DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaskawa (JP4766274), in view of Meier (US 2005/061092).
Regarding claims 1-6, the current application is related to PCT/IB2022/051154 and the current claims 1-6 are substantially similar in scope to the PCT claims. The examiner adopts, and incorporates herein by reference, the explanations of the closest prior art as set forth in the PCT (see the copy of the PCT/ISA/237 received in this current application on 08/03/2023).1
Regarding claims 7-13, the claims are in sufficient proximity to the preceding claims that the pertinence of the prior art to the remaining claims flows naturally from the explanations of the prior art as found above. Further mapping of the art is therefore unnecessary by 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2) (i.e., the rejection of claims is mapped to the art when a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant), e.g. the limitations of the respective claims are considered to flow naturally from the art.2
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant has argued that the use of metallic belts is not the same or equivalent with the use of cables (Remarks, page 14, last paragraph). This is not persuasive. Both metallic belts and cables are old, well-known, common, and ordinary; and both are used to solve the same mechanical problem (e.g., transferring rotational power). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been readily-familiar with the well-known differences and/or advantages of each (e.g., metallic belts are generally more precise and energy efficient, versus cables are generally heavier duty and applicable to systems with higher loads), and is capable of selecting and/or substituting such components based on design need, expected load, and/or desired tolerances. Further, it was known in the prior art to substitute cables for metallic belts; see, for example, ES 2749455: “As an alternative to metallic belts 130A, 130B, a first and second steel cable can be used, which are also suitable to ensure equivalent transmission stiffness, low friction and total, or almost total, absence of slack.” Therefore, metallic belts and cables are considered to be art-recognized equivalents, and the combination is maintained.
Second, Applicant has argued that the prior art does not disclose the claimed limitation “the first pulley and the second pulley being arranged in such a way that the respective first rotation axis and second rotation axis are parallel to one another and contained in a horizontal plane parallel to the guide rail” (Remarks, page 21, last paragraph). This is not persuasive. Insomuch as instant Fig. 2 shows R1, R2 contained within a plane parallel to 10, the prior art shows the axes of 23a,b parallel to one of 6a. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the unclaimed dimensionality, explicit structure, and/or reference orientation of the guide rail) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Third, Applicant admits that the prior art of Meier teaches “idler pulleys having an annular groove wherein a portion of the cable does wind,” but argues that Meier “does not teach to use a drive pulley having two annular grooves” (Remarks, page 25). This is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, grooved pulleys were common, ordinary, and well-known, and were taught by Mieier. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to modify the system of Yaskawa using the teachings of Meier to arrive at the invention, as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See MPEP 1893.03(e)(II) which permits the examiner to adopt any portion or all of any report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA that would be relevant to U.S. practice, e.g., explanations of prior art, etc.
2 See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) which states “There has never been a requirement for an examiner to make an on-the-record claim construction of every term in every rejected claim and to explain every possible difference between the prior art and the claimed invention in order to make out a prima facie rejection. This court declines to create such a burdensome and unnecessary requirement. […] “Section 132 merely ensures that an applicant at least be informed of the broad statutory basis for the rejection of his claims, so that he may determine what the issues are on which he can or should produce evidence.” Chester, 906 F.2d at 1578 (internal citation omitted)