DETAILED ACTION
BAND REPLACEMENT TOOL
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06-02-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s amendment overcomes specification and drawing objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed 03-02-2026. Applicant’s amendments to claims have not overcome 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed 03-02-2026.The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-02-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant's argument that prior art fails disclose functional shaft and head limitations such as "the shaft has a width configured to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device, and a length sufficient to reach a lower roller of the conveyor device" limitation disclosed in the independent claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to disclose functional shaft and head limitations such as "the shaft has a width configured to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device, and a length sufficient to reach a lower roller of the conveyor device” and other similar functional limitations in independent claims and dependent claims, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Prior art Lee discloses that the v-belt installation and dismantling tool can be used within the v-groove of pulley, to easily install v-belt. (see abstract) The tool has shown to being able to maneuver within a groove and confined spaces (see abstract, figures 3-6), and therefore the shaft would be capable of fitting between a roller of conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device. The tool would also be capable of performing the other shaft and head functional limitations.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “a width configured to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device, and a length sufficient to reach a lower roller of the conveyor device” which implies the width can be any shape, which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, only the band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 1 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device therefore it would unclear when infringement would occur (i.e. if band replacement tool was being used for apparatus with band in confined space that was not a conveyor device)
Limitation “configured to partially enclose and secure a portion of a band and to push the band into a groove of the roller for routing the band around the roller, wherein the head is sized to fit within the groove of the roller;” has similar issue, implies the head can be any shape which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite and only band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 1 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation “a length of the shaft is configured to reach an underside of the lower roller of the conveyor device is configured to reach an underside of the lower roller of the conveyor device” which implies the length can be any shape, which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, only the band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 2 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device therefore it would unclear when infringement would occur (i.e. if band replacement tool was being used for apparatus with band in confined space that was not a conveyor device)
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “the width of the shaft is further configured to also fit between two rollers of the conveyor device” which implies the width can be any shape, which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, only the band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 3 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device therefore it would unclear when infringement would occur (i.e. if band replacement tool was being used for apparatus with band in confined space that was not a conveyor device)
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the head is sized to fit within a groove formed between two rollers” which implies the head can be any shape, which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, only the band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 3 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device therefore it would unclear when infringement would occur (i.e. if band replacement tool was being used for apparatus with band in confined space that was not a conveyor device)
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the head is sized to fit within a groove formed between two rollers” which implies the head can be any shape, which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, only the band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 3 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device therefore it would unclear when infringement would occur (i.e. if band replacement tool was being used for apparatus with band in confined space that was not a conveyor device)
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the head is sized to fit within a space between the roller and the side member of conveyor device” which implies the head can be any shape, which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, only the band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 3 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device therefore it would unclear when infringement would occur (i.e. if band replacement tool was being used for apparatus with band in confined space that was not a conveyor device)
Claims 2-9 are also rejected from depending from rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitation “a width configured to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device and a length sufficient to reach a lower roller of the conveyor device” which implies the width can be any shape, which the applicant does not have support for therefore scope of the claim is indefinite. Furthermore, only the band replacement tool is being claimed in claim 1 not combination of the band replacement tool, and a conveyor device therefore it would unclear when infringement would occur (i.e. if band replacement tool was being used for apparatus with band in confined space that was not a conveyor device)
Limitation in claim 10 “head, configured to partially enclose and secure a portion of a band and to push the band into a groove of the roller for routing the band around the roller, wherein the head is sized to fit within the groove of the roller.” has a similar issue.
Dependent claim 11 limitation “the length of the shaft is configured to reach an underside of the lower roller of the conveyor device” has similar issue.
Dependent claim 12, limitation “the width of the shaft is further configured to also fit between two rollers of the conveyor device” has similar issue
Dependent claim 16 limitation “wherein the head is sized to fit within guides of the roller, the guides forming a groove for routing the band around of the rollers” has similar issue
Dependent claim 17 limitation “wherein the head is sized to fit between two rollers of the conveyor device”
Regarding claims 11-17 are rejected from depending from rejected claim 10.
