DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 were subject to telephone restriction.
Applicant made a provisional election to examine Group I, claims 1-6.
Claims 1-7 are pending, of which claim 7 is withdrawn by the Examiner.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
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 .
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-6, drawn to a toothed belt.
Group II, claim 7, drawn to a method for manufacturing a toothed belt.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a tooth belt as required in claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Uchigashima et al. (US 2012/0252619) (Uchigashima) in view of Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A) (Nakai). The Examiner has provided machine translations of Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Uchigashima teaches a toothed belt comprising a belt body, wherein the belt body comprises a tooth rubber layer arranged along the outer periphery of the tooth portion and a core rubber layer configured inside of the tooth portion, and the tooth rubber layer preferably wraps the one face side of the core rubber layer. The belt body comprises a backing rubber layer provided on its other face. The core rubber layer is provided between the backing rubber layer and the tooth rubber layer, and a cord element extends along a belt circumferential direction and is embedded in a boundary between the core rubber layer and the backing rubber layer, which corresponds to the claimed back portion. The cord element corresponds to the claimed tension member. The toothed belt further comprises a tooth fabric that covers the outer surface of the tooth portion. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0007-0009], [0030-0035], [0037], [0043], and FIGs. 1 and 6. FIG. 1 shows the following: The surface the backing rubber layer is provided corresponds to the outer circumference side with respect to the tension member. The plurality of tooth portions are formed on an inner circumferential surface of the back portion. The core rubber layer is interposed between the tooth rubber layer and the cord element.
Uchigashima further teaches the core rubber layer protects against deformation of the tooth while mitigating the amount of noise generated during the belt operation, thus the growth of a crack in a tooth root or a tooth bottom is restrained and the durability of the tooth portion can be improved. Paragraph [0036]. Uchigashima does not explicitly teach the tooth rubber layer possesses an elastic modulus larger than an elastic modulus of the core rubber layer.
With respect to the difference, Nakai teaches a toothed belt having a plurality of teeth arranged at regular intervals along the longitudinal direction and a back portion in which core wires are embedded, and the surface of the toothed belt is covered with a tooth cloth. The rubber layer constituting the back portion is formed into a two-layer structure. The outer layer of the two-layer structure is formed from rubber having an elastic modulus of 4.5 MPa or more, which is higher than the rubber of the inner layer. If the elastic modulus of the rubber of the outer layer is less than 4.5 MPa, when the toothed belt comes into contact with a pulley, the rubber will not be able to withstand large deformations due to stress, resulting in reduced wear resistance and crack resistance and a shortened belt life. In order to suppress noise generation due to belt vibration and suppress shortening of lifespan, the inner layer of the rubber has a lower elastic modulus and hardness than the rubber outer layer. The elastic modulus of the inner layer ranges from 2.5 to 6.5 MPa. The difference in elastic modulus between the outer layer and the inner layer is set to be 1.0 to 15 MPa. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0011-0012], [0015], [0019-0022], and [0024-0027].
Nakai and Uchigashima are analogous art as they are both drawn to toothed belts.
In light of the motivation as provided by Nakai, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the elastic modulus of the core rubber layer is lower than the elastic modulus of the tooth rubber layer of Uchigashima, in order to suppress noise generation and suppress shortening of lifespan of the belt, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
During a telephone conversation with Gary Fedorochko on 02/13/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-6. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchigashima et al. (US 2012/0252619) (Uchigashima) in view of Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A) (Nakai).
The Examiner has provided machine translations of Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1
Uchigashima teaches a toothed belt comprising a belt body, wherein the belt body comprises a tooth rubber layer arranged along the outer periphery of the tooth portion and a core rubber layer configured inside of the tooth portion, and the tooth rubber layer preferably wraps the one face side of the core rubber layer. The belt body comprises a backing rubber layer provided on its other face. The core rubber layer is provided between the backing rubber layer and the tooth rubber layer, and a cord element extends along a belt circumferential direction and is embedded in a boundary between the core rubber layer and the backing rubber layer, which corresponds to the claimed back portion. The cord element corresponds to the claimed tension member. The toothed belt further comprises a tooth fabric that covers the outer surface of the tooth portion. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0007-0009], [0030-0035], [0037], [0043], and FIGs. 1 and 6. FIG. 1 shows the following: The surface the backing rubber layer is provided corresponds to the outer circumference side with respect to the tension member. The plurality of tooth portions are formed on an inner circumferential surface of the back portion. The core rubber layer is interposed between the tooth rubber layer and the cord element.
Uchigashima further teaches the core rubber layer protects against deformation of the tooth while mitigating the amount of noise generated during the belt operation, thus the growth of a crack in a tooth root or a tooth bottom is restrained and the durability of the tooth portion can be improved. Paragraph [0036]. Uchigashima does not explicitly teach the tooth rubber layer possesses an elastic modulus larger than an elastic modulus of the core rubber layer.
With respect to the difference, Nakai teaches a toothed belt having a plurality of teeth arranged at regular intervals along the longitudinal direction and a back portion in which core wires are embedded, and the surface of the toothed belt is covered with a tooth cloth. The rubber layer constituting the back portion is formed into a two-layer structure. The outer layer of the two-layer structure is formed from rubber having an elastic modulus of 4.5 MPa or more, which is higher than the rubber of the inner layer. If the elastic modulus of the rubber of the outer layer is less than 4.5 MPa, when the toothed belt comes into contact with a pulley, the rubber will not be able to withstand large deformations due to stress, resulting in reduced wear resistance and crack resistance and a shortened belt life. In order to suppress noise generation due to belt vibration and suppress shortening of lifespan, the inner layer of the rubber has a lower elastic modulus and hardness than the rubber outer layer. The elastic modulus of the inner layer ranges from 2.5 to 6.5 MPa. The difference in elastic modulus between the outer layer and the inner layer is set to be 1.0 to 15 MPa. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0011-0012], [0015], [0019-0022], and [0024-0027].
Nakai and Uchigashima are analogous art as they are both drawn to toothed belts.
In light of the motivation as provided by Nakai, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the elastic modulus of the core rubber layer is lower than the elastic modulus of the tooth rubber layer of Uchigashima, in order to suppress noise generation and suppress shortening of lifespan of the belt, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2
Uchigashima in view of Nakai teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Since the purpose of the core rubber layer is to protect against deformation of the tooth while mitigating the amount of noise generated during the belt operation and improving durability, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the area of the core rubber layer with respect to the total area of the core rubber layer and tooth rubber layer, including over the presently claimed range, in order to obtain the desired noise mitigation and improved durability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3-4
Uchigashima does not explicitly teach the tensile elastic modulus of the core rubber layer and the tooth rubber layer.
With respect to the difference, Nakai teaches a toothed belt having a plurality of teeth arranged at regular intervals along the longitudinal direction and a back portion in which core wires are embedded, and the surface of the toothed belt is covered with a tooth cloth. The rubber layer constituting the back portion is formed into a two-layer structure. The outer layer of the two-layer structure is formed from rubber having an elastic modulus of 4.5 MPa or more, which is higher than the rubber of the inner layer. If the elastic modulus of the rubber of the outer layer is less than 4.5 MPa, when the toothed belt comes into contact with a pulley, the rubber will not be able to withstand large deformations due to stress, resulting in reduced wear resistance and crack resistance and a shortened belt life. In order to suppress noise generation due to belt vibration and suppress shortening of lifespan, the inner layer of the rubber has a lower elastic modulus and hardness than the rubber outer layer. The elastic modulus of the inner layer ranges from 2.5 to 6.5 MPa. The difference in elastic modulus between the outer layer and the inner layer is set to be 1.0 to 15 MPa. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0011-0012], [0015], [0019-0022], and [0024-0027] and FIG. 6-8.
Nakai and Uchigashima are analogous art as they are both drawn to toothed belts.
In light of the motivation as provided by Nakai, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the tooth rubber layer of Uchigashimia possesses an elastic modulus of 4.5 MPa or more and the core rubber layer of Uchigashimia possesses an elastic modulus of 2.5 to 6.5 MPa, such that the difference in elastic modulus between the core rubber layer and the tooth rubber layer ranges from 1.0 to 15 MPa, in order to ensure the rubber will be able to withstand large deformations due to stress and to suppress noise generation and suppress shortening of lifespan of the belt, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In view of the ranges of elastic modulus, it follows the elastic modulus of the tooth rubber layer and the core rubber layer overlaps the claimed ratio of 1.2 to 4 times. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchigashima et al. (US 2012/0252619) (Uchigashima) in view of Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A) (Nakai), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Nonaka et al. (US 2016/0208890) (Nonaka).
Regarding claim 5
Uchigashima does not explicitly teach the tooth rubber layer and the core rubber layer comprising crosslinked rubber compositions.
With respect to the difference, Nakai teaches a toothed belt having a plurality of teeth arranged at regular intervals along the longitudinal direction and a back portion in which core wires are embedded, and the surface of the toothed belt is covered with a tooth cloth. The rubber layer constituting the back portion is formed into a two-layer structure. The outer layer of the two-layer structure is formed from rubber having an elastic modulus of 4.5 MPa or more, which is higher than the rubber of the inner layer. If the elastic modulus of the rubber of the outer layer is less than 4.5 MPa, when the toothed belt comes into contact with a pulley, the rubber will not be able to withstand large deformations due to stress, resulting in reduced wear resistance and crack resistance and a shortened belt life. In order to suppress noise generation due to belt vibration and suppress shortening of lifespan, the inner layer of the rubber has a lower elastic modulus and hardness than the rubber outer layer. The elastic modulus of the inner layer ranges from 2.5 to 6.5 MPa. The difference in elastic modulus between the outer layer and the inner layer is set to be 1.0 to 15 MPa. The outer layer is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. The inner layer is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0011-0010], [0015], [0019-0027] and FIG. 6-8.
Nakai and Uchigashima are analogous art as they are both drawn to toothed belts.
In light of the motivation as provided by Nakai, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the outer layer of the two-layer structure of Nakai as the the tooth rubber layer of Uchigashimia the inner layer of the two-layer structure of Nakai as the core rubber layer of Uchigashimia, in order to ensure the rubber will be able to withstand large deformations due to stress and to suppress noise generation and suppress shortening of lifespan of the belt, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, since Nakai teaches the modulus of elasticity, elongation at break, as well as high tear strength is controlled by compounding hydrogenated nitrile rubber with a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the core rubber layer of Uchigashimia in view of Nakai to include a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid compounded with the hydrogenated nitrile rubber, in order to control the modulus of elasticity, elongation at break, as well as high tear strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Uchigashima in view of Nakai does not explicitly teach the amount of co-crosslinking agent present in the core rubber layer and the tooth rubber layer.
With respect to the difference, Nonaka teaches a belt comprising a rubber composition. If an organic peroxide is used as the crosslinker in the rubber composition, a co-crosslinker may also be used. The co-crosslinker is present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by mass for 100 parts by mass of the rubber component. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0006], [0064], and [0087].
Nonaka and Uchigashima in view of Nakai are analogous art as they are both drawn to transmission belts.
In light of the disclosure Nonaka, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the co-crosslinker in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component in the core rubber layer and tooth rubber layer of Uchigashima in view of Nakai, in order to produce the core rubber layer and tooth rubber layer with predictable success, as Nonaka teaches this amount is suitable for producing a rubber composition for a belt when using an organic peroxide as a crosslinker, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 6
Uchigashima in view of Nakai and Nonaka teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Nakai further teaches the outer layer, and therefore the tooth rubber layer, is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent, an organic peroxide, is present in an amount from 0.2 to 10 parts by weight. The co-crosslinker is present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight. The rubber composition further includes a first reinforcing inorganic filler, carbon black, in an amount from 2 to 50 parts by weight and a plasticizer in an amount from 2 to 15 parts by weight. The inner layer, and therefore the core rubber layer, is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent, an organic peroxide is present in an amount from 0.2 to 10 parts by weight. The co-crosslinker is present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight. The rubber composition further includes a second reinforcing inorganic filler in an amount of 10 to 80 parts by weight and a plasticizer in an amount of 2 to 15 parts by weight. Paragraphs [0013] and [0019-0024].
The amount of the hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid ranges from 55% to 96% by mass in the tooth rubber layer. (100/(100+10+10+50+15)=0.549; 100/(100+0.2+0.5+2+2)=0.955).
The amount of the hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid ranges from 46% to 89% by mass in the core rubber layer. (100/(100+10+10+80+15)=0.465; 100/(100+0.2+0.5+10+2)=0.887).
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A) (Nakai) in view of Uchigashima et al. (US 2012/0252619) (Uchigashima).
The Examiner has provided machine translations of Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1
Nakai teaches a toothed belt having a plurality of teeth arranged at regular intervals along the longitudinal direction and a back portion in which core wires are embedded, and the surface of the toothed belt is covered with a tooth cloth. The core wires corresponds to the claimed tension member. The plurality of teeth portion are formed on an inner circumferntial surface of the back portion. The rubber layer constituting the back portion is formed into a two-layer structure. The outer layer of the two-layer structure is formed from rubber having an elastic modulus of 4.5 MPa or more, which is higher than the rubber of the inner layer. If the elastic modulus of the rubber of the outer layer is less than 4.5 MPa, when the toothed belt comes into contact with a pulley, the rubber will not be able to withstand large deformations due to stress, resulting in reduced wear resistance and crack resistance and a shortened belt life. Since the rubber of the inner layer has a lower elastic modulus than the rubber of the outer layer, noise generation is suppressed and lifespan is lengthened. The elastic modulus of the inner layer ranges from 2.5 to 6.5 MPa. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0011-0012], [0015], [0019-0022], [0024-0026], and FIGs. 1, 2A-B, and 6-8.
Nakai further teaches the material of the rubber compound forming the belt body is not particularly limited. Paragraph [0046]. Nakai does not explicitly teach a layered structure in the belt body.
With respect to the difference, Uchigashima teaches a belt body including a belt body and a cord element embedded in the belt body. On one face side (tooth surface), tooth potions and tooth bottom portions are alternately disposed in the longitudinal direction. The tooth portions are covered with tooth fabric. The belt body is integrally formed with a tooth rubber layer provided on the tooth surface side of the belt body, a backing rubber layer provided on the other side (back face) of the belt body, and a core rubber layer provided between the tooth rubber layer and the backing rubber layer. The cord element is positioned on the boundary surface between the backing rubber layer and the core rubber layer. The purpose of the core rubber layer is to protect against deformation of the tooth while mitigating the amount of noise generated during the belt operation and improving durability. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0030-0037], and FIG. 1.
Uchigashima and Nakai are analogous art as they are both drawn to toothed belts.
Since Uchigashima teaches the importance of having a core rubber layer to protect against deformation of the tooth while mitigating the amount of noise generated during the belt operation and to improve durability, and since Nakai teaches the two layer rubber structure of the back portion suppresses noise generation and improves lifespan, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the belt body of Nakai to include a core rubber layer and tooth rubber layer, as taught by Uchigashima, and to use the material of the inner layer of Nakai as the core rubber layer and use the material of the outer layer of Nakai as the tooth rubber layer, in order to ensure suppressed noise generation and improved durability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2
Nakai in view of Uchigashima teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Since the purpose of the core rubber layer is to protect against deformation of the tooth while mitigating the amount of noise generated during the belt operation and improving durability, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the area of the core rubber layer with respect to the total area of the core rubber layer and tooth rubber layer, including over the presently claimed range, in order to obtain the desired noise mitigation and improved durability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3-4
Nakai in view of Uchigashima teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nakai in view of Uchigashima teaches the core rubber layer possesses an elastic modulus from 2.5 to 6.5 MPa and the tooth rubber layer possesses an elastic modulus of 4.5 MPa or more, such that the difference in elastic modulus is set to be 1.0 to 15 MPa, in order to ensure the rubber will be able to withstand large deformations due to stress and to suppress noise generation and suppress shortening of lifespan of the belt, as discussed in item #14 above.
In view of the ranges of elastic modulus, it follows the elastic modulus of the tooth rubber layer and the core rubber layer overlaps the claimed ratio of 1.2 to 4 times. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. (JP 2001173725A) (Nakai) in view of Uchigashima et al. (US 2012/0252619) (Uchigashima), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Nonaka et al. (US 2016/0208890) (Nonaka).
Regarding claim 5
Nakai in view of Uchigashima teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Nakai further teaches the outer layer, and therefore the tooth rubber layer, is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. The inner layer, and therefore the core rubber layer, is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. Paragraphs [0013] and [0020-0024].
Since Nakai teaches the modulus of elasticity, elongation at break, as well as high tear strength is controlled by compounding hydrogenated nitrile rubber with a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the core rubber layer of Nakai in view of Uchigashimia to include a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid compounded with the hydrogenated nitrile rubber, in order to control the modulus of elasticity, elongation at break, as well as high tear strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Nakai in view of Uchigashima does not explicitly teach the amount of co-crosslinking agent present in the core rubber layer and the tooth rubber layer.
With respect to the difference, Nonaka teaches a belt comprising a rubber composition. If an organic peroxide is used as the crosslinker in the rubber composition, a co-crosslinker may also be used. The co-crosslinker is present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by mass for 100 parts by mass of the rubber component. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0006], [0064], and [0087].
Nonaka and Nakai in view of Uchigashima are analogous art as they are both drawn to transmission belts.
In light of the disclosure Nonaka, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the co-crosslinker in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component in the core rubber layer and tooth rubber layer of Naka in view of Uchigashima, in order to produce the core rubber layer and tooth rubber layer with predictable success, as Nonaka teaches this amount is suitable for producing a rubber composition for a belt when using an organic peroxide as a crosslinker, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 6
Nakai in view of Uchigashima and Nonaka teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Nakai further teaches the outer layer, and therefore the tooth rubber layer, is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent, an organic peroxide, is present in an amount from 0.2 to 10 parts by weight. The co-crosslinker is present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight. The rubber composition further includes a first reinforcing inorganic filler, carbon black, in an amount from 2 to 50 parts by weight and a plasticizer in an amount from 2 to 15 parts by weight. The inner layer, and therefore the core rubber layer, is formed from a crosslinked rubber obtained by blending 100 parts by weight of hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid, a cross-linking agent, and a co-crosslinking agent. The crosslinking agent, an organic peroxide is present in an amount from 0.2 to 10 parts by weight. The co-crosslinker is present in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by weight. The rubber composition further includes a second reinforcing inorganic filler in an amount of 10 to 80 parts by weight and a plasticizer in an amount of 2 to 15 parts by weight. Paragraphs [0013] and [0019-0024].
The amount of the hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid ranges from 55% to 96% by mass in the tooth rubber layer. (100/(100+10+10+50+15)=0.549; 100/(100+0.2+0.5+2+2)=0.955).
The amount of the hydrogenated nitrile rubber and a metal salt of an unsaturated carboxylic acid ranges from 46% to 89% by mass in the core rubber layer. (100/(100+10+10+80+15)=0.465; 100/(100+0.2+0.5+10+2)=0.887).
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789