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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasaka et al. USP 6,689,005 in view of Wagner US2009/0107809.
Hasaka et al. teach the transmission belt as claimed as seen on the attached marked up sheets (3) of Hasaka et al. Hasaka et al. do not claim the rollers used in combination with their transmission belt even though it can easily be realized using the Hasaka et al transmission belt to drive a set of rollers. Wagner teaches a transmission belt used to power a set of rollers with concave grooves. See the attached annotated drawing sheet (1) of Wagner depicting the critical elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the transmission belt of Hasaka et al. to drive the rollers (with concave grooves) of Wagner since there are many ways and methods to drive rollers and the use of concave grooves in rollers in order accommodate a driving belt is well known in the mechanical/conveying arts.
RE claims 1, 2, 19, the applicant claims a specific coating on their toothing with a specific coefficient of friction, while the device of Hasaka et al. USP 6,689,005 in view of Wagner US2009/0107809 is silent on this matter.
RE claims 3, 17, the applicant claims a tensile modulus strength on their tension cords, while the device of Hasaka et al. USP 6,689,005 in view of Wagner US2009/0107809 is silent on this matter.
RE claims 8, 9, 16, 18, 20, the applicant claims certain specific materials for different elements of their device, while the device of Hasaka et al. USP 6,689,005 in view of Wagner US2009/0107809 is silent on this matter.
RE claims 13-15, the applicant claims a specific range of belt laying tension for their transmission belt tension on the grooves of the rollers, while the device of Hasaka et al. USP 6,689,005 in view of Wagner US2009/0107809 is silent on this matter.
RE claims 10, 12, the applicant claims their rollers with concave grooves made of steel or plastic, while the device of Hasaka et al. USP 6,689,005 in view of Wagner US2009/0107809 is silent on this matter.
In each of the above instances, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize the selective options above in each instance and to claim such a specific feature would carry more weight in a method type claim. In an apparatus claim, such design features are specific to the device at hand and the specific goals of that device and the mere claiming of such features does not provide a patentable departure.
Conclusion
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 DOUGLAS A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-6915. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8-6.
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.
/DOUGLAS A HESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
DAH
May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights