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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the first direction and the second direction (see at least claim 1)
No new matter should be entered.
Further, one set of drawings filed 12/23/2024 labels the various portions of fig. 6 as 6-1, 6-2, etc., while the other set of drawings labels these same portions of the figure as 6A, 6B, etc. It appears that each portion in both sets is the same, i.e., 6-1 corresponds to 6A, 6-2 corresponds to 6B, and so on. If these portions of the figures are intended to correspond to one another as described above, the 6-1, 6-2, etc. labels should be amended such that the numbering reads 6A, 6B, etc., as supported by the specification. Examiner notes that fig. 7 requires similar corrections.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
at line 4, “cutting off a rubber layer on each of two sides of each of the plurality of steel wire rope cores” is recited, and at line 9, “cutting off a rubber layer between the plurality of steel wire rope cores” is recited; as best understood, the first and second instances of “cutting off a rubber layer” refer to two separate portions of rubber layer. Claim 1 should be amended to read “a first rubber layer” and a “second rubber layer” respectively
Appropriate correction is required.
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, there is insufficient written description to define the first direction and the second direction. At least paragraph [0012] states that the first direction is a thickness direction of the conveyor belt and the second direction is a width direction of the conveyor belt. However, the thickness and width directions are not further defined.
Next, 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.
Lastly, there is insufficient written support for the limitation “cutting off a rubber layer between the plurality of steel wire rope cores located at the joint of the conveyor belt along a second direction by the at least one forming cutter”. The forming cutter is described as comprising a blade with a plurality of semicircular cutting edges (see at least paragraph [0012]). Further, paragraph [0095] states that each of the cores is “snapped” into a respective one of the plurality of semicircular cutting edges. From this, it is understood that the cutting edges are in direct contact with the cores. If that is the case, it is not clear how a rubber layer is cut off, and the specification provides no further description discussing this portion of the process. Based on the above paragraphs and fig. 7, it appears that no cutting operation is actually performed by the forming cutter, but instead a stripping or scraping operation.
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 unclear what directions the first direction and second direction are intended to be oriented. While the claim defines these directions as the “thickness direction of the conveyor belt” and the “width direction of the conveyor belt” respectively, the scope of the claim as it pertains to the directions remains unclear. It is understood that by nature of being a three-dimensional object, the conveyor belt has a thickness and a width in multiple directions. Since there is no further definition of these directions in the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim as it pertains to the first and second directions.
Next, it is not clear how cutting is performed in the first and second directions respectively. As discussed above, the conveyor belt is a three-dimensional object. If the flat cutter cuts a layer of the conveyor belt in the first/thickness direction, is it not also cutting that layer in the second/width direction? Likewise, when the forming cutter cuts a layer in the second/width direction, is it not also cutting in the first/thickness direction? It is not clear how either cutter can cut a layer of the conveyor belt in only one of these directions.
Further, claim 1 recites “at least one flat cutter” and “at least one forming cutter”. However, in order for the flat cutter to cut off a layer on each of two sides of the plurality of cores, it seems that at least two flat cutters are required, as shown in at least fig. 6. In the event that only one flat cutter is provided (as would be permitted by the recitation of “at least one flat cutter”), it is not clear how a rubber layer can be cut off on each side of the cores. As best understood, there is no path that the conveyor belt can move along that would allow both sides to be cut if only one flat cutter is provided. Therefore, it is understood that at least two flat cutters are required. Likewise, the same applies to the forming cutter – it is understood that at least two forming cutters are required.
Further regarding the forming cutter, it is not understood how the forming cutter “cuts” rubber from the conveyor belt. As described in at least paragraph [0095], the cores of the conveyor belt are provided within the semicircular cutting edges of the forming cutter during this step of the process. As best understood, the semicircular cutting edges would then be located in direct contact with the cores. However, if this is the case, how is a “cutting” operation performed? It would seem as though the rubber is stripped or scraped from the cores rather than cut, particularly since the cutting edges appear to engage the cores rather than the rubber.
Lastly, 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.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what is intended by the limitation “the compression roller is rotatable about an axis of the compression roller ad is rotatable around the roller between a position directly above the roller and a position directly below the roller”. The only “roller” that has been recited is the compression roller, so it is not clear if “roller” refers to a different structure. If “roller” refers to some other structure, this term lacks antecedent basis. If “roller” does not refer to a different structure, it is unclear how the compression roller can be rotatable around itself, particularly between a position above or below itself.
Regarding claims 7-10, it is unclear what is intended by the limitations “stopping the compression roller to rotate around the drum when the compression roller moves to the position directly above/below the drum”. It is not understood if “stopping the compression roller” is intended to mean that the compression roller stops rotating around the drum, or if the compression roller stops rotating about its own axis. Alternatively, does “stopping the compression roller to rotate around the drum” mean that some element of the compression roller’s operation is stopped so that it can rotate around the drum?
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 5771586 to Lotarski, drawn to an apparatus for skiving belt ends.
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
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights