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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement submitted on 2/7/2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 should add a colon following the preamble to differentiate between the body and preamble.
Drawings Objections
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated; see Specification, page 6, lines 15-16. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a metallic conveyor belt" in the preamble of the claim, but recites “a closed circuit conveyor belt” and “said conveyor belt” in the body of the claim. It is unclear if the recitations of “said conveyor belt” refer to the metallic conveyor belt established in the preamble of the claim, refer to the closed circuit conveyor belt recited in the body of the claim, or if Applicant intended the metallic conveyor belt and closed circuit conveyor belt to refer to the same structure. The examiner suggests the applicant revise the claim to remain consistent in language. For example, recite the limitation “closed-loop metallic conveyor belt” within the preamble, then recite the limitation as “said closed-loop metallic conveyor belt” in future mentions where applicable. Claims 2, 3, and 9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the links" and “the pins” in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please amend the claim to reflect proper antecedent basis. For example, the applicant may write “…which rotate resting on a plurality of links and a plurality of pins…”
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “at least two support devices positioned below said lateral chains, the at least two support device comprising a sequence of rollers which rotate resting on the links and the pins of said lateral chains during the continuous movement of said conveyor belt”. The latter limitation raises a two-fold indefiniteness issue. Firstly, the specification describes the quantity of “at least two support devices”, however, the Figures do not show at least two support devices (14) within the apparatus, i.e. where each can be located and what structure is intended to be imparted into the claimed invention. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 9, lines 27-29 of the Specification describes, inter alia, that “there are two lateral chains 5 at the edges of the conveyor belt 4…each (support device) is inserted below each lateral chain 5 to support their movement at the concave portion 6 of the conveyor belt 4”. Based on the description of the specification, the two chain elements each require a support device. However, Figure 3 shows a singular support device (14) having two slots formed by three perforated walls (18), i.e. only one support device is provided for the pair of lateral chains, and thus it is unclear what structure is imparted into the claimed invention within the context of the claims. However, while it is possible for a second support device to be located opposite to the first device, wherein the horizontal slats (11) are between the two support devices on either side of the apparatus, the specification and figures do not describe or show this potential configuration. Thus, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are.
Secondly, it is unclear what quantity of elements are imparted into the claimed invention. For example, it is unclear if each of the at least two support devices require the structure of “a sequence of rollers”. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claimed invention to impart that each of the at least two support devices require the structure recited in the limiting recitation of “a sequence of rollers”. Please see the below claim language suggestion for clarification, however, please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intention. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “at least two support devices positioned below said lateral chains, wherein each support device is positioned below a respective lateral chain of said two lateral chains, the at least two support devices each comprising a sequence of rollers which rotate resting on a plurality of links and a plurality of pins of said conveyor belt…”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "during the continuous movement" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of continuous movement within the claim prior to this instance. Please amend the claim to reflect this concern. Examples for editing include, “during a continuous movement,” or, “during continuous movement.” For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this limitation to read, “during a continuous movement.” Claim 9 is also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Please see the below claim language suggestion for clarification, however, please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intention. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “…of said conveyor belt during a continuous movement.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "at said concave portion" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of a concave portion within claim 1 from which claim 3 can recite antecedent basis. However, the examiner wishes to provide notice that “a concave portion” is appropriately introduced within claim 2. Please amend the claim to reflect appropriate antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “said concave portion” to read as “a concave portion.”
Further regarding claim 3, similar to the quantity issue addressed in the rejection of claim 1, please amend the claim to reflect, for example, “wherein each of said at least two support devices are positioned below said respective lateral chain of said two lateral chains…”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim language recites the limitation, “and a sequence of rollers.” However, it is not precisely clear whether “a sequence of rollers” is a new element to be introduced, or if this claim language is referring to “a sequence of rollers” introduced in claim 1, for which claim 4 is dependent on. Please amend the claim to further specify whether this is a new element, or a component with proper antecedent basis with respect to claim 1. An example of an edit may include, “and said sequence of rollers.” For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to read with the intention that “and a sequence of rollers” is further limiting the claim limitation with respect to “a sequence of rollers” introduced in claim 1, and not introducing a new claim limitation.
Regarding claim 4, the claim language recites the limitation, “said support devices comprise a bearing structure or frame.” However, it is not precisely clear whether the support devices comprise a singular frame component, or rather a plurality of frames. The applicant lists under Figures 3 and 4 of their application an embodiment of their support device which is physically shown as a singular entity in the drawings. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting this claim language to be indicative of each support device comprising an individual bearing structure or frame. Please see the below claim language suggestion for clarification, however, please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intention. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “The shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein each of said at least two support devices comprise a bearing structure or frame and a sequence of rollers.”
Regarding claim 5, the claim language recites, “The shot blasting machine according to claim 4, wherein said frame comprises a support base from which perforated walls branch out, parallel to each other and perpendicular to said support base.” In particular, the limitation recites “said frame” without having narrowed the scope of claim 5 to one of the two options recited in claim 4, i.e. “a bearing structure or frame.” Additionally, the claim language, “from which perforated walls branch out, parallel to each other and perpendicular to said support base” is unclear. Please see the below claim language suggestion for clarification, however, please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intention. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “wherein each of said at least two support devices each comprise the frame, each frame comprising a support base from which perforated walls branch out, each perforated wall parallel to each other, and each perforated wall is perpendicular to said support base.”
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites, “The shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein said rollers are inserted into holes provided in said perforated walls of said frame.” Please amend the claim to reflect, for example, “wherein each roller of said sequence of rollers are inserted into respective holes…” for proper antecedent basis. Additionally, there is a lack of antecedent basis within claim 6 pertaining to, “…provided in said perforated walls…”. Here, there is no introduced perforated walls within claim 6 itself, or within claim 1 from which claim 6 is dependent on. For examination purposes, the Examiner is interpreting the recitation of perforated walls of said frame as new elements to be introduced. Please see the below claim language suggestion for clarification, however, please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intention. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “The shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein each roller of said sequence of rollers are inserted into respective holes provided in perforated walls of a frame.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, “The shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein said support devices comprise a sequence of rollers in a number comprised between 8 and 30.” It is unclear if the total of rollers from both of the at least two support devices is between 8 and 30, or if each support device has 8 to 30 rollers. This should be edited to reflect more clear language, similarly to the Examiner’s suggested edits of claim 4. Furthermore, ‘a sequence of rollers’ has already been recited in claim 1. Please see the below claim language suggestion for clarification, however, please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intention. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “…wherein the sequence of rollers of each of said at least two support devices comprise 8 to 30 rollers.” Please also ensure that any amendments made to claim 7 are carried through to claim 8 dependent therefrom.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites, “A shot blasting machine having at least two support devices comprising a sequence of rollers inserted in a support frame, said support devices being positioned below a concave portion of a conveyor belt of said shot blasting machine.” The latter claim has an issue of indefiniteness pertaining to, “…having at least two support devices comprising…” It is unclear whether the two support devices comprise a sequence of rollers shared between the two support devices, and similarly with other mentioned features, or if each support device each comprise a sequence of rollers, and similarly with other mentioned features. Please see the below claim language suggestion for clarification, however, please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intention. An example of an edit, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “…A shot blasting machine having at least two support devices each comprising a sequence of rollers inserted in a support frame, each of said at least two support devices being positioned below a concave portion of a conveyor belt of said shot blasting machine.”
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesler (WO 2008128777 A2), herein after referred to as "Roesler", in view of Peik (US 1882442 A), herein after referred to as "Peik".
Regarding claim 1, Roesler discloses a shot blasting machine having a metallic conveyor belt for the treatment of metal pieces (see Roesler Abstract as well as Modified Figure 8) comprising:
a closed circuit conveyor belt for moving said metal pieces (Roesler: See Modified Figure 8 (Roesler); see also page 7 of the English translation, wherein a blasting machine comprising a metallic endless belt 180 to transport workpieces);
one or more centrifugal turbines having the function of projecting abrasive material at high speed against said metal pieces (see Roesler, page 6 of the English translation, blasting wheels 14; wherein a centrifugal turbine is taught. Modified Figure 8 (Roesler) shows a liquid spray bar 320 as a means of dispersing abrasives, however Roesler specifically notes the trough band arrangement can be used to blast workpieces, and that the blasting process can furthermore take place with blasting wheels 14, i.e. the blasting wheels 14 being used within the context of the apparatus shown in Figure 8 is disclosed by Roesler, see page 2 of the English translation);
at least one support device positioned below said conveyor belt, the at least one support device comprising a sequence of rollers resting on said conveyor belt; (lastly, Roesler discloses at least one support device comprising a sequence of rollers 260, 280, and 300 which rotate resting on the conveyor belt 180, see Modified Figure 8 (Roesler) below and page 7 of the English translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
888
1070
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Roesler does not explicitly teach said conveyor belt comprising a sequence of horizontal slats hinged onto two lateral chains;
the claimed quantity of support devices, i.e. at least two support devices, and that the sequence of rollers rotate resting on the links and the pins of said lateral chains during the continuous movement of said conveyor belt. While the rollers (260, 280, 300) are provided, Roesler is silent on the ability of the rollers to rotate.
However, from the same field of endeavor, Peik teaches of a conveyor belt comprising a sequence of horizontal slats hinged onto two lateral chains (Peik: See Modified Figure 2 and Modified Figure 3, wherein an abrading apparatus comprising a conveyor belt 5 and a sequence of horizontal slats 58 hinged onto two lateral chains 52 and 53; page 2, lines 74-83);
at least two support devices (Peik teaches at least two support devices 46 and 47 positioned below said lateral chains 52 and 53, see Modified Figure 3);
rollers which rotate resting on the links and the pins of said lateral chains during the continuous movement of said conveyor belt; (a sequence of rollers 56 which rotate resting against said two support devices (page 2, lines 54-72) is taught, and a conveyor belt comprising said sequence of rollers 56 which rotate, see page 2 lines 86-96, and a plurality of links 54 and pins 55, see Modified Figure 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
921
809
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
904
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
574
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Roesler and Peik disclose variations of tumbling apparatuses functionally intended to abrade surfaces of workpieces (see Roesler and Peik Abstracts, respectively; see also Modified Figure 8 (Roesler) and Modified Figure 2). Here, workpieces are inserted into a chamber, which is subject to a rotational movement, and immersed with an abrading material. How this rotational movement is achieved is where Roesler and Peik differ in approach. In the embodiment directed by Roesler, a conveyor belt rotates along driving rollers which, in turn, rotates a chamber of workpieces to be abraded, all while at least one support device supports the belt with rollers which rotate. Peik describes a slightly different structure in which rotation to a chamber is supplied by chains, including links and pins, at least two support devices, and driving rollers which rotate. Despite these differences in rotational movement, both Roesler and Peik direct their apparatuses to support the load-bearing sections of each respective chamber through means of a support device or devices with rollers which rotate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Roesler such that two support devices are implemented into the apparatus as well as to have introduced two lateral chains, comprising a plurality of links and pins, for which a sequence of rollers would rotate resting on, and horizontal slats to support workpieces, as taught by Peik. One would be motivated to do so because of the increased apparatus and components lifespan associated with minimizing the load-bearing weight on the chains and belts. Roesler discloses at least one support device with rollers which rotate to aid in reducing the weight the conveyor belt is subject to. Peik discloses a similar method of reducing weight on the belt by utilizing at least two support devices positioned where articles are to be treated (see Peik, page 2, lines 54-57). Adding at least two support devices to the design of Roesler to assist load-bearing sections of a shot blasting belt would obviously benefit in reducing wear of the machine over time.
Furthermore, the selection of a metal belt of horizontal slats would be considered routine to one of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Roesler disclosing alternate belt embodiments of metal (see page 8 of the English translation), or Peik disclosing angle irons or aprons (page 2, line 80). Such a decision to incorporate a metal belt of horizontal slats, as disclosed by Peik, would be a simple modification to make to the apparatus disclosed by Roesler, and further motivated to be done under the pretense that such horizontal slats are easily replaced if worn (Peik, page 2, lines 91-93). . Peik further discloses chains as a means of connecting the metal belt of horizontal slats together to form a continuous belt, which has the advantage of being offset laterally to the belt where abrasives primarily strike causing the most component deterioration (Peik: Page 2, lines 86-93). This increased component lifespan is a direct advantage over the disclosed belt-driven apparatus of Roesler. Combining these motivations of Roesler in view of Peik would produce a similar functionality of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Roesler further teaches the shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein said conveyor belt comprises a concave portion, inside which said metal pieces are hit by a stream of said abrasive material at high speed (Roesler: Refer to Modified Figure 8 (Roesler), wherein there is a trough band arrangement in which workpieces are disposed, and wherein the blast wheel(s) 14 can alternatively be used in place of the spray bar 320 to provide a stream of abrasive material, see pages 2 and 7 of the English translation of Roesler).
With respect to claim 3, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Roesler further teaches the shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein said support devices are positioned below said lateral chains of said conveyor belt at said concave portion (wherein the combination of Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 3, i.e. wherein the support devices within modified Roesler are positioned below the chains 180. See Modified Figure 8 (Roesler) regarding the location of the support device and rollers 260, 280, 300 below the chain belt element 180 at the concave portions; see also Modified Figure 2 of Peik regarding belt 5 comprising chains and the respective support devices 46, 47 below the concave portion).
With respect to claim 4, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Roesler further teaches the shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein said support devices comprise a bearing structure or frame and a sequence of rollers (Roesler: Refer to Modified Figure 8 (Roesler), wherein there is a frame supporting the rollers 260, 280, and 300).
With respect to claim 6, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Roesler further teaches the shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein said rollers are inserted into holes provided in said perforated walls of said frame (Roesler: See Modified Figure 8 (Roesler), wherein the rollers 260, 280, and 300, are inserted into holes of the frame under the broadest reasonable interpretation; please see Modified Figure 8 (Roesler) regarding the annular recessions in which rollers 260, 280, and 300 are inserted).
With respect to claim 7, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above.
However, modified Roesler does not explicitly teach the quantity of rollers within a range, i.e. wherein said support devices comprise a sequence of rollers in a number comprised between 8 and 30.
However, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-B, it 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 to incorporate additional rollers such that a sequence of rollers in a number comprised between 8 and 30, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As evidenced by the lack of criticality within the specification describing that the number of rollers depends on the extension in length of the concave portion, i.e. the quantity is proportional to the size of the device, and that the number is selected “in general, and “generally comprised…” and ‘preferably’ (see Specification, Page 9, lines 1-6), the claimed quantity would be considered an obvious duplication of parts to one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the additional rollers combined into the invention of modified Roesler would perform the same function(s) as those already present, and thus the modification would have predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success, with the same advantageous benefits of existing rollers (260, 280, 300) of modified Roesler.
With respect to claim 8, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above.
However, modified Roesler does not explicitly teach the quantity of rollers within a range, i.e. wherein said number of rollers is comprised between 10 and 20.
However, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-B, it 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 to incorporate additional rollers such that a sequence of rollers in a number comprised between 10 and 20, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As evidenced by the lack of criticality within the specification describing that the number of rollers depends on the extension in length of the concave portion, i.e. the quantity is proportional to the size of the device, and that the number is selected “in general, and “generally comprised…” and ‘preferably’ (see Specification, Page 9, lines 1-6), the claimed quantity would be considered an obvious duplication of parts to one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the additional rollers combined into the invention of modified Roesler would perform the same function(s) as those already present, and thus the modification would have predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success, with the same advantageous benefits of existing rollers (260, 280, 300) of modified Roesler.
With respect to claim 9, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Roesler further teaches the shot blasting machine according to claim 1, wherein said at least two support devices support the continuous movement of the two lateral chains of the conveyor belt (wherein the combination of Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 9, i.e. wherein the support devices within modified Roesler are positioned below the chain belt element 180, see Modified Figure 8 (Roesler); see also Modified Figure 3 of Peik regarding support devices 46 and 47 for supporting the endless chain at a point where the articles to be treated exert their weight, see lines 54-57 of page 2).
Regarding claim 10, Roesler discloses a shot blasting machine (see Roesler Abstract as well as Modified Figure 8; see also blast wheels 14) having at least one support device comprising a sequence of rollers inserted in a support frame, said support devices being positioned below a concave portion of a conveyor belt of said shot blasting machine (Roesler: Refer to Modified Figure 8 (Roesler), wherein the embodiment of the apparatus shown is a blasting machine having at least one support frame comprising a sequence of support rollers 260, 280, and 300 inserted into said support frame positioned below a concave portion of the endless belt 180).
However, Roesler does not explicitly teach at least two support devices.
However, from the same field of endeavor, Peik teaches an abrading apparatus comprising at least two support devices (Peik: See Modified Figure 3, track members 46 and 47 support the belt 5, being positioned below the concave portion).
Both Roesler and Peik disclose variations of tumbling apparatuses functionally intended to abrade surfaces of workpieces (see Roesler and Peik Abstracts, respectively; see also Modified Figure 8 (Roesler) and Modified Figure 2). In the embodiment disclosed by Roesler, a conveyor belt is supported at a concave portion below the belt by at least one support device where the greatest load-bearing weight is applied. This support device comprises a frame for which rollers are inserted into as to support the rotation of the continuous belt (see Modified Figure 8 (Roesler)). Peik describes a slightly different structure, including at least two support devices wherein the rollers are incorporated into lateral chains that drive the continuous belt motion (see Modified Figure 2). In this configuration, the load-bearing weight of the belt is distributed across the at least two support devices as the rollers pass above, resting directly on the support devices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Roesler such that two support devices are implemented into the apparatus, as taught by Peik. The at least two support devices positioned below the conveyor belt, disclosed by Peik (see Modified Figures 2 and 3), would provide increased support at load-bearing sections of the belt and chain, as opposed to a singular support device disclosed by Roesler (see Modified Figure 8 (Roesler)). This addresses a common shortcoming in shot blasting machines where significant wear occurs at both the belts and chains which are subjected to blasts from abrasives, weight loads from articles being treated, and general continuous use (Peik: Page 2, lines 54-57 and 86-96). Additionally, Roesler discloses a support device where rollers are inserted into a support frame (see Modified Figure 8 (Roesler)) wherein Peik teaches a chain comprising rollers that glide across a support device (Peik: see page 2, line 93-96). It would be more advantageous to offer a support frame with rollers inserted at specific sections where the greatest load burden is present (Peik: page 2, lines 54-57 and 93-96) as to mitigate wear and tear on the chains providing continuous rotation. In view of these discussion points, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the embodiment of Roesler in view of Peik for the perceived functional improvements to usage of a shot blasting machine.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roesler (WO 2008128777 A2) in view of Peik (US 1882442 A) as applied above, and further in view of Lakin (US 3589303 A), herein after referred to as "Lakin".
With respect to claim 5, Roesler in view of Peik teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Roesler does not teach a frame comprising a support base from which perforated walls branch out, parallel to each other and perpendicular to said support base.
However, from the same field of endeavor, Lakin teaches a support base from which perforated walls branch out, parallel to each other and perpendicular to said support base (Lakin: Refer to Modified Figure 8 (Lakin), wherein a carriage frame 35 has a pair of spaced-apart upright sidewall members 36, a pair of spaced-apart upright end wall members 37 which are secured both to the bottom plate 38 and to the side members 36 to form a reinforced upright boxlike construction; furthermore, carriage frame 35 has cutout end portions 39 to mount a swing frame 40, from which support rollers 43 are mounted to perforations within the walls).
The modified apparatus of Roesler in view of Peik already discloses a tumbling apparatus with a chamber subject to rotation, for which this chamber receives workpieces to be abraded as well as an abrading material to be used against such workpieces. Furthermore, this apparatus discloses at least two support devices with rollers which rotate to support the load-bearing belt. The functional design of modified Roesler, however, is not explained beyond being a structure capable of receiving and supporting freely-rotating rollers in support of the load bearing sections. Similar in purpose, the carriage frame disclosed by Lakin is intended to function as a load-bearing apparatus for which rollers rotate within perforations of at least two vertical, parallel walls. To support the rotation of the rollers, these vertical, parallel walls with perforations are spaced apart from each other as to permit the rollers to fit between the two walls. Additionally, the vertical, parallel walls are affixed to a support base such that the orientation of the support base is perpendicular to the orientation of the vertical, parallel walls.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Roesler in view of Peik such that a support device would comprise a frame, further comprising a support base with perforated walls, parallel to each other and perpendicular to the support base, as to house support rollers.
The nature of the carriage as disclosed by Lakin already is functionally intended to support rotational movement of a vessel body (Lakin: see abstract where it is disclosed that a “vessel body is constructed to receive and carry a large tonnage of molten metal,” and, “the vessel body is mounted for rotating movement on the truck assemblies by carriage, swing frame, and roller means”). Such a carriage, containing the same physical attributes and functional purpose sought after by the modified Roesler support structure, would have made an obvious choice for someone of ordinary skill in the art to combine together to create a load-bearing solution.
PNG
media_image5.png
562
704
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moore (US 2716310) teaches a blasting apparatus having a metallic slat conveyor belt with lateral chains, said lateral chains comprising a plurality of links, pins, and rollers, a centrifugal throwing wheel, and a fixed friction guide surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/J.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723