DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Submission
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on February 7, 2025, which has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Patent claims 1-25 have been canceled. Claims 26-33, 35-37, 39-45, 47-49, 51-57 and 59-61 are new and subject to examination. Upon further consideration, the following new and reiterated grounds of rejection are set forth:
Related Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 7,527,142 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Consent of Assignee/Ownership
In the remarks filed 2/7/25, Applicant has stated on record that Troy L. Plattner is authorized to act on behalf of the Assignee. As such, the “Consent of Assignee” filed 7/14/23 is accepted.
Application Data Sheet
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed on 7/14/23 is defective because it fails to identify the status of application 17/354156 as being issued to RE49581. Applicant is required to file a corrected Application Data Sheet to comply with 37 CFR 1.76.
Reissue Applications – New Claim Support
Claim Status and Statement of Support:
The statement of support is insufficient. 37 CFR 1.173(c) states:
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
(emphasis added)
As such, the amendment filed 7/14/23 containing new claims 26-62 did not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c) as the remarks failed to provide an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims. Specifically, the Applicant states that support for new claims 26, 39, and 51, is allegedly found in “Figs 1 and 6 and column 3, lines 35-49, Col. 4, line 4-13 and Col. 5, Lines 28-30”. However, the cited portions fail to describe the first and second arrangements of metal plates (i.e. a metal plate of each arrangement) as set forth in new claims 26, 39, and 51, much less an explanation of support for any of the new dependent claims 27-38, 40-50 and 51-62, respectively. Likewise, the cited portions fail to describe or make any reference to “a metal wall extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates” as set forth in new claims 26, 39, and 51. The cited portions fail to make any reference to the gusset 19 or metal plates 19a-b. Claims 28-29, 40-41 and 52-53 refer to wherein the first and second arrangements of the plurality of metal plates span either “partially or substantially” on the first and second halves of the pulley, respectively. Again, the cited portions fail to describe the first and second arrangements of metal plates, much less positioning of the metal plates “partially or substantially” on the pulley.
In the most recent remarks filed 2/7/25, Applicant refers to the drawings, specifically Figure 1, as support for the newly claimed limitations. However, the Figure 1 fails to describe or explain the first and second arrangements of metal plates (i.e. a metal plate of each arrangement) as set forth in new claims 26, 39, and 51, nor does Figure 1 provide an explanation of support for any of the new dependent claims 27-38, 40-50 and 51-62, respectively. Newly cited Col. 2, Lines 49-54, Col. 3, 23-25 and Col. 5, Lines 28-30 fail to disclose or recite reference numbers 14a and 14b anywhere therein, and thus lack any explanation of the wing portions being equated the first and second arrangements of metal plates as claimed. Figure 1 also fails to describe or explain “a metal wall extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates” as set forth in new claims 26, 39, and 51. Lastly, Figure 1 fails to describe or explain to wherein the first and second arrangements of the plurality of metal plates span either “partially or substantially” on the first and second halves of the pulley as set forth in new in Claims 28-29, 40-41 and 52-53.
In response to this Office action, Applicant is required to provide a detailed and
proper Statement of Support for the new reissue claims filed February 7, 2025 that complies with 37 CFR 1.173(c), and also a detailed and proper Statement of Support for any new or amended claims filed in response to this office action.
Amendment to Specification:
The amendment to the specification filed 2/7/25, to replace the “BACKGROUND” (Col. 1, Lines 5-17) of the Specification has been accepted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“each metal plate of the first arrangement” (see claims 26 and 39)
“each metal plate of the second arrangement” (see claims 26 and 39)
“a metal wall extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates” (see claims 26 and 39)
“metal plates at least partially/substantially on the first/second half of the pulley” (see Claims 28-29, 40-41 and 52-53)
“metal plates in a first arrangement” (see claim 51)
“metal plates in a second arrangement” (see claim 51)
“a metal wall extending between each adjacent belt support plate in the first and second arrangements” (see claim 51)
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Col. 1, Line 46 contains a typographical error by inclusion of the word “hung”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(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.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
New Matter
35 USC 132(a) prohibits any amendment that introduces new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
35 USC 251(a) prohibits the introduction of new matter into the application for reissue.
The amendment filed on 2/7/25 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the reasons given below.
GROUND 1: Claims 26-33, 35-37, 39-45, 47-49, 51-57 and 59-61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent (US 7,527,142) is as follows:
In new claims 26, 39 and 51, newly added limitations recite “first and second arrangements of metal plates/metal support plates being on a first and second half of the pulley” and “each metal plate/metal support plate of the first/second arrangement” lack disclosure within the ‘142 patent. The specification explicitly discloses the wing 14 as being formed from a single plate 22 (See Fig. and Col. 2, Lines 15-37), wherein reference numerals 14a and 14b refer to “portions” of a single wing 14 (See Col. 1, Lines 60-67). There is no description within the ‘142 patent that wing 14 is formed from two separate, distinct metal plates as claimed. Furthermore, defining a “first arrangement” and a “second arrangement” may be interpreted such that wing portions 14a and 14b are positioned at different angles/arrangements on hubs 12a and 12b, which lacks disclosure within the ‘142 patent. Rather, Col. 2, Lines 38-54 discloses wings portions 14 and 14b as being similarly positioned (i.e. having the same arrangement) with respect to each hub. In other words, the “arrangements” of each wing portion are the same, and do not extend across the pulley at different angles/arrangements as claimed. Additionally, new claims 26 and 39, recite “a metal wall extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates” and new claim 51 recites “a metal wall extending between each adjacent belt support plate in the first and second arrangements”; both limitations lack disclosure within the ‘142 patent. Figures 1 and 4 illustrate the metal wall 19 as extending between a single set of walls 14, not “each” pair of metal plates as claimed. Col. 3, Lines 1-19 which describe gussets 19 and metal plates 19a and 19b, do not disclose or describe the gussets/metal walls as extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates as claimed.
In new claims 28-29, 40-41 and 52-53, the plurality of metal plates in the first and second arrangements are claimed to be partially or substantially on the first and second half of the pulley, respectively. These limitations lack disclosure within the ‘142 patent. Instead wing portions 14a and 14b are disclosed and illustrated to extend entirely across on half of the pulley (see Fig. 1and Col. 2, Lines 1-14). There is no disclosure or teaching within the ‘142 patent, that wing portions 14a and 14b may be configured to extend partially or substantially across either half of the pulley as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 26-33, 35-37, 39-45, 47-49, 51-57 and 59-61 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) contains 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.
For the reasons set forth (see GROUND 1), claims 26, 39 and 51 recite “first and second arrangements of metal plates/metal support plates being on a first and second half of the pulley” and “each metal plate/metal support plate of the first/second arrangement. There is no suggestion, disclosure or teaching that there could be two separate “arrangements” of plates. Nor is there disclosure that the metal plates may be positioned different (i.e. first and second) angles/arrangements. Furthermore, claims 26, 39 and 51 recite “a metal wall extending between each adjacent belt support plate in the first and second arrangements” which lacks disclosure. Lastly, there is no disclosure or suggestion that wing portions 14a and 14b extend any distance other than entirely across each pulley half. Thus, claims 26, 39 and 51, and the dependent claims therefrom fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
GROUND 3: Claims 26-33, 35-37, 39-45, 47-49, 51-57 and 59-61 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 26, 39 and 51 recite the limitation “wherein each metal plate/belt support plate of the plurality of metal plates is set at an angle of (C) forward of a radial (B) in the direction of intended rotation of the pulley” which is unclear as to which set of “plurality of metal plates” is being referred to, be it: “the plurality of planar metal plates carried on the pair of hubs”; the “first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates/support plates”; or the “second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates/support plates”. The claims define multiple sets of a “plurality of metal plates” and thus it is unclear which set is being defined to be set at the claimed angle forward of a radial. Likewise, claims 31-32, 35-37 43-44, 47-49, 55-56 and 59-61 each recite “said plurality of metal plates” or “said metal plates”, which leads to confusion as to which set, or which plurality of metal plates, is being addressed within each claim. For example, claims 31, 43 and 55 recite “wherein said plurality of metal plates comprises generally equally radially spaced metal plates” which leads to confusion over which set (first arrangement, second arrangement or both) of metal plates are being equally spaced. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 27-33, 35-37, 40-45, 47-49, 52-57 and 59-61 are rejected as being necessarily dependent upon claims 26, 39 and 51, respectively.
