DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office action in response to the amendment filed 06/17/2026 and the IDS filed 06/23/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 14 are pending;
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 14 are currently amended; claims 2-5, 7, 10-13, and 15 have been cancelled;
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 14 are rejected herein.
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
The prior art rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-14, in view of Miyata et al. (US 10,618,432 B2) and/or Ogihara et al. (US 10,780,848 B2), as presented in the Office action mailed 03/17/2026, are hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 06/17/2026 and Applicant's arguments in the remarks filed 06/17/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 06/23/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/22/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 06/17/2026 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 8, line 2, the comma at the end of the line should be a semi-colon. See the use of the semi-colon in claim 8 (line 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 8, 9, and 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the length" (i.e., a part of the limitation "the length of the bulging portion" in line 34) in the claim. This rejection was similarly mentioned on page 9 of the Office action mailed 03/17/2026. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the length" (i.e., a part of the limitation "the length of each of the claw portions" in line 35) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations "each of the claw portions extends in the thickness direction of the guide belt from both ends of the base portion in the width direction of the guide belt" in lines 5 and 6 are indefinite. As shown in Figure 8, each of the claw portions (31) appears to extend in the thickness of the guide belt (26) from one end (28a or 28b) of the base portion (28) in the width direction of the guide belt (26). It is not clear as to how each of the claw portions (31) can possibly extend in the thickness direction of the guide belt (26) from "both ends" of the base portion (28) in the width direction of the guide belt (26) as currently claimed. It is suggested that the instant limitations at issue be changed to --each of the claw portions extends in the thickness direction of the guide belt from a respective end of both ends of the base portion in the width direction of the guide belt--. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the length" (i.e., a part of the limitation "the length of the bulging portion" in line 38) in the claim. This rejection was similarly mentioned on pages 9 and 10 of the Office action mailed 03/17/2026. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the length" (i.e., a part of the limitation "the length of each of the claw portions" in line 39) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations "each of the claw portions extends in the thickness direction of the guide belt from both ends of the base portion in the width direction of the guide belt" in lines 5 and 6 are indefinite. As shown in Figure 8, each of the claw portions (31) appears to extend in the thickness of the guide belt (26) from one end (28a or 28b) of the base portion (28) in the width direction of the guide belt (26). It is not clear as to how each of the claw portions (31) can possibly extend in the thickness direction of the guide belt (26) from "both ends" of the base portion (28) in the width direction of the guide belt (26) as currently claimed. It is suggested that the instant limitations at issue be changed to --each of the claw portions extends in the thickness direction of the guide belt from a respective end of both ends of the base portion in the width direction of the guide belt--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, and 14 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 PM).
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights