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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear how the conveyor belt reaches the cutters in order for the cutting operation to take place. At least paragraphs [0104-0105] state that the conveyor belt is moved by the rotation of drum 3 and compression roller 4. However, once compression roller 4 has rotated around drum 3 such that it is positioned directly above drum 3, it ceases movement about drum 3. There does not appear to be another element beyond compression roller 4 and drum 3 that supports the conveyor belt as it moves towards the blades. That is, it appears the conveyor belt must “float” to reach the blades. It is not clear from the written description how the conveyor belt continues along a transport path to the blades once compression roller 4 has reached a position above drum 3.
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 1-10 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, it is not understood how the conveyor belt is capable of reaching the cutting elements. As shown in figs. 6 and 7, compression roller 4 and drum 3 each rotate about an axis, and compression roller 4 further rotates around drum 3 in order to transport the conveyor belt in a transport direction. However, compression roller 4 ceases rotation around drum 3 when it reaches a position directly above drum 3. It does not appear that there are other elements that support the conveyor belt to move along the transport direction. Therefore, it seems as though the conveyor belt must float or is supported by some other means not shown or described. Thus, it is unclear how the conveyor belt can be controlled to move such that the joint of the conveyor belt moves along the flat cutter/forming cutter respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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. Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or otherwise render obvious in combination with all claim limitations a method for separating a plurality of steel wire rope cores of a conveyor belt.
The closest prior art of record is Arita (US 20040079209). Arita discloses a method for removing rubber from a conveyor belt, specifically by splitting the bonding rubber portion between steel cords 9 before using cutting member 14 to individually separate the rubber from around each cord (see paragraph [0072] and figs. 13A-C). However, a rubber layer is not removed by straight thin blades 12. Cutting member 14 performs the operation of removing rubber when semicylinder blades 11a are arranged around cords 9 (see figs. 8 and 10A-10B). Thus, Arita does not explicitly disclose at least one flat cutter which cuts off a rubber layer on each of two sides of each of the plurality of steel wire rope cores, or a spacing between every two adjacent semicircular cutting edges being equal to a spacing between every two adjacent steel wire rope cores. It would not be an obvious modification to have straight thin blades 12 remove a rubber layer since that would significantly change the operation of the device – straight thin blades 12 are present to split a layer of rubber so that cylindrical blade 13 can surround steel cords 9 (see paragraph [0056]). Likewise, in order for the spacing between the semicircular cutting edges to be equal to a spacing between cores as recited, the device would need to be entirely reconfigured. Specifically, cutting member 14 would require significant modifications that would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The next closest prior art of record is Wabnegger (US 20150270034). Wabnegger discloses a device for removing rubber insulating material from a wire, including a forming cutter with semicircular cutting edges (cutting blades 62 include notches 62a; see fig. 11). However, Wabnegger does not disclose at least one flat cutter. Further, since the device of Wabnegger is configured to cut insulating material from a wire, rather than cut rubber layers from a conveyor belt, it would not be an obvious modification to include one. That is, there is no need to include a flat cutter for cutting off rubber material from two sides of a plurality of steel wire rope cores when there is only one wire – additionally, cutting blades 62 are capable of performing the operation of cutting material from the wire without the need for an additional type of blade. Since the device of Wabnegger is for performing a different method and lacks a necessary structure, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wabnegger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that it is clear how the conveyor reaches the cutters once roller 4 has stopped rotating around drum 3, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges that roller 4 applies a compression force that drives the conveyor around drum 3, as noted by Applicant (see pgs. 15-17 of remarks). However, once roller 4 has reached the top of drum 3 and ceases all movement except a rotation about its own axis, there does not appear to be any structure supporting the conveyor as it moves forward. More specifically, due to the nature in which the device is intended to be used, Examiner has interpreted that the conveyor is not endless and is rather an individual section. Further, since it appears the material lacks sufficient stiffness to project forward along the transport path without additional support, it is not understood how the conveyor does not sag before reaching the cutters. It is the Examiner’s position that there must be a complementary drum 3/roller 4 (or some other type of device that maintains tension of the conveyor) which is not shown on the other side of the cutters. If such a device does not exist, then it is unclear how the conveyor belt is supported between the final position of roller 4 and the cutters.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
