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 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argued that:
“Ito is directed to fastening-member retention mechanisms in a printing apparatus environment. The problems addressed by Ito concern positional shift of a holder during screw tightening and maintenance of fastening stability under vibration conditions. Thus, the problems addressed by Ito are different from Vegh and the present application…Ito is non-analogous art and cannot be properly combined with Vegh.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The purpose of the Examiner referencing Ito was to show that a “tensioning roller operably engages to the base and configured to contact an outer surface of a timing belt” is not novel. As previously mentioned, Ito does disclose a tensioning roller on the outside of a timing belt (Fig. 4, Nos. 23 and 31). While it is true that printers and conveyors are not the same, the Ito is in the same field of invention, as the entire purpose of the present invention is to create tension in a belt. Ito has a mechanism to create tension in a belt. Therefore, in that regard, they are in the same field of invention, it simply happens to be the case that Ito is not only concerned with creating tension in a belt.
The Applicant further argues that:
“the combination of Vegh and Ito does not provide a reasonable expectation of success…The Office Action does not include an explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Vegh’s pulley-spacing tensioning architecture with Ito’s external belt-deflection roller adjustment, particularly where Vegh already describes a complete and operable mechanism for adjusting belt tension.”
This is, again, outside of the scope of the argument that the Examiner was attempting to make. The claim 1 simply recites “a tensioning roller operably engaged to the base and configured to contact an outer surface of a timing belt, wherein the tensioning roller is disposed through one of the one or more slots”. The Examiner was not trying to incorporate the entire mechanical structure of Ito, merely that Ito teaches a tensioner pulley on the outside of the belt.
Regarding argument “b. Dependent Claims 3 and 11”, the Applicant argues from the specification that Vegh does not disclose a hexagonal bar. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The drawings 2A and 2D, which are both part of the disclosure and are permissible to use to make rejections, clearly shows that 212 is shaped hexagonally.
Regarding argument “c. Dependent Claims 16 and 18”, the Applicant argues that “the cited references fail to discloses, teach, or suggest features recited in Claims 16 and 18.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification defines the pivot point in full as “wherein the weldment defines a pivot point about which one or more tension forces acting on the timing belt may be measured.” Vegh discloses in the specification in paragraph [0076] that the drive device (302) places tension forces on the weldment (212) and that 302 may be an “electronic torque/angle wrench” thus allowing the torque to be measured.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vegh in view of Ito.
Regarding claim 1, Vegh discloses a tensioning device comprising a base (200A and 200B) with one or more slots (Fig, 2B, No. 210), a tensioning roller engaged to the base and contacting a timing belt (Fig. 2D, No. 204), with a tensioning roller disposed through at least one slot (Fig. 2A, 201), a weldment configured to be attached to a conveyor device (Fig. 2A, 212), where the weldment defines a point where one or more tension forces on the timing belt can be measured (Fig. 3A, No. 302). However, Vegh does not disclose a tensioning device comprising a roller configured to contact the outer surface of a timing belt. Ito discloses a tensioning roller (Fig. 4, No. 31) configured to contact the outside of the timing belt (Fig. 4, No. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tensioning system of Vegh with the outer pulley of Ito. The motivation would be that placing a tensioner pulley on the outside of the belt is equally functional as placing one on the inside of the belt.
Regarding claim 2, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 1. Vegh further discloses the tensioning device of claim 1, where the weldment is integrated (Fig 2D, No. 202).
Regarding claim 3, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 2. Vegh further discloses the tensioning device of claim 2, where the weldment is hexagonal (Fig. 2D, No 212).
Regarding claim 4, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 1. Vegh further discloses the tensioning device of claim 1, where the conveyor is a cross-belt (Fig. 2A)
Regarding claim 8, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 1. Vegh also discloses the conveyor device comprises at least one motor to drive at least one roller (Fig. 2C, No 250)
Regarding claim 9, Vegh discloses a system comprising: a conveyor device (Fig. 2A) comprising: a frame (Fig. 2A, 200A); a track fixedly attached to the frame (Fig. 2A, 120); one or more rollers configured to drive the track relative to the frame (Fig. 2B, 202B); and a timing belt (Fig. 2B, 214) operably engaged with the one or more rollers (Fig. 2B, No. 202B); and a tensioning device comprising: a base (200A and 200B), wherein the base defines one or more slots (Fig. 2B, No. 210); a tensioning roller operably engaged to the base and configured to contact the timing belt (Fig. 2D, No. 204) (but not its outer surface), wherein the tensioning roller is disposed through one of the one or more slots (Fig. 2A, No. 201); and a weldment configured to be attached to the conveyor device (Fig. 2A, No. 212), wherein the weldment defines a pivot point about which one or more tension forces acting on the timing belt may be measured (Fig. 3A, No. 302); wherein the tensioning device is operably engaged with the conveyor device such that the tensioning roller is operably engaged with the one or more rollers via the timing belt (Fig. 2A, Nos. 214, 202, and 204). Ito discloses a tensioning roller (Fig. 4, No. 31) configured to contact the outside of the timing belt (Fig. 4, No. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tensioning system of Vegh with the outer pulley of Ito. The motivation would be that placing a tensioner pulley on the outside of the belt is equally functional as placing one on the inside of the belt.
Regarding claim 10, Vegh and Ito disclose the system of claim 9. Vegh discloses the system of claim 9, where the weldment is integrated (Fig. 2D, No. 212).
Regarding claim 11, Vegh and Ito disclose the system of claim 10. Vegh also discloses the system of claim 10, where the weldment is hexagonal (Fig. 2D, No. 212).
Regarding claim 12, Vegh and Ito disclose the system of claim 9. Vegh also discloses the system of claim 9, where the conveyor is cross-belt (Fig 2A).
Regarding claim 13, Vegh and Ito disclose the system of claim 9. Vegh also
Regarding claim 14, Vegh and Ito disclose the system of claim 9. Vegh also discloses a motor configured to drive one or more rollers (Fig. 2C, No. 250).
Regarding claim 15, Vegh discloses method for tensioning a timing belt, the method comprising: operably engaging a measurement device with a weldment of a base of a tensioning device (Fig. 3A, No. 302); measuring, by the measurement device, a torque of the timing belt of a conveyor device (90065); and adjusting the tension of the timing belt based on the measured torque (10065). However, Vegh does not disclose a method wherein the tensioning device comprises a tensioning roller configured to contact an outer surface of the timing belt. Ito discloses a tensioning roller (Fig. 4, No. 31) configured to contact the outside of the timing belt (Fig. 4, No. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tensioning system of Vegh with the outer pulley of Ito. The motivation would be that placing a tensioner pulley on the outside of the belt is equally functional as placing one on the inside of the belt.
Regarding claim 16, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 1. Vegh further discloses wherein the weldment is configured to be inserted into a frame of the conveyor device to define the pivot point (Fig. 2B, No. 212).
Regarding claim 17, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 8. Ito further discloses wherein the tensioning roller is configured to contact the outer surface of the timing belt, wherein the outer surface of the timing belt is a substantially flat surface and a toothed inner surface of the timing belt is coupled to the one or more rollers [0057].
Regarding claim 18, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 9. Vegh further discloses wherein the weldment is configured to be inserted into a frame of the conveyor device to define the pivot point (Fig. 2B, No. 212).
Regarding claim 19, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 9. Vegh discloses further wherein the tensioning device is aligned with the frame of the conveyor device (Fig 2B).
Regarding claim 20, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 9. Vegh further discloses wherein the outer surface of the timing belt is a substantially flat surface and a toothed inner surface of the timing belt is coupled to the one or more rollers (Fig. 2B, Nos. 214A and 202).
Regarding claim 21, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 14. Vegh further discloses wherein the tensioning roller comprises a tensioning shaft (Fig. 2B, No. 205), and wherein at least one of the one or more motors is configured to drive the tensioning shaft of the tensioning roller (Fig. 2C No. 250).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tensioner of Vegh with the tensioner roller configured like Ito. The motivation would be adaptability and expected outcome. It would give the user more options on how the tensioner could be implemented. Also, belts can be tensioned by tensioner rollers contacting either the inner or the outer surfaces.
Claims 5, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vegh and Ito in further view of Youcanic.
Regarding Claim 5, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 1, but do not disclose how or by what means the tensioning roller is fastened. In a picture of the process disclosed by Youcanic, the tensioning roller can be seen to have a fastener keeping the tensioner roller on. This is seen in the second image under step 4, as the roller comes off with the base, meaning the fastener holds the roller onto the base.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fastener of Youcanic, with the tensioning roller of Vegh. The motivation would be to keep the roller on its axle as it spins.
Regarding Claim 6, Vegh and Ito disclose the tensioning device of claim 1, but do not disclose how the tensioning roller rotates about its axis. Youcanic discloses that failing to do proper maintenance may cause the tensioner roller bearing to fail. This indicates that the roller has at least one bearing.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bearing of Youcanic with the tensioning device of Vegh. This is because bearings have been used in machinery to maintain smooth rotational motion for a long time, and smooth rotational motion is critical for a timing pulley.
Regarding Claim 13, Vegh discloses the system of claim 9, but does not disclose how or by what means the tensioning roller is fastened. In a picture of the process disclosed by Youcanic, the tensioning roller can be seen to have a fastener keeping the tensioner roller on. This is seen in the second image under step 4, as the roller comes off with the base, meaning the fastener holds the roller onto the base.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fastener of Youcanic, with the system of Vegh. The motivation would be to keep the roller on its axle as it spins.
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 AMARI JADAN MEDDLING whose telephone number is (571)272-8178. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 5712726911. 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.
/AMARI J MEDDLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights