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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it discusses the purported merits of the invention " The handle optionally includes finger grips and is shaped to increase leverage enabling faster installation of the band over the rollers” . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the t-shaped handle including a set of finger grips and cylindrical handle including a set of finger grips must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-3,11-12,18-20 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 claims 2 and 11, the limitation “wherein a length of the shaft is equal to or greater than a threshold minimum length.” is unclear what the threshold minimum length is that length of the shaft is equal to or greater than. Examiner interpreting the limitation to mean as set forth in para 0020 of specification (ie length of shaft is equal to or greater than seven inches long.)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the limitation “a width of the shaft is equal to or less than a threshold maximum width.” is unclear what the threshold maximum width is that width of the shaft is equal to or less than. Examiner interpreting the limitation to mean as set forth in para 0021 of specification (ie width of shaft is equal to or less than is three-eighths of an inch.)
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a threshold minimum length and a threshold maximum width” is unclear what the threshold minimum length and threshold maximum width are. Examiner interpreting the limitations to mean as set forth in para 0020-0021 of specification (threshold minimum length is seven inches and threshold maximum length is three eights of an inch).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “maximum threshold width of the shaft is a length that is greater than or equal to five-eighths of an inch.” is unclear. Examiner interpreting the limitation to be mean that the width of shaft is equal to or less than is three-eighths of an inch.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “wherein the minimum threshold length of the shaft is a width that is less than or equal to seven inches.” is unclear. Examiner interpreting the limitation to be mean that the length of shaft is equal to or greater than seven inches long.
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 and 4,8-10,16-17 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);
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 sized to cup a portion of a band; and
a gripping member (32, figure 1) connected to the second end of the tool.
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 by two rollers of a conveyor device. (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches wherein the head is sized to fit within a space between a roller and a side of a conveyor device. (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove)
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 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.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches
wherein the head is sized to fit within a groove for routing a band around a set of rollers of a conveyor device (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches
wherein the head is sized to fit between two rollers on a conveyor device (see abstract; capable of fitting within a groove).
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) 2-3,11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR200438838Y1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lee teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein a length of the shaft is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold length.
Lee does not explicitly teach a length that is greater than or equal to or greater than seven inches long. Since Lee does disclose a length of the tool, there would reasonable expectations of success. Accordingly, it would have been matter obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s apparatus to have a length of the shaft is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold length, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, wherein a width of the shaft is less than or equal to a maximum threshold width.
Lee does not explicitly teach minimum threshold length of the shaft is a width of shaft is equal to or less than is three-eighths of an inch. Since Lee does disclose a length and width of the tool, there would reasonable expectations of success. Accordingly, it would have been matter obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s apparatus to have a minimum threshold width is a width that is three-eighths of an inch, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
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 is sized 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 sized (capable of performing this action) to partially enclose a portion of a band during installation of the band around a set of rollers, wherein the head is sized to fit within a groove for routing the band around the roller of the conveyor device (capable of performing this action see abstract).
However, Lee fails to teach the shaft having a threshold minimum length and a threshold maximum width and wherein the threshold minimum length is a length sufficient to reach a lower roller on the conveyor device; wherein the maximum threshold width of the shaft is a width that is less than or equal to five-eighths of an inch wherein the minimum threshold length of the shaft is a length that is greater than or equal to seven inches.
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)
Lee does not explicitly teach a length that is greater than or equal to or greater than seven inches long. Since Lee does disclose a length of the tool, there would reasonable expectations of success. Accordingly, it would have been matter obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s apparatus to have a length of the shaft is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold length, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Further, Lee does not explicitly teach minimum threshold width of the shaft is a width of shaft is equal to or less than is three-eighths of an inch. Since Lee does disclose a length and width of the tool, there would reasonable expectations of success. Accordingly, it would have been matter obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s apparatus to have a minimum threshold width is a width that is three-eighths of an inch, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component (A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art). Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shiner (US10627009B2) discloses shut off tool.
Malone (US2121129A) drive belt applying and removing tool.
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