment in a reissue application is made either by physically incorporating the changes into the specification when the application is filed, or by a separate amendment paper. If amendment is made by incorporation, markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section must be used. If amendment is made by an amendment paper, the paper must direct that specified changes be made, as follows:
(2) Claims. An amendment paper must include the entire text of each claim being changed by such amendment paper and of each claim being added by such amendment paper. For any claim changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression “amended,” “twice amended,” etc., should follow the claim number. Each changed patent claim and each added claim must include markings pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, except that a patent claim or added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim without presentation of the text of the claim.
(d) Changes shown by markings. Any changes relative to the patent being reissued which are made to the specification, including the claims, upon filing, or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined, except for amendments submitted on compact discs (§§ 1.96 and 1.821(c)). Matter added by reissue on compact discs must be preceded with “<U>” and end with “</U>” to properly identify the material being added.
The claims presented in the amendment filed 14 November 2025, do not include proper markings with respect to the original claims of the ‘578 patent in that the deletions are shown with strikethroughs and double brackets, as opposed to single brackets as required.
These corrections should be submitted with the next correspondence.
Response to Arguments
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/arguments dated 14 November 2025. Applicant’s courtesies were appreciated. Those matters addressed elsewhere in this action will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim Amendments addressing the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) (response: page 6 ):
Applicant’s remarks are noted but are respectfully not persuasive. Regarding the language directed to “conveyor loop(s)”, this language is broader than “draper canvas”, as patented, and would incorporate material other than draper canvas. While noting the patented specification discloses the draper canvas is a “continuous loop of material commonly taken by a fabric…”, there is no language noting that the “conveyor loop(s)” can be material other than “draper canvas”. In other words, “draper canvas” is not an umbrella term that can include materials such as plastic, rubber or other materials. Further, the limitation “conveyor” only appears in patented claim 1 and is directed to the upper surface of the draper canvas. See the ‘578 patent: Col. 5, lines 7 and 11. Upon text search, “conveyor” does not appear elsewhere in the written description. In addition, the language of the written description does not provide language to conclusively determine that the system can be anything other than “draper canvas”. As a result, claim language directed to the loop being anything other than “draper canvas”, including conveyor loop(s) is considered new matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
35 USC 112(a) – new matter and written description:
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 9: the language at issue is “conveyor loop” (e.g., independent claim 1, line 6 and elsewhere and in its respective dependent claims). This language broadens the language of the originally filed claims in the underlying patent (see Application Number 16/883971: Claims 1 and 9).
Upon review of the disclosure, no language is provided to conclude that the loop can be any material other than “draper canvas”, and the examiner references Col. 3, lines 40-67 for support. In no part of the written description does applicant provide support for “conveyor loop” being open-ended or generic in language, nor is sufficient disclosure provided, including the written description or the drawings, to conclude that applicant had possession of the broad limitation “conveyor loop”. The closest relevant language, “continuous loop of material”, references the draper canvas (‘578 patent: Col. 3, lines 45-50), which is reproduced below, with emphasis added:
The rollers provide support for a draper canvas 20, which is a continuous loop of material commonly formed by taking a fabric and coating it with rubber, which is then vulcanized and formed as desired for the particular application.
As provided, one having ordinary skill would clearly interpret the emphasized language is directed to the “draper canvas”: it does not distinguish from “draper canvas” nor is language provided to clearly denote that the features are different from “draper canvas” to encompass the now claimed “conveyor loop”. Therefore, the examiner concludes the broadening of the language from “draper canvas” to “conveyor loop”.
Those claims listed under this heading but not directly addressed are rejected as either including language addressed in claims 1 and/or 9, or as being dependent from rejected claims, either directly or indirectly.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 251
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
****
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 USC 251 for containing new matter. The position under this heading is the same as that provided under the 35 USC 112(a) heading with the respective claims, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner reserves comment on the allowability of Claims 1-24 pending resolution of the rejection under 35USC 112(a), above. The examiner has no further art to cite against the claims at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-0430 Eastern.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571.272.6928. 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.
/WILLIAM V GILBERT/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
CONFEREES:
/CATHERINE S WILLIAMS/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993