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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 05/27/26. The pending claims dated 04/28/26 at this time are 12-14, 18, 19, 21 and 23-26 all of which stand rejected. Claims 1-11, 15-17, 20, 22 and 27 have been previously cancelled by Applicant.
Applicant has amended claims 12, 24 and 26. These amendments have been entered and are made of record.
The IDS dated 05/27/26 has been reviewed and is being remitted with this office action.
All previously made prior art rejections are withdrawn as Applicant has amended claim 12 and the prior art of USPUB 2004126544 A1 issued to Jaglowski et al. does not teach that the resin is polymethylene.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 23 ends with two periods, please eliminate one. Claim 23 also used the unit “um,” please clarify. These issues appear to be typographical errors. For the purposes of examination, the unit of measure will be understood as “µm”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25 uses the unit “um,” please clarify. This issue appears to be typographical error. For the purposes of examination, the unit of measure will be understood as “µm”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 18, 19 and 21 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Applicant's amended claim 12 recites that the rubber is a polymethylene rubber. Claim 18 includes a broad limitation with a narrow limitation. Claim 18 depends upon claim 12 which recites the rubber resin classified into the M group of JISK8397 polymethylene rubber with a saturated main chain. But claim 18 recites the broad of rubber resin classified into the R group of JISK8397 having an unsaturated carbon bond on the main chain. Claim 12 recites polymethylene which is narrower.
Claims 19 and 21 are not commensurate in scope with claim 12 from which they depend. Claim 19 requires that the resin be styrene butadiene rubber and Claim 21 and acrylic rubber. Claim 12, which both 19 and 21 depend from recites polymethylene which is narrower.
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) 12-14, 18, 19, 21 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2017260664A1 issued to Morton et al. in view of CN 101468753A.
Morton et al. teach an endless woven textile belt for producing web material, such as spunbonded nonwoven fabrics [¶¶ abstract, 0003-0006, 0024-0034, figures 1-3]. The belt comprises a plurality of longitudinal threads, running substantially in a longitudinal belt direction, and a plurality of transverse threads, running substantially in a transverse belt direction, wherein the longitudinal threads bind with the transverse threads at binder points, and crown regions of the longitudinal threads are formed on a web-material contacting side, wherein on the web-material contacting side a multiplicity of deposits are provided at least on the longitudinal threads [¶¶ 0001, 0004, 0027-0029]. This contacting side serves equivalence to Applicant’s obverse surface.
At ¶ 0029, the instant reference teaches that the coating on the crown which serves as Applicant’s knuckle can range from 250 to 2500 μm.
At ¶¶ 0012, 0018-0019 and 0033, the instant reference teaches that the threads of the belt are constructed using polyester (PET) material, PP, PE, PA or carbon nanotubes. This meets the limitation of the resin being made from a different composition of the textile.
At ¶¶ 0013, 0027 the instant reference teaches that the deposit which serves as the coating can be silicone or PU. The deposit is applied by
Morton et al. do not teach that the resins are rubbery resins of group R classified as JISK6397, which are polymethylene rubbers having a main chain saturation (Applicant’s claim 12, 24 and 26); that the resin has a hardened Shore or durometer hardness of 10 to 80 (Applicant’s claims 12-14, 24 and 26).
This is remedied by the teachings of CN101468753A issued to Kairen et al.
Kairen et al. discloses a conveyor belt and a method for manufacturing the same, and specifically (see pages 5-11 of the specification, Fig. 1): a conveyor belt 10 provided by the present invention having a structure as shown in Fig. 1, in turn greige 1, made of fibers, an adhesive layer 2 having a first surface 3 and a second surface 4, with the first surface 3 being associated with the greige fabric 1; and a topcoat or glue line layer 5 bonded to the second surface 4 of the adhesive layer 2; the adhesive layer and the topcoat or glue line layer can be selected from any of the materials known to be used in the manufacture of conveyor belt adhesive layers, including, but not limited to, natural rubber (NR); buna-S (SBR); isoprene rubber (IR); butaprene (BR); butyl rubber (IIR); ethene-propylene copolymer (EPM or EPR); ethylene propylene diene rubber (EPDM); new flat rubber (Neoprene; CR; poly-chloroprene rubber); government rubber (NBR); poly-urethane rubber (AU; AU polyester type of urethane rubber and EU; polyether types of polyurethane rubber); thiokol (Polysulfide rubber; TR); epichlorohydrin rubber (CO and ECO); silicone rubber (MQ); Hai Balong (Hypalon; CSM; chlorosulfonated polyethylene rubber); polychlorotrifluoroethylene (CFM); ACM (ACM) etc., and the like These materials are classified as JISK6397 both m and r groups equivalents. The JISK6397 are Japanese standards and the R‑Group rubbers include polymers with an unsaturated carbon chain, such as NR (natural rubber), SBR (styrene‑butadiene rubber), NBR (nitrile butadiene rubber), BR (butadiene rubber), and others listed in the CN reference, while they list the M-Group rubbers like ACM and EPDM. They do not list polymethylene.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have substituted one known M group like ACM or EPDM for polymethylene rubber. It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and would be predictable in as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In conveyor belt design, EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) is a common cover rubber because it offers excellent heat resistance, ozone/weather resistance, and durability in harsh environments DNC Automation. However, in certain applications, polymethylene rubber (often referring to polyethylene-based elastomers like EPDM’s cousin polypropylene or polyethylene copolymers) may be chosen instead. One would have been motivated to do so as polymethylene rubbers are lighter or have different density than EPDM, which can be beneficial in applications where belt weight is a concern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights