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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, figures 1-19 in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no burden would be imposed by searching all 5 of the species, which merely show alternate connecting portions and would be classified in the same area and covered by the same search. This is not found persuasive because it will be an additional burden to the examiner to further search and examine all species in the same application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner withdrew claims 10-17, 22, 24-30 being drawn to a nonelected species.
Claims 10, 11 and 22 are related to a hook comprises a straight protrusion, see figures 20-29.
Claims 12, 13 and 24 are related to a connecting portion comprises a shaped projection having a connecting segment, see figures 30-40.
Claims 14,15, 25 and 26 are related to a connecting portion comprises first and second lateral hooks, see figures 41-55.
Claim 27 is related to a connecting portion comprises a series of laterally-spaced apart hinge elements, see figures 56-60.
Claims 16, 17, 28 and 29 are related to an anchor connected to the base, see figures 56-60.
Claim 30 is related to a base comprises a planar portion having a pattern of openings, see figures 56-60.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 “a flexible conveyor belt segment” should be - - a first flexible conveyor belt segment - -.
Claim 1, line 2 “a flexible conveyor belt segment” should be - - a second flexible conveyor belt segment - -.
Claim 4, line 1 “and second rigid connector” should be - - and the second rigid connector - -.
Claim 6, line 2 “the second mating connector” should be - - the second rigid connector - -.
Claim 7, line 3 “the base portion” should be - - the base - -.
Claim 7, line 4 “the load-transferring surface” should be - - the first load-transferring surface - -.
Claim 7, line 5 “the base portion” should be - - the base - -.
Claim 9, line 3 “a first rigid connector” should be - - the first rigid connector - -.
Claim 31, line 7 “each rigid connector” should be - - each of the rigid connector - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 31 and 32 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 31 recites the limitation "drive structure" in line 3 is not clearly understood, since the written specification fails to describe a drive structure, and reference the drive structure in the drawing figures. However, for the purpose of this Office action, the examiner has considered that the drive structure is representative of the plates and screws.
Claim 32 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 18-21, 23, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richard (US Patent No. 147,691 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Richard discloses a fastening system for fastening a first end of a flexible conveyor belt segment to a second end of a flexible conveyor belt segment, comprising:
a first rigid connector extending from the first end, the first rigid connector comprising a base embedded in the first end and a connecting portion, the connecting portion including a first laterally-extending load-transferring surface (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2; also Col. 1, lines 15-22);
a second rigid connector extending from the second end, the second rigid connector comprising a base embedded in the second end and a connecting portion comprising a second laterally-extending load-transferring surface configured to interface with the first laterally-extending load-transferring surface (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2; also Col. 1, lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 2, Richard further discloses, comprising a locking rod for locking the first and second laterally-extending load-transferring surfaces in an engaged position (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, Richard discloses, wherein the first end and the second end are shaped to interlace with each other (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Richard discloses, wherein the first and second belt segments comprise injection molded plastic over molded onto polymer brushes formed on the first and second rigid connectors (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
The recitation limitation “injection molded plastic over molded onto polymer brushes” is directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “injection molded plastic over molded onto polymer brushes”. This limitation is not given a patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 6, Richard discloses, wherein the first rigid connector comprises a hook and the second mating connector comprises an eyelet (f) configured to receive the hook (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2, and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Richard discloses, wherein the connecting portion of the hook comprises a downward extending hook comprising a first upward extending intermediate portion extending from the base portion, an upper curve, a downward-extending straight portion forming the load-transferring surface and a curved tip extending away from the base portion (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Richard discloses, wherein the first rigid connector further comprises fingers (D) separated from the hook by spaces (see Figs. 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 9, Richard discloses, wherein the connecting portion of the second rigid connector includes an eyelet portion extending from the base, the eyelet portion including an opening configured to receive the hook of a first rigid connector, wherein the eyelet portion comprises an upward slanted portion, a horizontal planar portion that is parallel to the base, a downward slanted portion extending away from the base and a downward extending segment connected to the downward slanted portion via a curved transition portion (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Richard discloses a conveyor belt segment, comprising:
a flexible body extending in thickness from a top surface to a bottom surface, in width from a first side to a second side and in length from a first end to a second end (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2);
a first rigid connector extending from the first end, the first rigid connector comprising a base embedded in the flexible body and a connecting portion protruding from the first end (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2; also Col. 1, lines 15-22).
Regarding claim 19, Richard discloses, wherein the connecting portion comprises a laterally-extending load transferring surface (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 20, Richard discloses, wherein the first rigid connector comprises a hook (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21, Richard discloses, wherein the hook is a downward extending hook comprising a first upward extending intermediate portion extending from the base, an upper curve, a downward-extending straight portion forming the load-transferring surface and a curved tip extending away from the base (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 23, Richard discloses, wherein the connecting portion comprises an eyelet (f) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31, Richard discloses a conveyor belt segment configured to mate with another conveyor belt segment, comprising:
a flexible body having a top conveying surface and a bottom surface including drive structure, the flexible body extending in length from a first end to a second end and in width from a first side to a second side (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2); and
a first set of laterally spaced apart rigid connectors extending from the first end of the flexible body, each rigid connector including a base embedded in the flexible body through microscopic entanglement and a connecting portion extending from the first end (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2; also Col. 1, lines 15-22).
The recitation limitation “microscopic entanglement” is directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “microscopic entanglement”. This limitation is not given a patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 32, Richard discloses, wherein the connecting portion comprises one of a hook, an eyelet, a shaped protrusion, a shaped recess, and a hinge element (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
311
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richard (US Patent No. 147,691 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 4, Richard discloses the claimed invention except for the first rigid connector and second rigid connector comprises one of stainless steel, titanium, glass fiber, carbon fiber, nylon, and combinations thereof. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first rigid connector and second rigid connector comprises one of stainless steel, titanium, glass fiber, carbon fiber, nylon, and combinations thereof, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It will be obvious to have a first and second rigid connector made of stainless steel for conveyors used in food production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights