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 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Suzuki does not teach “a coating film”. In the current Application, the coating film 22 can be seen in Figure 3. It appears to be an outer layer of the energizing core cord 20. Suzuki teaches coating film 4 which is described as a core layer and shown in Figs. 1-2 over a cord 5. Applicant does not distinguish itself from the cited prior art with structural claim language. Suzuki teaches “The warp threads 5 and the weft threads 6 have an outer diameter ranging from 0.3 mm to 1.5 mm, for example. The total thickness of the core layer 4 ranges from 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm, for example” C3 L29-32 thereby describing the core layer 4 around the cord 5 as a coating film.
Regarding the substance of the examiner’s obviousness rejection as argued on pages 3-7 of the remarks, the requirements for obviousness are discussed in MPEP § 2142. As explained in the previous Office action, the only difference between claim 1 and the teachings of Ota Takashi is the use of the coating film. Suzuki teaches a coating film and described above. Like the claimed invention, both Ota Takashi and Suzuki are directed to a conveyor belt. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that using the coating film as taught by Suzuki around the energizing cord of Ota Takashi would have been within the skill of the art and yielded the predictable result of maintaining the wearability and would have provided additional strength along the width of the belt as taught by Suzuki C1 L60-67; C2 L1-20. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and § 2143.02. The rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Ota Takashi in view of Suzuki is, therefore, maintained.
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(s) 1-3 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota Takashi JP 2021-55845 A in view of Suzuki U.S. Patent No. 11,001,449.
Claim 1, Ota Takashi teaches a belt 1 comprising: a belt main body 10; at least one energizing core cord 31 comprising a conductive core wire 31; and at least one reinforcing core cord 32 having a higher electrical resistance per unit length than the energizing core cord P0040-0041, wherein the energizing core cord 31 and the reinforcing core cord 32 are embedded Fig. 3, along a length direction of the belt main body 10, in the belt main body 10 at an interval in a width direction thereof Fig. 1, but does not teach as Suzuki teaches the energizing core cord 5 comprises a coating film 4 constituting a peripheral face and covering the core wire 4, and the coating film 4 is fused with the belt main body 3 C3 L3-10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the belt disclosed in Ota Takashi with the coating configuration taught in Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 2, Ota Takashi teaches a principal component of the belt main body 10 is an elastomer (rubber), and a principal component of the coating film is polyethylene or polyesterC3 L3-10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the belt disclosed in Ota Takashi with the coating configuration taught in Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 3, Ota Takashi teaches the elastomer is a flame-retardant material P0049.
Claim 9, Ota Takashi teaches the belt main body 10 comprises a core support portion 20 on at least one face thereof, the core support portion 20 being a depression for supporting the energizing core cord 31 and the reinforcing core cord 32, and the core support portion 20 is covered Fig. 4.
Claim 10, Ota Takashi teaches each of core cords 31,32 positioned on outermost sides in the width direction is the reinforcing core cord 31,32 Figs. 4-5.
Claim 11, Ota Takashi teaches the at least one energizing core cord 31 comprises a plurality of energizing core cords 31, and the reinforcing core cord 32 is disposed between the energizing core cords 31 adjacent to each other Figs. 4-5.
Claim 12, Ota Takashi teaches the at least one energizing core cord 31 comprises a plurality of energizing core cords 31, and a core cord group is formed by no less than 2 and no greater than 5 energizing core cords 31 consecutively adjacent to one another Fig. 4.
Claim 13, Ota Takashi teaches the core wire of the energizing core cord 31 is an annealed copper wire or a copper alloy wire P0029.
Claim 14, Ota Takashi teaches the core wire of the energizing core cord 31 is a single wire, a collective stranded wire, or a rope stranded wire Fig. 1.
Claim 15, Ota Takashi teaches the energizing core cord 31 is a shield wire (insulated copper wire), a cable, or a shielded cable Fig. 1.
Claim 16, Ota Takashi teaches the belt main body 10 comprises at least one belt hole penetrating the belt main body 10 in a thickness direction Fig. 1.
Claim 17, Ota Takashi teaches the energizing core cord 31 comprises a connector on at least one end side thereof Fig. 1 (as known in cord arrangements).
Claim 18, Ota Takashi teaches the belt 1 is a flat belt Fig. 1.
Claim 19, Ota Takashi teaches the belt 1 is a toothed belt comprising a plurality of teeth provided on one face of the belt main body at regular intervals in the length direction Abstract.
Claim(s) 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota Takashi JP 2021-55845 A in view of Suzuki U.S. Patent No. 11,001,449 in view of ノックス，ジョン グリーム JP-6002241-B2.
Claim 4, Ota Takashi does not teach as JP-6002241-B2 teaches a cover layer having a lower friction coefficient than the belt main body and covering one or both faces of the belt main body P0035. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the belt disclosed in Ota Takashi with the material configuration taught in JP-6002241-B2 with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 5, Ota Takashi does not teach as JP-6002241-B2 teaches a principal component of the cover layer on at least one face is a nylon resin or a fluorine resin P0010-0011. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the belt disclosed in Ota Takashi with the material configuration taught in JP-6002241-B2 with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 6, Ota Takashi does not teach as JP-6002241-B2 teaches a cover layer having a higher hardness than the belt main body and covering one or both faces of the belt main bodyP0035. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the belt disclosed in Ota Takashi with the material configuration taught in JP-6002241-B2 with a reasonable expectation of success because
Claim 7, Ota Takashi does not teach as JP-6002241-B2 teaches a principal component of the cover layer on at least one face is a thermoplastic elastomer resin P0010-0011. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the belt disclosed in Ota Takashi with the material configuration taught in JP-6002241-B2 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have
Claim 8, Ota Takashi does not teach as JP-6002241-B2 teaches a JIS-A hardness of the belt main body is no less than 70 and less than 100P0035. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the belt disclosed in Ota Takashi with the material configuration taught in JP-6002241-B2 with a reasonable expectation of success because
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS
Prosecution Insights