Claims 26 and 39 recites the limitation "pair of adjacent metal plates" in line 17 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, as discussed above, the limitations of “metal plates” is unclear as to which set of “plurality of metal plates” is being referred to, be it: “the plurality of planar metal plates carried on the pair of hubs”; the “first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates/support plates”; or the “second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates/support plates”. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 31, 43 and 55 recite “wherein said plurality of metal plates comprises generally equally radially spaced metal plates” which leads to confusion as the claim fails to positively define the radial direction which the plates are spaced. They could be spaced radially along the circumference of the hub, or they could be spaced radially along the length of the pulley. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim 51 recites the limitations "the metal support plates in a first arrangement” and “the metal support plates in a second arrangement” in lines 8-9 of the claim and "each metal support plate in the first arrangement at a non-zero angle” and “each metal support plate in the second arrangement at a non-zero angle” in lines 10-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the 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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
GROUND 4: Claim(s) 26-31, 35-37, 39-43, 47-49, 51-55 and 59-60 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,038,590 to Arndt.
In regard to claims 26 and 51, Arndt discloses a pulley 24 for supporting a conveyor belt 23, the pulley having a length between a first end and a second end, and an axis of rotation between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 1), the pulley comprising: a pair of spaced cylindrical hubs 49, a first hub of the pair of hubs at the first end, and a second hub at the second end (See Figs. 2 and 4); a plurality of planar metal plates 33/40 carried on the pair of hubs, the plurality of metal plates spaced around a circumference of the pair of hubs (See Fig. 3), each metal plate of the plurality of metal plates having an upper edge contact surface 31 spaced from the pair of hubs and configured to support the conveyor belt (see Figs. 8-10), a first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates being on a first half of the pulley, and a second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates being on a second half of the pulley, each metal plate of the first arrangement being generally parallel to each other, and each metal plate of the second arrangement being generally parallel to each other (see Fig. 7 and Col. 2, Lines 37-39), each metal plate of the first arrangement being oriented at a non-zero angle relative to a corresponding metal plate of the second arrangement in the intended direction of rotation of the pulley, wherein each metal plate of the plurality of metal plates is set at an angle (C) forward of a radial (B) in the direction of intended rotation of the pulley (See Figs. 2-6 and Col. 2, Lines 8-60); and a metal wall 44 extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates. For clarity, annotated Figures 2 and 6 are provided:
PNG
media_image2.png
321
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
256
329
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 27 and 39, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein each pair of adjacent metal plates and the metal wall define a space below the respective upper edges, each space being unobstructed at the respective first end and second end of the pulley, wherein rotation of the pulley results in material in each space on the first half of the pulley to be directed laterally toward the first end of the pulley and away from the pulley, and wherein rotation of the pulley results in material in each space on the second half of the pulley to be directed laterally toward the second end of the pulley and away from the pulley (see Figs. 2-6 and Col. 2, Lines 52-60).
In regard to claims 28, 40 and 52, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein the first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is at least partially on the first half of the pulley, and the second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is at least partially on the second half of the pulley (see Figs. 2, 4-5 and 7-10).
In regard to claims 29, 41 and 53, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein the first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is substantially on the first half of the pulley, and the second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is substantially on the second half of the pulley (see Figs. 2, 4-5 and 7-10).
In regard to claims 30, 42 and 54, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein the first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is entirely on the first half of the pulley, and the second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is entirely on the second half of the pulley (see Figs. 2, 4-5 and 7-10).
In regard to claims 31, 43 and 55, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein said plurality of metal plates comprises generally equally radially spaced metal plates (see Figs. 3 and 7-10).
In regard to claims 35, 47 and 59, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein a configuration of said metal plates aids in keeping a conveyor belt centered on said pulley (See Figs. 7-11 and Col. 3, Lines 46-61).
In regard to claims 36, 48 and 60, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein said metal plates overlap along the length of the pulley to permit a conveyor belt to be supported by multiple metal plates along the belt width (see Figs. 2-6).
In regard to claims 37, 49 and 61, Arndt discloses a pulley, wherein said metal plates overlap along the length of the pulley to permit a conveyor belt to be supported by multiple metal plate along the belt width and ease the transition of belt contact from one metal plate to the next (see Figs. 2-6).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
GROUND 5: Claims 26-32, 35-37, 39-44, 47-49, 51-56 and 59-60 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,956,914 to Valster et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,938,754 to Kanaris.
In regard to claims 26 and 51, Valster et al. disclose a pulley 10 for supporting a conveyor belt, the pulley having a length between a first end and a second end, and an axis of rotation between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 1), the pulley comprising: a pair of spaced cylindrical hubs 21, a first hub of the pair of hubs at the first end, and a second hub at the second end (See Figs. 7 and 10 and Col. 3, Lines 39-59); a plurality of planar metal plates 33/40 carried on the pair of hubs, the plurality of metal plates 13, 14 spaced around a circumference of the pair of hubs, each metal plate of the plurality of metal plates having an upper edge contact surface 23 spaced from the pair of hubs and configured to support the conveyor belt (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Lines 8-27), a first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates being on a first half of the pulley 28, and a second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates being on a second half of the pulley 28, each metal plate of the first arrangement being generally parallel to each other, and each metal plate of the second arrangement being generally parallel to each other (see Fig 7 and Col. 3, Lines 38-5); and a metal wall 12 extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates (see Figs. 1 and 3 and Col. 3, Lines 8-27). Valster et al. are silent with respect to each metal plate of the first arrangement being oriented at a non-zero angle relative to a corresponding metal plate of the second arrangement in the intended direction of rotation of the pulley, wherein each metal plate of the plurality of metal plates is set at an angle (C) forward of a radial (B) in the direction of intended rotation of the pulley. Kanaris teaches of analogous pulley for supporting a conveyor belt wherein a plurality of contact bars 36 are arranged on an outer support surface in a chevron type arrangement (See Figs. 2-5 and Col. 3, Lines 24-44). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrangement the contact bars 23 of Valster et al. in a chevron pattern to provide more efficient and effective removal of unwanted contaminants from the conveyor belt assembly as taught by Kanaris (See Col. 3, Line 49 – Col. 4, Line 12).
In regard to claims 27 and 39, Valster et al. disclose a pulley, wherein each pair of adjacent metal plates and the metal wall define a space below the respective upper edges, each space being unobstructed at the respective first end and second end of the pulley, wherein rotation of the pulley results in material in each space on the first half of the pulley to be directed laterally toward the first end of the pulley and away from the pulley, and wherein rotation of the pulley results in material in each space on the second half of the pulley to be directed laterally toward the second end of the pulley and away from the pulley (see Figs. 1 and 7-8 and Col. 3, Lines 42-67).
In regard to claims 28, 40 and 52, Valster et al. disclose a pulley, wherein the first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is at least partially on the first half of the pulley, and the second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is at least partially on the second half of the pulley (see Figs. 1, 7 and 10 and Col. 4, Lines 3-25).
In regard to claims 29, 41 and 53, Valster et al. disclose a pulley, wherein the first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is substantially on the first half of the pulley, and the second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is substantially on the second half of the pulley (see Figs. 1, 7 and 10 and Col. 4, Lines 3-25).
In regard to claims 30, 42 and 54, Valster et al. disclose a pulley, wherein the first arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is entirely on the first half of the pulley, and the second arrangement of the plurality of metal plates is entirely on the second half of the pulley (see Figs. 1, 7 and 10 and Col. 4, Lines 3-25).
In regard to claims 31, 43 and 55, Valster et al. disclose a pulley, wherein said plurality of metal plates comprises generally equally radially spaced metal plates (see Fig. 8).
In regard to claims 32, 44 and 56, Valster et al. disclose a pulley, wherein the upper edge of each of said metal plates is configured to support the conveyor belt by supporting a metal contact bar 23 attached to the metal plate, said metal contact bar being disposed to contact the conveyor belt (see Figs. 1, 7-8, 10 and Col. 3, Lines 42-67).
In regard to claims 35, 47 and 59, Valster et al. disclose a pulley wherein a configuration of said metal plates aids in keeping a conveyor belt centered on said pulley (see Figs. 1 and 7-8 and Col. 3, Lines 42-67).
In regard to claims 36, 48 and 60, Valster et al., as modified by Kanaris, disclose a pulley wherein said metal plates overlap along the length of the pulley to permit a conveyor belt to be supported by multiple metal plates along the belt width (See Figs. 2-5 and Col. 3, Lines 24-44 of Kanaris). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrangement the contact bars 23 of Valster et al. in a chevron pattern to provide more efficient and effective removal of unwanted contaminants from the conveyor belt assembly in view of the teachings of Kanaris.
In regard to claims 37, 49 and 61, Valster et al., as modified by Kanaris, disclose a pulley, wherein said metal plates overlap along the length of the pulley to permit a conveyor belt to be supported by multiple metal plate along the belt width and ease the transition of belt contact from one metal plate to the next (See Figs. 2-5 and Col. 3, Lines 24-44 of Kanaris). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrangement the contact bars 23 of Valster et al. in a chevron pattern to provide more efficient and effective removal of unwanted contaminants from the conveyor belt assembly in view of the teachings of Kanaris.
GROUND 6: Claims 33, 45 and 57 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,956,914 to Valster et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,938,754 to Kanaris in further view of U.S. Patent No. 2,787,913 to Hageline.
In regard to claims 33, 45 and 57, Valster et al., as modified by Kanaris, disclose a pulley comprising semicircular metal contact bars 23 attached to the metal plates, wherein the metal contact bars are disposed to contact the conveyor belt (see Figs. 1, 7-8, 10 and Col. 3, Lines 42-67) but are silent with respect to the contact bar being generally circular in cross-section. Hageline teaches of an analogous pulley wheel comprising conveyor belt contact bars 10 that have a circular cross-section with slots 17 at the ends thereof for assembling the pulley (Se Figs. 1-2 and Col. 2, Lines 14-45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contact bars of Valster et al. to have a circular cross-section top optimize engagement with the conveyor belt as well as provide an alternate method of assembling the pulley as taught by Hageline. It is further noted, that the shape of the contact bars is afforded no criticality in the subject ‘142 patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed 2/7/25, have been fully considered and will be addressed as follows with respect to the previously presented claim interpretations and rejections:
Claim Status and Statement of Support:
As discussed above, the statement of support is insufficient per 37 CFR 1.173(c). In the remarks filed 2/7/25, Applicant refers to the drawings, specifically Figure 1, as support for the newly claimed limitations. First, it is unclear how a drawing alone can provide an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims, as required 37 CFR 1.173(c). Second, Applicant states that wing portions 14a and 14b equate to the first and second “arrangements of metal plates” by stating:
The recitation of two metal plates clearly illustrated as distinct components of the wings is properly supported by the specification.
Examiner disagrees, as the cited portions above (i.e. column 3, lines 35-49, Col. 4, line 4-13 and Col. 5, Lines 28-30) and newly cited Col. 2, Lines 49-54, Col. 3, 23-25 and Col. 5, Lines 28-30 fail to disclose or recite reference numbers 14a and 14b anywhere therein. These cited portions of the specification fail to properly support, disclose and/or explain the assertion that wing portions 14a and 14b are “distinct components” and/or “two metal plates” of wing 14. Rather, it appears from Figure 2 and Col. 2, Lines 15-37 that wings portions 14a-b are merely opposite ends of a single wing plate 22, which directly contradicts the Applicant’s arguments that the two metal plates 14a, b are “distinct components” of each wing 14. Applicant further states that a metal wall is indicated by reference numeral 19 of Figure 1. While Fig. 1 does illustrate a metal wall 19 (as disclosed at Col. 3, Lines 1-19), nowhere is the metal wall illustrated to be “extending between each pair of adjacent metal plates” as newly claimed. Rather, Figure 1 illustrates a single metal wall 19 extending between a single pair of wings 14.
Additionally, Applicant refers to Figure 1 as support in “explaining” the limitations of claims 28-29, 40-41 and 52-53, wherein the plurality of metal plates are either “partially or substantially on” the first and second halves of the pulley. Examiner disagrees as Figure 1 appears to illustrate an “arrangements of metal plates” 14-b as being “entirely on” each of the first and second halves of the pulley (see Claims 30, 42 and 54). There is no explanation, or illustration, that the “arrangements of metal plates” 14a-b are configured to span “partially or substantially” across the pulley as claimed.
Applicant is required to provide a detailed and proper Statement of Support for the new reissue claims filed February 7, 2025 that complies with 37 CFR 1.173(c).
Drawings:
The drawings remain objected to as failing to show every feature of the invention as discussed above. The current claims refer to “each metal plate of the first/second arrangement” which infers that wing 14 is formed from two separate, distinct metal plates. This configuration directly contradicts Fig 2 and Col. 2, Lines 15-37 of the specification which explicitly disclose the wing 14 as being formed from a single plate 22. Additionally, each respective plate in the first/second arrangement is not illustrated as extending only partially or substantially, across a pulley half, but rather is only illustrated as extending entirely across a pulley half. Lastly, the metal wall 19 illustrated in Figure 1 is shown as extending only between two walls 14, not “each” pair of metal plates as claimed.
Amendment to Specification:
The amendment to the specification filed 2/7/25, to replace the “BACKGROUND” (Col. 1, Lines 5-17) of the Specification has been accepted.
35 USC § 251 – New Matter Rejections:
The rejection of claims 26-33, 35-37, 39-45, 47-49, 51-57 and 59-61 under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought is maintained. As discussed above, the added material which is not supported by the ‘142 patent. The rejection is now listed under GROUND 1 above.
35 USC § 112(a) – claim rejections:
The rejection of claims 26-33, 35-37, 39-45, 47-49, 51-57 and 59-61 as failing to comply with the written description requirement is maintained. As discussed above, the added material which is not supported by the ‘142 patent. The rejection is now listed under GROUND 2 above.
35 USC § 112(b) – claim rejections:
The previous rejection of claims 34-35, 38, 46, 50, 58, 47, 59 and 62 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn.
It is noted, claims 26-33, 35-37, 39-45, 47-49, 51-57 and 59-61 are rejected under new GROUND 3 above, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
New Rejections:
Although the new claims present various issues of new matter and indefiniteness as rejected under GROUND 1-3 above, the Examiner has attempted to address the merits of the claims as best understood in view of the original ‘142 patent and has rejected the claims under new GROUNDS 4-6.
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1), (d), (f) and (g) govern amendments to the specification (other than the claims) in reissue applications. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending the specification:
a) All amendments which include deletions or additions must be made by submission of the entire text of each added or rewritten paragraph containing the bracketing and/or underlining required by 37 CFR 1.173(d).
b) An entire paragraph of specification text may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph without presentation of the text of the paragraph.
c) Applicant must indicate the precise point where each amendment is made.
d) All bracketing and underlining is made in comparison to the original patent, not in comparison to any prior amendment in the reissue application. Thus, all paragraphs which are newly added to the specification of the original patent must be submitted as completely underlined each time they are re-submitted in the reissue application.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (c)-(e) and (g) govern amendments to the claims in reissue applications. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending the claims:
a) For each claim that is being amended, the entire text of the claim must be presented with the bracketing and/or underlining required by 37 CFR 1.173(d).
b) For each new claim added to the reissue, the entire text of the added claim must be presented completely underlined.
c) A patent claim should be canceled by a direction to cancel that claim. There is no need to present the patent claim surrounded by brackets.
d) A new claim (previously added in the reissue) should be canceled by a direction to cancel that claim.
e) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), each claim that is amended or added should include the appropriate status indicator following the claim number, e.g., “(amended)”, “(twice amended)”, “(new)”, and “(canceled)”.
f) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each amendment submitted must set forth the status of all patent claims and all added claims as of the date of the submission. The status to be set forth is whether the claim is pending or canceled.
g) Also pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the patent’s disclosure for all changes made in the claim(s), whether insertions or deletions.
h) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(e), original patent claims are never to be renumbered. A patent claim retains its number even if it is canceled in the reissue proceeding, and the numbering of any added claims must begin after the last original patent claim.
i) Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(g), all bracketing and underlining is made in comparison to the original patent, not in comparison to any prior amendment in the reissue application.
The provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) govern amendments to the drawings in reissue applications. The following guidance is provided as to the procedure for amending drawings:
a) Amending the original or printed patent drawing sheets by physically changing or altering them is not permitted.
b) Where a change to the drawings is desired, applicant must submit a replacement sheet for each sheet of drawings containing a figure to be revised. Any replacement sheet must comply with 37 CFR 1.84 and include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each figure that is amended must be identified by placing the word “Amended” at the bottom of that figure. Any added figure must be identified as “New”. In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be identified as “Canceled” and also surrounded by brackets.
c) All changes to the figure(s) must be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet which accompanies the papers including the amendment to the drawings.
d) If desired, applicant may include a marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made. Such a marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings”, and it must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings.
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM--3PM.
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 on 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.
/MATTHEW J KASZTEJNA/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993