DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention(s) in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged.
Upon closer review, and a prior art search, the Restriction requirement of 10/14/25 is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the tension assembly mount and the adjustment shaft, as well as the belt projection of claim(s) 15, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9-22 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.
With regard to claim(s) 9, line(s) 7, “tension assembly” lack(s) antecedent basis.
With regard to claim(s) 17, line(s) 2, “tension assembly mount” lack(s) antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
With regard to claim(s) 8, the examiner interprets applicant’s claim language to mean the belt(s) of claim(s) 1 is comprising a plurality of belt(s); & the belt(s) drive of claim(s) 1 is comprising a plurality of drives.
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 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 a generic placeholder that 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: “biasing member configured to apply a force to the slide mount” in claim 1.
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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16-19 & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isaman et al. (7,347,320).
Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s):
conveyor assembly, figure(s) 2;
belt(s) drive system, figure(s) 4 & 6 and column 3, line(s) 18;
conveyor 10;
belt(s) 70;
a pair of side frames, 100C;
a plurality of roller(s) 106;
driven roller(s) 160;
tension roller(s) 148;
tension assembly mount/tension assembly mount assembly 120;
tensioner/tension assembly, figure(s) 5;
housing 124;
channel(s) 124A;
slide mount 126;
elongate opening, between 124A, figure(s) 5;
tension roller(s) shaft 150;
biasing member(s) comprising a spring 132;
adjustment shaft 154;
bracket 124B and screwed flanges, figure(s) 5;
aperture, at 100B, figure(s) 2.
With regard to claim(s) 1, Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s) a conveyor assembly, figure(s) 2, having a conveyor belt 70 for conveying articles, said conveyor assembly, figure(s) 2, comprising: a pair of side frames 100C to which a belt drive system is mounted, wherein the belt is driven by the belt drive system between the side frames; wherein the belt drive system comprises a plurality of rollers 106 mounted between the side frames 100C and about which the belt is disposed with the plurality of rollers comprising a driven roller 160, a tension roller 148 and a plurality of conveyor rollers 106; wherein the tension roller is mounted to the side frames by a tension assembly mount comprising a tensioner assembly; wherein the tensioner assembly comprises a housing 124 having a channel 124A within which a slide mount 126 is disposed for movement, with the housing including an elongate opening, between 124A, at the channel, and wherein the tension roller includes a shaft 150 and an end of the shaft is engaged with the slide mount at the elongate opening; wherein the tensioner assembly further comprises a biasing member 132 configured to apply a force to the slide mount to thereby bias the tension roller 148 into engagement with the belt for applying a tension force to the belt about the plurality of rollers 106.
With regard to claim(s) 9, Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s) a belt drive system, figure(s) 4 & 6, for driving a belt 70 of a conveyor 10, said belt drive system comprising: a plurality of rollers 106, 160 & 148 configured to be mounted between a pair of side frames 100C of a conveyor 10 and about which a belt 70 is disposed with the plurality of rollers 106, 160 & 148 comprising a driven roller 160, a tension roller 148 and a plurality of conveyor rollers 106; a tension assembly mount 120 for mounting the tension roller 148 between the side frames 100C, wherein the tension assembly comprises a tensioner assembly, figure(s) 5; wherein the tensioner assembly comprises a housing 124 having a channel 124A within which a slide mount 126 is disposed for movement, with the housing including an elongate opening, between 124A, figure(s) 5, at the channel 124A, and wherein the tension roller 148 includes a shaft 150 and an end of the shaft is engaged with the slide mount at the elongate opening; wherein the tensioner assembly further comprises a spring 132 configured to apply a force to the slide mount 126 to thereby bias the tension roller 148 into engagement with the belt 70 for applying a tension force to the belt about the plurality of rollers.
With regard to claim(s) 17, Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s) a tension assembly mount assembly 120 for applying a biasing force to a belt 70 of a conveyor 10, said tension assembly mount comprising: at least one tensioner assembly, figure(s) 5; wherein the tensioner assembly comprises a housing 124 having a channel 124A within which a slide mount 126 is disposed for movement, with the housing including an elongate opening, between 124A, figure(s) 5, at the channel 124A, and wherein the slide mount 126 is configured to receive an end of a shaft 150 of a tension roller 148 at the elongate opening; wherein the tensioner assembly further comprises a spring 132 configured to apply a force to the slide mount to thereby bias the tension roller 148 into engagement with a belt 70 for applying a tension force to the belt.
With regard to conveying article(s), the applicant recites this as mere intended use claim language, stopping short of positive recitation. Current U.S. practice is that a reference(s) need merely be capable of performing this function. Isaman et al. (7,347,320) is indeed able to convey discrete article(s).
Further, note that Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s) a belt(s) drive system between the side frames; column 3, line(s) 18.
With regard to claim(s) 3, 11 & 19, Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s) aligned elongated openings of the bracket & housing.
With regard to claim(s) 4 & 12, Isaman et al. (7,347,320) and adjustment shaft 154 mounted to the bracket at 124B.
With regard to claim(s) 5, 13 & 22, Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s) tensioner assemblies on each of the side frames.
With regard to claim(s) 16, Isaman et al. (7,347,320) disclose(s) a plurality roller(s) 106 comprising idler roller(s).
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.
Claims 7-8 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German et al. (10,384,879) in view of Isaman et al. (7,347,320).
German et al. (10,384,879) disclose(s:
conveyor assembly, figure(s) 5;
belt(s) drive system, figure(s) 622;
conveyor 621;
belt(s) 630;
a pair of side frames, 648 & 650;
a plurality of idler roller(s) 634 & 636;
driven roller(s) 624;
tension roller(s) 632;
tension assembly mount/tension assembly mount assembly 670;
tensioner/tension assembly, 656;
tension roller(s) shaft 570;
biasing member(s) 675;
adjustment shaft 154;
bracket 124B and screwed flanges, upper right, figure(s) 10.
German et al. (10,384,879) lack(s) a tension assembly comprising a channel(s), slide mount & elongate opening. Isaman et al. (7,347,320) teach(es) a tension assembly comprising a channel(s), slide mount & elongate opening as was expanded on at length supra.
With regard to claim(s) 7 & 14, German et al. (10,384,879) lack(s) a driven roller(s) pressing against the outer belt(s) surface; and a tension roller(s) pressing against the inner belt(s) surface. German et al. (10,384,879) disclose(s) the other way around. It has generally been recognized that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as the binary choice of roller(s) orientation relative to the belt(s) surfaces), with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regard to claim(s) 8, German et al. (10,384,879) disclose(s) a plurality of belt(s) and associated drives.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to German et al. (10,384,879) to substitute: the tension assembly; and reverse drive & tension roller(s) orientation relative to belt(s) surfaces in order to increase efficiency or accommodate practical considerations as taught by Isaman et al. (7,347,320).
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaman et al. (7,347,320) in view of Lin (CN 111332691).
Isaman et al. (7,347,320) lack(s) a belt(s) comprising a projection and roller(s) comprising a groove for combined mating engagement. Lin (CN 111332691) teach(es) a belt(s) comprising a projection 16 and roller(s) comprising a groove 13 for combined mating engagement in a belt(s) conveyor.
Further, it has generally been recognized that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as the binary choice of if to place a projection/groove arrangement or not), with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify to Isaman et al. (7,347,320) to substitute a belt(s) comprising a projection and roller(s) comprising a groove for combined mating engagement in order to prevent belt(s) lateral travel as taught by Lin (CN 111332691).
Conclusion
Claims 20-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653