Dependent claim 18 limitations “wherein the shaft has a width configured to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device, a length sufficient to reach a lower roller end of the conveyor device” and “wherein the head is sized to fit within “have a similar issue.
Dependent claim 19 limitation “width of the shaft is further configured to also fit between two rollers of the conveyor device” has a similar issue.
Dependent claim 20 limitation “length of the shaft is configured to reach an underside of the lower roller of the conveyor device” has a similar issue.
Regarding claims 19-20 are rejected from depending from rejected claim 18.
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4,8-10-12,16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR200438838Y1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches
a shaft (30, figure 1) comprising a first end and a second end (see figure 1), wherein the shaft has a width (see 30, figure 1) configured to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device, and a length sufficient to reach a lower roller of the conveyor device (abstract capable of performing this action);
a head (10, figure 1) connected to the first end (31, figure 1) of the shaft, the head comprising a concave surface (20, figure 4a) disposed between a first side member and a second side member forming a U-shaped (20, figure 4a) end configured to partially enclose and secure a portion of a band and to push the band into a groove of the roller for routing the band around the roller, wherein the head is sized to fit within the groove of the roller (figure 5; abstract capable of performing action); and a gripping member (32, figure 1) connected to the second end of the shaft.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches
wherein the gripping member further comprises a cylindrical handle (32, figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the head is sized to fit within a groove formed between two rollers of the conveyor device. (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove) during installation of the band. (see figures 3-6)
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the head is sized to fit within a space between the roller and the side member of a conveyor device. (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove) during installation of the band (see figures 3-6)
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches
a gripping member (32, figure 1)
a shaft (30, figure 1) having a first end connected to the gripping member; and a second end, wherein the shaft (30, figures 3-6)has a width configured to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device and a length sufficient to reach a lower roller of the conveyor device; (see abstract capable of performing this action, figures 3-6)
a head (10, figure 1) connected to a second end (31, figure 1) of the shaft, the head comprising a concave surface (20, figure 4a) disposed between a set of side members of the head forming a substantially U-shaped end of the head, configured to partially enclose and secure a portion of a band and to push the band into a groove of the roller for routing the band around the roller, wherein the head is sized to fit within the groove of the roller. (see abstract capable of performing this action, figures 3-6)
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches
wherein the head is sized to fit within guides of the roller, the guides forming a groove for routing a band around a set of rollers of the conveyor device (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove, figure 1-3) during installation of the band.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches
wherein the head is sized to fit between two rollers of the conveyor device (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove) during installation.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lee teaches to teach wherein a length (see 30, figures 1-3) of the is configured to reach an underside of the lower roller of the conveyor device (see figure 3; abstract)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Lee teaches the width (see 30, figures 1-3) of the shaft is further configured to also fit between two rollers of the conveyor device. (see figure 3; abstract)
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) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR200438838Y1) in view of Baek (KR102278414B1) cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach
wherein the gripping member further comprises a T-shaped handle.
Baek teaches a belt replacement tool, and discloses changing the gripping member shape and design to have wide range of styles and designs (figures 1-5) including a T-shaped handle. (abstract, 100, figures 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified tool of Lee to have a t-shaped handle based on the teachings of Baek since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation would be to change the torque or force needed to move the belt. (see Baek pages 5-7).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the gripping member further comprises an opening within the gripping member for hanging the tool.
Baek teaches a belt replacement tool, that teaches changing gripping member shape and design to have wide range of styles and designs (figures 1-5) including a gripping member that comprises an opening. (abstract, 400, figure 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified tool of Lee to an opening within the gripping member based on the teachings of Baek since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 The motivation would be to change the torque or force needed to move the belt. (see Baek pages 5-7).
Claim(s) 5,13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR200438838Y1) in view of Baek (KR102278414B1) cited in IDS and Bavington (GB2312614A).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the gripping member further comprises a rectangular handle.
Baek teaches a belt replacement tool, that teaches a changing gripping member shape and design to have wide range of styles and designs (figures 1-5).
Bavington teaches a handle where gripping member further comprises a rectangular handle (figures 2-3).
Based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified tool of Lee to have gripping member further comprises a rectangular handle based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 The motivation would be to change the torque or force needed to move the belt (see Baek pages 5-7) ,and provide a convenient and comfortable handle to the user (see Bavington page 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the gripping member further comprises: a T-shaped handle including a set of finger grips disposed along a side of the T-shaped handle.
Baek teaches a belt replacement tool, that teaches changing gripping member shape and design to have wide range of styles and designs (figures 1-5) including a T-shaped handle. (abstract, 100, figures 1-3)
Bavington teaches a handle where the gripping member includes a set of finger grips (see 28,figure 1)
Based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified tool of Lee to have gripping member further comprises the gripping member further comprises: a T-shaped handle including a set of finger grips disposed along a side of the T-shaped handle based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 The motivation would be to change the torque or force needed to move the belt (see Baek pages 5-7) ,and provide a convenient and comfortable handle to the user (see Bavington page 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails wherein the gripping member further comprises:
a rectangular-shaped handle a set of finger grips disposed along a side of the rectangular-shaped handle.
Baek teaches a belt replacement tool, that teaches a changing gripping member shape and design to have wide range of styles and designs (figures 1-5).
Bavington teaches a handle where the gripping member including a set of finger grips (see 28,figure 1)
Based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified tool of Lee to have a rectangular-shaped handle including a set of finger grips disposed along a side of the rectangular-shaped handle based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. The motivation would be to change the torque or force needed to move the belt (see Baek pages 5-7) ,and provide a convenient and comfortable handle to the user (see Bavington page 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the gripping member further comprises:
a cylindrical handle (32, figure 1) ,but fails to teach that handle includes a set of finger grips disposed along an exterior length of the cylindrical handle.
Baek teaches a belt replacement tool, that teaches a changing gripping member shape and design to have wide range of styles and designs (figures 1-5).
Bavington teaches a handle where the gripping member including a set of finger grips (see 28,figure 1)
Based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Lee to have a cylindrical handle including a set of finger grips disposed along an exterior length of the cylindrical handle based on the teachings of Baek and Bavington since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. The motivation would be to change the torque or force needed to move the belt (see Baek pages 5-7) ,and provide a convenient and comfortable handle to the user (see Bavington page 1-2).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR200438838Y1) in view of Bavington (GB2312614A).
Regarding claims 18-20, Lee teaches a shaft (30, figure 1) comprising a first end and a second end (see figure 1), wherein the shaft has a width configured is to fit between a roller of a conveyor device and a side member of the conveyor device (capable of performing this action see abstract), and
a head (11, figure 1) connected to the first end of the shaft (31, figure 1), the head comprising a concave surface (20, figure 4a) disposed between a first side member and a second side member forming a U-shaped (figure 4a) end configured (capable of performing this action) to partially enclose and secure a portion of a band during installation of the band around a set of rollers, and to push the band into a groove of the roller for routing the band around the roller the head is sized to fit within the groove for routing the band around the roller of the conveyor device (capable of performing this action see abstract); wherein the width of the shaft is further configured to also fit between two rollers of the conveyor device; wherein the length of the shaft is configured to reach an underside of the lower roller of the conveyor device
However, Lee fails to teach
a rectangular-shaped handle comprising a set of finger grips disposed along an interior side of the rectangular-shaped handle and an opening embedded within a portion of the rectangular-shaped handle.
Bavington teaches a handle where the gripping member further comprises a rectangular handle (figures 2-3) including a set of finger grips (see 28,figure 1) an opening embedded within a portion of the rectangular-shaped handle ( figure 1)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights