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 on 04/01/2026 has been entered. Claim 1, and 12-13have been amended. Claim 22 has been canceled. Claims 23 have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-21, and 23 remains pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Moreover, new limitations have been added to independent claims 1, and 13, therefore a new interpretation has been used.
Applicant argues that secondary reference Poel (US 3104004) does not discloses cleated belt and cleats being monolithic with the belt.
In response, Primary reference James (US 6264042) discloses all the limitations belt having cleats and cleats being monolithic with the belt. Cleated belts as disclosed by James and discrete fingers attached with chain as disclosed by Poel are in same field of endeavors and are well known in the art for use in conveyor system. Examiner used Poel only for explicit teaching of cleats structure “gradient such that the thickness of each of the cleat/fingers sequentially increases from the first end to the second end”, and remaining limitations are all disclosed in James.
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) 1, 9-13, 19-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6264042) in view of Poel (US 3104004).
Regarding claim-1. James discloses a diverting mechanism (37, Fig.1, 4-5) for a conveyor (20, Fig.1) comprising:
a first wheel (66, Fig.4-5);
a driving gear (64, Fig.4-5); and
at least one belt (50, Fig.4-5) stretched around the first wheel and the driving gear, the at least one belt having a plurality of cleats (34, Fig.4-5) of variable thickness (Fig.4-5, 8), wherein the plurality of cleats (34) collectively defines a first end and a second end (Fig.4),
wherein the driving gear is configured to rotate the at least one belt (Fig.4-5), and
wherein the plurality of cleats (34) are monolithic with the at least one belt (50) (Fig.4-5, 7-8).
But James does not teach wherein the plurality of cleats defines a gradient such that the thickness of each of the cleat sequentially increases from the first end to the second end (Fig.4, and 8). However, James does teach different thickness of cleats as shown in Fig.4-5 and 7-8, also, it is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus in which dimensions of cleat can be selected according to desired needs of the apparatus without involving any inventive steps. Moreover, based on Fig.4-5, and 7-8, a skilled person in the art can easily construed to contemplate such gradient dimensions and spacing for said cleat (34) of said belt (50).
Poel discloses a transporting system for articles and also, teaches wherein the plurality of cleats (35) collectively defines a first end and a second end (Fig.2, 4-5), and wherein the plurality of cleats (35) defines a gradient such that the thickness of each of the cleat sequentially increases from the first end to the second end (Fig.4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective
filing date of claimed invention to explicitly Provide James’s apparatus with cleats as taught by Poel for purpose such that material/object can be conveyed/diverted easily and efficiently.
Regarding claim-9. James as modified discloses wherein the at least one belt (50) defines a circumference, wherein a first portion (diverter section 37, Fig.4) of the at least one belt comprises the plurality of cleats (34) and a second portion (planar region 36, Fig.4) of the at least one belt does not comprise the plurality of cleats (Fig.4), wherein a length of the first portion is less than a length of the second portion (Fig.4).
Regarding claim-10. James as modified discloses wherein the first wheel (66) is further connected to a second wheel (66, Fig.4-5) via the at least one belt (50) such that the first portion and the second portion of the at least one belt is disposed between the first wheel and the second wheel (Fig.4-5).
Regarding claim-11. James as modified discloses wherein the driving gear (64) is configured to drive the first wheel (66) and the second wheel (66) by rotating the at least one belt in clockwise or anticlockwise direction (Fig.4-5).
Regarding claim-12. James as modified discloses wherein: the diverting mechanism (37) is configured to operate in a diverting mode and in a non-diverting mode (Fig.4-5),
when the diverting mechanism is operating in the diverting mode (Fig.5), the at least one belt (50) is rotating around the first wheel (66) and the driving gear (64) such that at least one of the plurality of cleats (34) is positioned higher than the first wheel, the driving gear, or both (Fig.5), and
when the diverting mechanism is operating in the non-diverting mode (Fig.4), the at least one belt (50) is positioned such that each of the plurality of cleats (34) is positioned below the first wheel, the driving gear, or both (Fig.4).
Regarding claim-13. James as modified discloses A conveyer system (20, Fig.1) comprising:
a diverting mechanism (37, Fig.4-5) comprising:
a first wheel (66, Fig.4-5);
a driving gear (64, Fig.4-5); and
at least one belt (50, Fig.4-5) stretched around the first wheel and the driving gear, the at least one belt having a plurality of cleats (34) of variable thickness (Fig.4-5, 8); wherein the plurality of cleats (34) collectively defines a first end and a second end (Fig.4), and wherein the plurality of cleats defines a gradient such that the thickness of each of the cleat sequentially increases from the first end to the second end (as taught by Poel); and
one or more idler rollers (conveyor 24 and 28 rollers, Fig.4-5) installed between at least two longitudinal frames for carrying one or more packages (22) (Fig.1-2),
wherein the plurality of cleats (34) is positioned at least partially above (Fig.5) the one or more idler rollers (conveyor 24 and 28 rollers, Fig.4-5) to divert the one or more packages when the diverting mechanism is in a diverting mode (Fig.5), and wherein the plurality of cleats (34) are monolithic with the at least one belt (50) (Fig.4-5, 7-8).
Regarding claim-19. James as modified discloses wherein the at least one belt (50) defines a circumference, wherein a first portion (diverter section 37, Fig.4) of the at least one belt comprises the plurality of cleats (34) and a second portion (planar region 36, Fig.4) of the at least one belt does not comprise the plurality of cleats, wherein a length of the first portion is less than a length of the second portion (Fig.4).
Regarding claim-20. James as modified discloses wherein the plurality of cleats is made from a material selected from a group of materials of rubber, polymer, plastic, steel, or wood (The projections 34 and belt 50 are preferably unitary in nature and are made from the same flexible or pliable material, for example, rubber. Other durable, flexible materials may also be used; Col.10 line6-12).
Regarding claim-21. James as modified wherein the plurality of cleats comprises all cleats of the at least one belt (Fig.4-5).
Regarding claim-23. James as modified further comprising at least one pair of sidewalls, wherein the plurality of cleats (34) and the at least one pair of sidewalls are monolithic with the at least one belt (50) (Fig.4-5, 7-8).
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 7-8, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6264042) in view of Poel (US 3104004) and further view of Neri (US 20190350133).
Regarding claim-2,4,7-8 and 14, 16-18. James as modified does not explicitly teaches wherein a thinnest cleat (34) of the plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least up to 10mm, and wherein a thickest cleat of the plurality of cleats has a thickness of at least 10mm and up to 50mm; wherein a difference between a thickness of adjacent cleats is at least 0mm and up to 5mm; wherein the at least one belt defines a width, wherein a width of each of the plurality of cleats is within 10-100mm of the width of the at least one belt; wherein each of the plurality of cleats is spaced apart from an adjacent cleat by a distance, wherein the distance is at least 1mm and up to 100mm. It is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus in which dimensions of cleat and spacing between cleats can be selected according to desired needs of the apparatus without involving any inventive steps. Moreover, based on Fig.4-5, and 8, a skilled person in the art can easily construed to contemplate such dimensions and spacing for said cleat (34) of said belt (50).
Neri discloses a cleat (40) conveyer belt apparatus (Fig.1) and also, teaches at least one
cleat 40 such as the height and spacing between adjacent cleats 40 are selected based upon
factors that are known to persons of skill in the art, [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective
filing date of claimed invention to explicitly Provide James’s apparatus with desired dimension
and spacing between cleats as taught by Neri for purpose such that material/object can be
conveyed/diverted easily and efficiently.
Regarding claim-5. James as modified wherein the difference between the thickness of each of the plurality of cleats (34, Fig.4-5, 8) allows the diverting mechanism (37) to divert one or more packages (22) by maintaining orientation of the one or more packages (Fig.4-5, 8).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 6264042) in view of Poel (US 3104004) and further view of Nils (US 20200130947).
Regarding claim-6. James as modified discloses further comprising a second wheel (66, Fig.4-5)
But James does not explicitly teach wherein: a position of the first wheel (66) is higher than a position of the second wheel, a height difference between the first wheel and the second wheel defines a first angle relative to a horizontal plane, the plurality of cleats (34) of variable thickness collectively defines a second angle relative to a main body of the at least one belt, and the first angle corresponds to the second angle. It is just a mere of design and constructional detail of an apparatus in which positioning one wheel slightly higher than second wheel can be selected according to desired needs of the apparatus and comes within customary practice. Moreover, based on Fig.4-5, a skilled person in the art can easily construed to contemplate positioning of wheels based on required without effecting the scope of invention.
Nils discloses a conveying apparatus and also, teaches a position of the second wheel (2), a height difference between the first wheel (2) and the second wheel defines a first angle relative to a horizontal plane (Fig.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled person in the art before the effective
filing date of claimed invention to slightly modify James’s apparatus with slightly inclined wheel as taught by Nils for purpose such that material/object can be conveyed/diverted easily and efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD AWAIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 pm (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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571)272-6911. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights