DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 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.
Independent claim 1 is deemed to be indefinite because the preamble of the claim reads: “A flame-retardant polyurethane coating applied in rollers . . .” [Emphasis added]. The problem here is that in lines 9-10 of the claim, it is stated: “wherein said coating is arranged in direct contact between the outer part of the roller housing and the conveyor belt;” [Emphasis added]. It thus seems to the Examiner, that the word “in” as set forth in line 1 of the preamble, should be changed to the word --on-- to correct this indefinite issue.
Independent claim 1 is further indefinite in regards to the “limitation” of: “wherein said coating is disposed vertically in contact with a 20 mm flame for 10 seconds, said coating does not have burning drops or particles and the flame must automatically extinguish within 10 seconds after removal of the flame;”, as set forth in lines 6-8. The way said limitation is presently worded, it seems that the polyurethane coated rollers are experiencing an active ongoing fire. The Examiner suggests that Applicant insert the word --when-- directly after the word “wherein” in line 6 of the claim to correct this problem.
Dependent claim 6 is also being rejected because it is dependent on rejected independent claim 1, and because of its use of the phrase: “wherein the coating may be manufactured in the form of a flame-retardant/self-extinguishing engineering plastic coating UL94 V-0” [Emphasis added]. The problem here is that the flammability safety standard of UL94 V-0 is a required claimed attribute of the polyurethane coating according to independent claim 1 and is thus not optional.
Likewise, dependent claim 7 is also being rejected because it is dependent on rejected independent claim 1, and because of its use of the phrase: “wherein the coating may be manufactured in the form of a flame-retardant rubber coating UL94 V-0” [Emphasis added]. The problem here is that the flammability safety standard of UL94 V-0 is a required claimed attribute of the polyurethane coating according to independent claim 1 and is thus not optional.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Kley U.S. Patent Number 7,299,912 or Mushovic U.S. Patent Number 4,312,444 or Yoshino U.S. Patent Number 5,586,639, all said references individually in view of either CN 105038191 B or CN 102295835 B.
Van Kley discloses a conveyor system for transporting a work piece from a beginning point to an end point in a longitudinal direction with at least one process step applied in between to such work piece is provided according to the invention. The work piece is propelled in the longitudinal direction over a combination of grooved rollers and conveyor belt units in series. Grooved guide means with, e.g., V, U, or square shapes that are machined into the surface of the rollers prevent the work piece from moving laterally as it is transported in the longitudinal direction, and maintain precise spacing between a plurality of work piece strands undergoing simultaneous transport by the conveyor system. The conveyor belt unit located between the grooved rollers inhibits rotation of the work piece as it is transported in the longitudinal direction. This conveyor system is good for treating the entire exterior surface area of the work piece in a uniform manner, such as coating the surface of rebar, dowel bar, hollow tube, or pipe, see abstract. The grooved rollers are coated with a polymeric coating which preferably can be selected from polyurethane, see column 9, lines 10-24 and claim 20.
Mushovic discloses conveyor roller having a low noise level and a long wear life consisting of a steel shaft, an intermediate layer made of a polymeric material (e.g., fiberglass-reinforced polyester) bonded to the shaft, a helical steel spring wear element situated around the periphery of the intermediate layer, and an outer layer made of an abrasion-resistant polymeric material bonded to the intermediate layer and the wear element. This roller solves the problem of high noise levels in steel plants, yet also exhibits long wear life, see abstract. The outer layer abrasion-resistant polymeric material is most preferably selected to be composed of polyurethane rubber, see column 3, line 67 to column 4, line 11, column 5, lines 33-62 and claims 13-14 and 26-27.
Yoshino discloses a powered roller conveyor especially effective for upgrade conveyance of light loads of 15 kg to 60 kg, wherein the resin coating of rollers 1 is a soft polyurethane rubber having a hardness of 65 to 80 degrees and the outer surface of the resin coating is an undulating surface having ridges 1a which extend axially and parallel and which, seen in a cross-section of the roller, are arranged with a uniform spacing pitch of about 3 mm and have a height of about 2 mm. Manufacturing these rollers requires no new additional equipment nor much labor, which makes it possible to provide low-priced rollers and hence contribute to cost reductions for the roller conveyor. This conveyor is ideal for upgrade conveyance along slopes of large angles, see abstract and claims 1-3.
Van Kley, Mushovic and Yoshino, which have been described above, individually differ from Applicant’s claimed invention in that there is no disclosure within each reference to where the polyurethane coating used to coat the rollers meets the UL94 V-0 flammability safety standard.
CN 105038191 B (abstract) discloses thermoplastic elastomers, in particular to a halogen-free flame retardant thermoplastic elastomer and a preparation method thereof. The halogen-free flame retardant thermoplastic elastomer comprises, by weight, 75-110 parts of polyurethane elastomers, 12-30 parts of phosphorus based flame retardant, 5-35 parts of phosphorus-nitrogen containing flame retardant, 1-3 parts of inorganic salt flame retardant, 5-12 parts of plasticizer and 1.3-3 parts of lubricant. The halogen-free flame retardant thermoplastic elastomer solves the problem that an existing elastomer containing halogen flame retardant can generate toxic and corrosive gas, and the smoke formation quantity can be greatly controlled in the open fire burning process of the elastomer. According to the halogen-free flame retardant thermoplastic elastomer, the above raw materials are adopted, the weight ratio of all the raw materials is strictly controlled, the flame retardant effect is good, the flame retardant can reach the UL94-V0 level, fireproofing is good, and the smoke formation quantity is small; precipitation is low, dripping can be prevented, high electrical performance can be achieved, and the heat resistance is good. Moreover, the abrasion resistance is excellent, ozone resistance is extremely good, hardness is large, strength is high, elasticity is good, and comprehensive performance is excellent.
CN 102295835 B (abstract) discloses a zero-halogen flame-retardant thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer sheath material and a preparation method thereof. The zero-halogen flame-retardant thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer sheath material is prepared from the following raw material components in parts by weight: 50-80 parts of polyurethane, 10-30 parts of zero-halogen flame retardant, 10-20 parts of zero-halogen smoke suppressant, 5-20 parts of processing modifier, 0.2+/-0.05 part of processing auxiliary agent, 0.2+/-0.05 part of antioxidant and 0.2+/-0.05 part of ultraviolet resistant. Compared with the prior art, the zero-halogen flame-retardant thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer sheath material prepared by the invention has the advantages of wider processing temperature range, ultrahigh physical and mechanical properties and flame retardant property of UL-94 and V-0 level.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of either secondary references to CN 105038191 B and CN 102295835 B, as strong motivation to actually employ flame-retardant polyurethane elastomers, which meet the flammability safety standard of UL-94 V0, as the polyurethane elastomers/rubber material used to coat the rollers in the conveyor belt systems as disclosed by the primary references to Van Kley, Mushovic and Yoshino. One having ordinary skill in the art would at once appreciate that using polyurethane elastomer/rubber coatings that also have excellent flame retardant and smoke reduction properties, as disclosed by each secondary reference, would be highly advantageous for rollers used in conveyor systems due to the well-known problem of heat buildup and possible fire risk, resulting from the friction generated on the rollers during their use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764