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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that Cediel does not disclose a material being molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body. In response, Examiner would like to make reference to Paragraph 26 of Cediel wherein it is discloses that the composition can be a mixture of polymeric resin including blends of semi crystalline polymer and non crystalline polymer (Paragraph 26: ""The present modules of a microcellular foam are composed, at least in part, of any semi-crystalline polymeric resin including, but not limited to, the following materials: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid, nylon 6, nylon 6/6, polyethylene, polypropylene, syndiotactic polystyrene, polyacetal, and mixtures thereof. In certain cases, the semi-crystalline polymer may be blended with non-semicrystalline polymers.”). Therefore, the blend would result in a varying degree of crystallinity in its broadest sense. While Examiner has noted Claim 6 as having allowable subject matter, this is because the limitations have specified what is meant by varying degree of crystallinity, i.e. the core being a different crystallinity than that of the outerlayer. The limitations of Claim 1 are broader in nature and do not specify what is meant by varying degree of crystallinity, and therefore the Examiner is able to reject Claim 1 under the blend of mixed crystalline polymers as taught by Cediel.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6-14, 16-18, 24-25 and 27, there are no arguments regarding the rejections other than to state the rejections should be traversed under the amended independent claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the claims stand rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/711,371 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both discuss a conveyor belt module for a modular conveyor belt having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET), wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/711,371 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both discuss wherein the body includes at least 40 weight % of PET.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 and 5-6 respectively of copending Application No. 18/711,371. The claims at issue are identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 9 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 respectively of copending Application No. 18/711,371. The claims at issue are identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 24 and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20 and 21 respectively of copending Application No. 18/711,371. The claims at issue are identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
See table below for comparison between claim limitations of the instant application 18/711,384 and copending Application 18/711,371.
18/711,384
18/711,371
1.A conveyor belt module for a modular conveyor belt having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET) and/or virgin PET wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body.
1.A conveyor belt module for a modular conveyor belt having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET) wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body.
2. The conveyor belt module of claim 1, wherein the body is a solid body.
2.The conveyor belt module of claim 1, wherein the body is a solid body.
3.The conveyor belt module of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a top surface for supporting products to be transported, a bottom surface for sliding over a conveying track, and link elements at a front and rear of the body for coupling to a consecutive conveyor belt module.
3.The conveyor belt module of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a top surface for supporting products to be transported, a bottom surface for sliding over a conveying track, and link elements at a front and rear of the body for coupling to a consecutive conveyor belt module.
4.The conveyor belt module of claim 1 , wherein the body includes at least 40 weight % of PET.
4.The conveyor belt module of claim 1 , wherein the body includes at least 40 weight % of rPET.
6.The conveyor belt module of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a core having a relatively high average degree of crystallization, and an outer cover layer of a relatively low average degree of crystallization.
6.The conveyor belt module of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a core having a relatively high average degree of crystallization, and an outer cover layer of a relatively low average degree of crystallization.
9. The conveyor belt module of claim 6, wherein the outer cover layer has a minimum thickness of at least 1 mm, and/or an average thickness of at least 1.5 mm as measured perpendicular to its surface.
8.The conveyor belt module of claim 6, wherein the outer cover layer has a minimum thickness of at least 1 mm, and/or an average thickness of at least 1.5 mm as measured perpendicular to its surface.
10. The conveyor belt module of claim 6, wherein the core, at least a section thereof, extends between the link elements in a front-rear direction corresponding to a conveying direction.
9. The conveyor belt module of claim 6, wherein the core, at least a section thereof, extends between the link elements in a front-rear direction corresponding to a conveying direction.
24. A modular conveyor belt comprising a row of modules extending in conveying direction, wherein successive modules are hingedly coupled about an axis in or parallel to a conveying plane transversely to the conveying direction so that the modules can rotate relative to each other, said row of modules comprising one or more modules having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET) and/or virgin PET, wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body.
20. A modular conveyor belt comprising a row of modules extending in conveying direction, wherein successive modules are hingedly coupled about an axis in or parallel to a conveying plane transversely to the conveying direction so that the modules can rotate relative to each other, said row of modules comprising one or more modules having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET), wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body.
25. A modular conveyor belt according to claim 24, included in a conveyor belt system, wherein the conveyor belt modules are coupled to form an endless loop, and wherein a top run of the modular conveyor belt is arranged to circulate over a conveying track that extends in a conveying direction between return elements, and wherein a bottom run of the modular conveyor belt is arranged to circulate over a return track that extends in opposite direction between the return elements.
21. A modular conveyor belt according to claim 20, included in a conveyor belt system, wherein the conveyor belt modules are coupled to form an endless loop, and wherein a top run of the modular conveyor belt is arranged to circulate over a conveying track that extends in a conveying direction between return elements, and wherein a bottom run of the modular conveyor belt is arranged to circulate over a return track that extends in opposite direction between the return elements.
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 12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “arranged centrally with respect to the link elements”, and the claim also recites “in particular being formed substantially symmetrically” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 24, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cediel (United States Patent Application US 2003059567 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cediel teaches A conveyor belt module for a modular conveyor belt (Paragraph 0002: " The present invention generally relates to conveyor belts and, more particularly, to modular conveyor belts formed of rows of plastic belt modules pivotally interlinked by transverse pivot rods. Preferably, the modules are of polymeric materials of microcellular foams including additives. Methods for the production of such modules are also described.")having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET) and/or virgin PET.(Paragraph 0026: " The present modules of a microcellular foam are composed, at least in part, of any semi-crystalline polymeric resin including, but not limited to, the following materials: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid, nylon 6, nylon 6/6, polyethylene, polypropylene, syndiotactic polystyrene, polyacetal, and mixtures thereof. In certain cases, the semi-crystalline polymer may be blended with non-semicrystalline polymers. In preferred cases, the semi-crystalline resin is a polyolefinic material such as high-density polyethylene having a density of greater than about 0.94 g/cm<3>. In preferred cases, the weight percentage of high-density polyethylene is greater than 80% of the polymeric material, and more preferably greater than 90%. In a particularly preferred case the polymeric material consists essentially of high density polyethylene, that is, there is no other polymeric resin components other than high-density polyethylene.") wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body.(Paragraph 0026: "The present modules of a microcellular foam are composed, at least in part, of any semi-crystalline polymeric resin including, but not limited to, the following materials: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid, nylon 6, nylon 6/6, polyethylene, polypropylene, syndiotactic polystyrene, polyacetal, and mixtures thereof. In certain cases, the semi-crystalline polymer may be blended with non-semicrystalline polymers. In preferred cases, the semi-crystalline resin is a polyolefinic material such as high-density polyethylene having a density of greater than about 0.94 g/cm<3>. In preferred cases, the weight percentage of high-density polyethylene is greater than 80% of the polymeric material, and more preferably greater than 90%. In a particularly preferred case the polymeric material consists essentially of high density polyethylene, that is, there is no other polymeric resin components other than high-density polyethylene.")
Regarding Claim 2, Cediel teaches the conveyor belt module of claim 1, as seen above. Cediel further discloses wherein the body is a solid body.(Figure 4: Body 60)
Regarding Claim 3, Cediel teaches the conveyor belt module of claim 1, as seen above. Cediel further discloses wherein the body comprises a top surface for supporting products to be transported, a bottom surface for sliding over a conveying track, and link elements at a front and rear of the body for coupling to a consecutive conveyor belt module.(Paragraph 0054: "The link ends 62 and 64 circumscribe corresponding aligned cylindrically shaped openings 76. The openings 76 receive pivot pins or rods (not shown) adapted to pivotally connect a plurality of the modules 12 in an end to end configuration while laterally aligning adjacent modules to form a modular conveyor belt (not shown). Preferably, the modules 12 are of link end configuration to be end-to-end reversible. In other words, either end of a module can mate with either end of any other link module.")
Regarding Claim 4, Cediel teaches the conveyor belt module of claim 1, as seen above. Cediel further discloses wherein the body includes at least 40 weight % of PET.(Figure 3: Shows how entire module 12 is molded from the polymer)
Regarding Claim 24, Cediel teaches A modular conveyor belt comprising a row of modules extending in conveying direction, wherein successive modules are hingedly coupled about an axis in or parallel to a conveying plane transversely to the conveying direction so that the modules can rotate relative to each other, said row of modules comprising one or more modules (Paragraph 0002: " The present invention generally relates to conveyor belts and, more particularly, to modular conveyor belts formed of rows of plastic belt modules pivotally interlinked by transverse pivot rods. Preferably, the modules are of polymeric materials of microcellular foams including additives. Methods for the production of such modules are also described.") having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET) and/or virgin PET, wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body. (Paragraph 0026: "The present modules of a microcellular foam are composed, at least in part, of any semi-crystalline polymeric resin including, but not limited to, the following materials: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid, nylon 6, nylon 6/6, polyethylene, polypropylene, syndiotactic polystyrene, polyacetal, and mixtures thereof. In certain cases, the semi-crystalline polymer may be blended with non-semicrystalline polymers. In preferred cases, the semi-crystalline resin is a polyolefinic material such as high-density polyethylene having a density of greater than about 0.94 g/cm<3>. In preferred cases, the weight percentage of high-density polyethylene is greater than 80% of the polymeric material, and more preferably greater than 90%. In a particularly preferred case the polymeric material consists essentially of high density polyethylene, that is, there is no other polymeric resin components other than high-density polyethylene.")
Regarding Claim 25, Cediel teaches A modular conveyor belt according to claim 24, as seen above. Cediel further discloses included in a conveyor belt system wherein the conveyor belt modules are coupled to form an endless loop, and wherein a top run of the modular conveyor belt is arranged to circulate over a conveying track that extends in a conveying direction between return elements,(Paragraph 0002: " The present invention generally relates to conveyor belts and, more particularly, to modular conveyor belts formed of rows of plastic belt modules pivotally interlinked by transverse pivot rods. Preferably, the modules are of polymeric materials of microcellular foams including additives. Methods for the production of such modules are also described.")and wherein a bottom run of the modular conveyor belt is arranged to circulate over a return track that extends in opposite direction between the return elements.(Paragraph 0004: "Because they do not corrode, are light weight, and are easy to clean, plastic modular conveyor belts are gaining increased usage in a wide range of industrial applications. Modular conveyor belts are built from molded plastic modular links, or modules, arranged side-by-side in rows of a selected width. A series of spaced apart link ends extending from each side of the modules include aligned openings that receive a pivot rod. The link ends along one end of a row of modules are interconnected with the link ends of an adjacent row. The pivot rod journaled in the aligned openings of the side-by-side and end-to-end connected modules form a hinge between adjacent rows. Rows of belt modules are connected together to form an endless conveyor belt capable of articulating about drive sprockets positioned at opposite ends of the conveying surface.")
Regarding Claim 27, Cediel teaches A method of manufacturing a conveyor belt module for a modular conveyor belt having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET (rPET), wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body, (Paragraph 0026: "The present modules of a microcellular foam are composed, at least in part, of any semi-crystalline polymeric resin including, but not limited to, the following materials: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polylactic acid, nylon 6, nylon 6/6, polyethylene, polypropylene, syndiotactic polystyrene, polyacetal, and mixtures thereof. In certain cases, the semi-crystalline polymer may be blended with non-semicrystalline polymers. In preferred cases, the semi-crystalline resin is a polyolefinic material such as high-density polyethylene having a density of greater than about 0.94 g/cm<3>. In preferred cases, the weight percentage of high-density polyethylene is greater than 80% of the polymeric material, and more preferably greater than 90%. In a particularly preferred case the polymeric material consists essentially of high density polyethylene, that is, there is no other polymeric resin components other than high-density polyethylene.") the method comprising injecting recycled PET (rPET) and/or virgin PET in a mold cavity to form a body of the module and wherein parts of the mold cavity are actively cooled to suppress crystallization. (Paragraph 0039: "Temperature control units 40 are optionally positioned along injection barrel 24. Control units 40 can be electrical heaters, can include passageways for temperature control fluid, and the like and are used to heat the stream of pelletized or fluid polymeric material within the injection barrel. This helps to facilitate melting or effecting cooling the polymeric stream to control viscosity, skin formation and, in some cases, blowing agent solubility. The temperature control units 40 operate differently at different locations along the barrel. That is, they may heat at one or more locations and cool at one or more different locations. Any number of temperature control units can be provided.", wherein the melting and cooling can be controlled to controlled which would adjust the crystallization).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 6-14 and 16-18, there is no prior art alone or in combination that included the combination of recited limitations in Claims 1and 6. The cart alone or in combination did not teach wherein the body comprises a core having a relatively high average degree of crystallization, and an outer cover layer of a relatively low average degree of crystallization. The closest prior art of record Cediel (United States Patent Application US 2003059567 A1) teaches a similar conveyor belt module for a modular conveyor belt having an injection molded body that includes recycled PET, wherein the material of the conveyor belt module has been molded to present a varying degree of crystallinity across its body, but fails to teach wherein the body comprises a core having a relatively high average degree of crystallization, and an outer cover layer of a relatively low average degree of crystallization. Additionally, no other references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose or suggest these features in combination with other limitations in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY ALLURA JORGENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:30.
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.
/ABBY A JORGENSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights