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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the Merits for claims 1, 3 – 15 and 17 - 21. Claims 2 and 16 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation “the volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert or element is solid or filled and comprises steel” in lines 1 – 3. Claim 21 is dependent from claim 6 which requires “a resilient flexible material”. The limitation of claim 21 is vague in that it is unclear how steel is dependent from a resilient flexible material.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 recites the limitation “the volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert or element is solid or filled and comprises steel” in lines 1 – 3. Claim 21 is dependent from claim 6 which requires “a resilient flexible material”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (WO 2021/138712 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Robinson teaches a conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) for scraping a conveyor belt (Paragraph [0107]), the apparatus (150) comprising: a scraping plate (blade mount member, 154) comprising a tip (scraper blade, 152) configured to contact and scrape the conveyor belt (Paragraph [0103]); an attachment portion (connection portion, 160; Paragraph [0112]) for attaching the cleaning apparatus (150) to a base (base member, 122) and detaching the cleaning apparatus from the base (122; Paragraph [0112]; Fig. 1), the attachment portion (160) comprising a fastener (adjustment member, 158); and a body (resilient member, 156) connecting the scraping plate (154) and the attachment portion (160); wherein the fastener (158) is the only accessible means for detachment of the cleaning apparatus (150) from the base (122) or disassembly of the apparatus (Fig. 7), wherein the attachment portion (160) comprises a boss (blind boss as shown in Fig 7 that allows for connection) configured to allow rotational movement of the cleaning apparatus (150) in relation to the base (122; Paragraph [0112]).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Robinson teaches an angle between the tip (152) and the attachment portion (160) as shown in Fig. 7 but does not explicitly teach the angle between the tip and the attachment portion is about 90 degrees.
Examiner, however, notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the specific angle provides any unexpected results. Applicant explicitly teaches in Paragraph [0052] of the Specification - This angle may be varied based on operating parameters of the conveyor belt, such as the type of material required to be cleaned, the material from which the conveyor belt is constructed, and a level of moisture in the material on the conveyor. Typically, this angle is selected to be between about 15 degrees and about 90 degrees, although other angles may be desirable depending on the particular
conveyor belt. Therefore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ, 233.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the angle between the tip and the attachment portion is about 90 degrees, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/angle of a component. A change in size/angle is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 3, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) of claim 2, as discussed above.
Robinson does not explicitly teach wherein the attachment portion comprises a single boss; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the attachment portion comprises a single boss, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/number of a component. A change in size/number is generally recognized as being within the level of
ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) wherein the body (156) further comprises a resilient flexible material between the scraping plate (154) and the attachment portion (160) to allow relative movement between the scraping plate (154) and the attachment portion (160; Paragraphs [0058] and [0112]).
Regarding Claim 10, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) wherein the attachment portion (160) is configured to lock into a sleeve (cylindrical body portion, 132) of the base (122).
Regarding Claim 12, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) wherein the sleeve (132) is selected such that, in use, the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (150) does not contact an adjacent conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (150; Fig. 8C).
Regarding Claim 13, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) wherein the resilient flexible material is polyurethane (Paragraphs [0057] and [0059]).
Regarding Claim 14, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) wherein the resilient flexible material is rubber (Paragraphs [0057] and [0059]).
Regarding Claim 15, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) wherein the tip (152) is angled relative to the scraping plate (154).
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Robinson teaches a conveyor belt cleaning system for scraping a conveyor belt (Fig. 1), the system comprising: one or more conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (150; Fig. 1) mounted to one or more base members (122; Fig. 1), wherein at least one of the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (150) comprises: a scraping plate (blade mount member, 154) comprising a tip (scraper blade, 152) configured to contact and scrape the conveyor belt (Paragraph [0103]); an attachment portion (connection portion, 160; Paragraph [0112]) for attaching the cleaning apparatus (150) to a base (base member, 122) and detaching the cleaning apparatus from the base (122; Paragraph [0112]; Fig. 1), the attachment portion (160) comprising a fastener (adjustment member, 158); and a body (resilient member, 156) connecting the scraping plate (154) and the attachment portion (160); wherein the fastener (158) is the only accessible means for detachment of the cleaning apparatus (150) from the base (122) or disassembly of the apparatus (Fig. 7).
Robinson teaches an angle between the tip (152) and the attachment portion (160) as shown in Fig. 7 but does not explicitly teach the angle between the tip and the attachment portion is about 90 degrees.
Examiner, however, notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the specific angle provides any unexpected results. Applicant explicitly teaches in Paragraph [0052] of the Specification - This angle may be varied based on operating parameters of the conveyor belt, such as the type of material required to be cleaned, the material from which the conveyor belt is constructed, and a level of moisture in the material on the conveyor. Typically, this angle is selected to be between about 15 degrees and about 90 degrees, although other angles may be desirable depending on the particular
conveyor belt. Therefore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ, 233.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the angle between the tip and the attachment portion is about 90 degrees, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/angle of a component. A change in size/angle is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning system for scraping a conveyor belt (Fig. 1), the system comprising a plurality of conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (150) mounted to one or more base members (122; Fig. 1).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Robinson teaches a conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) the apparatus comprising; a tip (152) and an attachment portion (160), wherein the tip (152) and the attachment portion (160) are connected by at least one deformable member (156; Paragraph [0112]), wherein, in use, the tip (152) and the attachment portion (160) are at an angle to each other (Fig. 7); and wherein the attachment portion (160) is configured to allow rotational movement of the cleaning apparatus (150) in relation to a base about an axis defined by the attachment portion (160; Paragraph [0121]).
Robinson does not explicitly teach the angle between the tip and the attachment portion is about 90 degrees; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the angle between the tip and the attachment portion is about 90 degrees, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/angle of a component. A change in size/angle is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Independent Claim 20, Robinson teaches a conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (150) for cleaning a conveyor belt (Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising a tip (152) configured to contact the conveyor belt (conveyor belt, 90) at about 90 degrees (Fig. 8C), wherein the tip (152) is connected to an attachment portion (160) by a deformable body (156; Paragraph [0112]), and wherein the attachment portion (160) is attached to a base (122) that provides upward force to the belt cleaning apparatus that is transferred through the tip (152) to the conveyor belt at about 90 degrees to the conveyor belt (Fig. 8C) and wherein the attachment portion (160) is configured to allow rotational movement of the cleaning apparatus (150) in relation to a base about an axis defined by the attachment portion (160; Paragraph [0121]).
Claims 4 – 7, 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (WO 2021/138712 A1) as cited by Applicant in view of GB1883573 A herein referred to as GB573”, as cited by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 4, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) of claim 1, as discussed above.
Robinson does not teach wherein the body comprises a rigid insert or element having a first surface and a second surface angled relative to each other, wherein the first surface is attached to the attachment portion and the second surface is substantially aligned with the scraping plate.
PNG
media_image2.png
548
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GB573”, however, teaches the body (resilient mass, 11) comprises a rigid insert or element (Fig. 5) having a first surface (plate, 12) and a second surface (mounting plate, 17) angled relative to each other (Fig. 5), wherein the first surface is attached to the attachment portion (beam, 3) and the second surface is substantially aligned with the scraping plate (scraper means, 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the body comprises a rigid insert or element having a first surface and a second surface angled relative to each other, wherein the first surface is attached to the attachment portion and the second surface is substantially aligned with the scraping plate, as taught by GB573”, to provide a device where the debris scraped from the belt do not adhere to the surface, thus protecting the body from damage or corrosion associated with the debris adhering to the body.
Regarding Claim 5, Robinson, as modified, teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) of claim 4, as discussed above.
Robinson does not teach the body provides an offset between the second surface of the rigid insert or element and the scraping plate.
GB573”, however, teaches the body (resilient mass, 11) provides an offset between the second surface (17) of the rigid insert or element and the scraping plate (10- scraping means can be offset to surface, 17 as shown in the movement of the scraping means, 10 in Fig. 5 ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the body provides an offset between the second surface of the rigid insert and the scraping plate, as taught by GB573”, to provide a device where the debris scraped from the belt do not adhere to the surface, thus protecting the body from damage or corrosion associated with the debris adhering to the body.
Regarding Claim 6, Robinson, as modified, teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) of claim 4, as discussed above.
Robinson does not teach the volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert or element comprises a resilient flexible material.
GB573”, however, teaches the volume (Fig. 5) between the first surface (12) and the second surface (17) of the rigid insert or element comprises a resilient flexible material (11; Page 2, line 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert comprises a resilient flexible material, as taught by GB573”, to provide a device where the debris scraped from the belt do not adhere to the surface, thus protecting the body from damage or corrosion associated with the debris adhering to the body.
Regarding Claim 7, Robinson, as modified, teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) of claim 4, as discussed above.
Robinson does not teach a volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert or element is solid or filled and comprises steel.
GB573”, however, teaches a volume (Fig. 5) between the first surface (12) and the second surface (17) of the rigid insert or element is solid or filled and optionally comprises steel (filled with resilient mass; Page 2, line 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include a volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert is solid or filled and optionally comprises steel, as taught by GB573”, to provide a device where the debris scraped from the belt do not adhere to the surface, thus protecting the body from damage or corrosion associated with the debris adhering to the body.
Regarding Claim 9, Robinson, as modified, teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) wherein, in use, the combination of rotational movement allowed by the boss (blind boss as shown in Fig 7 that allows for connection) and deformation of the body (156) under tension results in the tip (152) being in contact, and parallel with a surface of the conveyor belt (90’ Paragraph [0053])).
Regarding Claim 21, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) of claim 6, as discussed above.
Robinson does not teach the volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert or element is solid or filled and comprises steel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the volume between the first surface and the second surface of the rigid insert or element is solid or filled and comprises steel, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (WO 2021/138712 A1) as cited by Applicant in view of Zhang (U. S. Patent No. 4,529,084).
Regarding Claim 7, Robinson teaches the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (blade mounting assembly, 150; Fig. 7) of claim 1, as discussed above.
Robinson does not teach the length of the attachment portion is selected, and/or each base is offset in an alternating or cascading manner, such that, in use, the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus does not contact an adjacent conveyor belt cleaning apparatus.
Zhang, however, teaches the length (Fig. 6) of the attachment portion (10) is selected, and/or each base (13) is offset in an alternating or cascading manner, such that, in use, the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (6) does not contact an adjacent conveyor belt cleaning apparatus (6; Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Robinson to further include the length of the attachment portion is selected, and/or each base is offset in an alternating or cascading manner, such that, in use, the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus does not contact an adjacent conveyor belt cleaning apparatus, as taught by GB573”, to provide a device where the debris scraped from the belt do not adhere to the surface, thus protecting the body from damage or corrosion associated with the debris adhering to the body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated February 10, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues “Robinson does not disclose or suggest wherein the fastener is the only
accessible means for detachment of the cleaning apparatus from the base or disassembly of the apparatus, as recited in claim 1. With reference to, for example, Figure 15 of Robinson, which is reproduced below for ease of reference, the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus disclosed in Robinson comprises multiple accessible means for disassembly of the apparatus. For example, blade mount member 54 of the blade mounting assembly 50 is coupled to the connection portion 60 via a resilient member 56 by a pair of bolts and nuts (unnumbered). Removal of these nuts enables disassembly of the apparatus. In addition, the blade mounting assembly 50 comprises a scraper blade 52 resiliently mounted to an upper region of the blade mount member 54 by another pair of bolts and nuts (unnumbered). Removal of these nuts enables disassembly of the scraper blade 52 from the blade mount member 54 of the apparatus”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant is discussing disassembly of the apparatus which is a second limitation provided with an or – meaning one OR the other. The fastener of Robinson is the only accessible means for detachment of the cleaning apparatus from the base in that the apparatus encompasses all of the pieces as claimed. As a whole, the fastener is the only accessible means from detaching from the base.
Applicant further argues Robinson does not teach the angle between the tip and the attachment portion is about 90 degrees.
Examiner, however, notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the specific angle provides any unexpected results. Applicant explicitly teaches in Paragraph [0052] of the Specification - This angle may be varied based on operating parameters of the conveyor belt, such as the type of material required to be cleaned, the material from which the conveyor belt is constructed, and a level of moisture in the material on the conveyor. Typically, this angle is selected to be between about 15 degrees and about 90 degrees, although other angles may be desirable depending on the particular
conveyor belt. Therefore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ, 233.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights