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 without traverse of Group IV (claims 1 and 5 – 7)in the reply filed on July 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 – 4 and 8 – 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group (Groups I – III and V – IX), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 21, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations which are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses the term “means” and is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“restoring means” recited in claim 5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “restoring means” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“restoring” or ‘for restoring’ and ‘for providing a restoring force’).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “restoring means” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a spring or spring assembly,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 44), or an equivalent thereof.
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 and 5 – 7 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 “the direction of the second leg” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the direction of the forming die.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “wherein the pressing jaw acts on the first leg [of the connector element].” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a fixing device for fixing a belt connector to a belt band end of a transport belt ... wherein the belt connector has at least one connector element ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘the pressing jaw acting on the first leg of the connector element,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for fixing a belt connector to a belt band end,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘pressing jaw,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘fixing device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the pressing jaw is configured to act on the first leg [of the connector element.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the press-in die moves into the recess.” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a fixing device for fixing a belt connector to a belt band end ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘moving the press-in die into the recess,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for fixing a belt connector to a belt band end,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘press-in die,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘fixing device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the press-in die is configured to move into the recess.”
Claim 6 further recites the limitation “the initial position.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘initial position of the press-in die’ or the ‘initial position of pressing die,’ each of which were previously set forth in claim 1. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the initial position of the press-in die.’
Claim 6 further recites the limitation “the end position.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘end position of the press-in die’ or the ‘end position of pressing die,’ each of which were previously set forth in claim 1. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the end position of the press-in die.’
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the displacement direction of the press-in die.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “wherein the pressing jaw has a redirecting edge ... which acts during the displacement of the press-in die ...” Examiner notes that the claim is directed towards “a fixing device for fixing a belt connector to a belt band end ...” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘the redirected edge of the pressing jaw acting during the displacement of the press-in die,’ such that the claim is directed towards ‘a method for fixing a belt connector to a belt band end,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘redirecting edge,’ such that the claim is directed towards the ‘fixing device’ itself. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “wherein the pressing jaw has a redirecting edge ... which is configured to act during the displacement of the press-in die ...”
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the initial position.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘initial position of the press-in die’ or the ‘initial position of pressing die,’ each of which were previously set forth in claim 1. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the initial position of the press-in die.’
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the end position.” It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘end position of the press-in die’ or the ‘end position of pressing die,’ each of which were previously set forth in claim 1. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the end position of the press-in die.’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herold (U.S. Patent Number 5,553,359).
As to claim 1, Herold teaches a fixing device for fixing a belt connector to a belt band end of a transport belt by means of at least one fixing cramp having free ends, wherein the bolt connector has at least one connector element having a first leg and a second leg (figures 1 and 2, element 3 being the ‘belt connector,’ element 2 being the ‘transport belt,’ element 9 being the ‘fixing cramp,’ element 3 being the ‘connector element,’ element 6 being the ‘first leg,’ and element 7 being the ‘second leg’; column 1, lines 5 – 28), the fixing device comprising: a press-in die for pressing in the fixing cramp (figures 5 and 6, element 19 being the ‘press-in die’; column 2, lines 48 – 61); a forming die having a bending-over structure for bending over the free ends of the fixing cramp, which project during the pressing-in of the fixing cramp on the second leg, on the bending-over structure in a direction of the second leg (figures 5 and 6, element 17 being the ‘forming die’ and interior surface of through-hole of element 17 being the ‘bending-over structure,’ see below; column 2, line 48 – column 3, line 9). Examiner notes that this can be found because Herold teaches that the fixing cramp protrudes into the through-hole and is bent such that the fixing cramp takes the shape of the bending-over structure (column 2, line 62 – column 3, line 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Herold further teaches a pressing die which is opposite the press-in die for pressing the free ends of the fixing cramp, which are bent over on the bending-over structure (figures 5 and 6, element 20 being the ‘pressing die’; column 2, line 48 – column 3, line 3); wherein the press-in die can be displaced from an initial position into an end position for pressing in the fixing cramp into the first and second legs (figures 5 and 6, element 19; column 2, lines 48 – 61); wherein the pressing die can be displaced from an initial position into an end position for pressing the bent-over free ends of the fixing cramp at the second leg (figures 5 and 6, element 20; column 2, line 48 – column 3, line 3); and wherein the forming die has a through-opening for the pressing die (figures 5 and 6, elements 17 and 20, see below; column 3, lines 58 – 61).
PNG
media_image2.png
369
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Herold further teaches a pressing jaw (figures 5 and 6, element 18 being the ‘pressing jaw’; column 2, lines 48 – 61), wherein the pressing jaw is supported on the press-in die in a leading manner in a direction of the forming die with respect to the press-in die (figures 5 and 6, elements 18 and 19; column 2, lines 48 – 61), wherein the pressing jaw is configured to act on the first leg (figures 5 and 6, element 18; column 2, lines 48 – 61), which faces the press-in die when the press-in die is displaced in order to press the first leg against the belt band end, wherein the pressing jaw is movable counter to a restoring force of a restoring means in the direction of the press-in die (figures 5 and 6, elements 18 and 19; column 2, lines 48 – 61). Examiner notes that the claim does not positively require the fixing device to comprise the ‘restoring means.’ The limitation merely requires the ‘pressing jaw’ being configured for use with the ‘restoring means.’
As to claim 6, Herold teaches that the pressing jaw has a recess for receiving the fixing cramp (figures 5 and 6, element 18, see below), wherein during the displacement of the press-in die from the initial position of the press-in die into the end position of the press-in die, the press-in die is configured to move into the recess, wherein the recess forms a linear guide for the fixing cramp when the fixing cramp is pressed int (figures 5 and 6, elements 18 and 19, see below; column 2, line 48 – column 3, line 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
364
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 claim 7, Herold does not teach the pressing jaw having a redirecting edge which is formed at an angle relative to a displacement direction of the press-in die and which is configured to act during the displacement of the press-in die from the initial position of the press-in die into the end position of the press-in die with the fixing cramp in order to introduce the fixing cramp into the recess.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eriksson (U.S. Patent Number 5,516,025) teaches a fixing device comprising: a press-in die for pressing in a fixing cramp; a forming die having a bending-over structure; and a pressing die which is opposite the press-in die for pressing free ends of a fixing cramp; wherein the press-in die can be displaced from an initial position into an end position; wherein the pressing die can be displaced from an initial position into an end position.
Hirose (U.S. Patent Number 4,262,836) teaches a fixing device comprising: a press-in die for pressing in a fixing cramp; a forming die having a bending-over structure; and a pressing die which is opposite the press-in die for pressing free ends of a fixing cramp; wherein the press-in die can be displaced from an initial position into an end position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights