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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/339,080 (filed on 05/06/2022) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/960,062 (filed on 10/04/2022), and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitute a continuation or divisional.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In paragraphs 0045, line 2-3, the phrase “the belt 510 and the wheels 520, 530 are the same” should read -- the belts 510A, 510B, and the wheels 520A, 520B and 530A, 530B are the same --.
In paragraphs 0045, line 6-7, the phrase “the belts 510 and the wheels 520, 530 are not” should read -- the belts 510A, 510B, and the wheels 520A, 520B and 530A, 530B are not --.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 9-18 are objected to because of the following informalities that requires appropriate corrections:
In claim 7, line 4, the limitation “the driver wheel” should read -- the toothed driver wheel --.
In claim 7, line 6, the limitation “the driven wheel” should read -- the toothed driven wheel --.
In claim 9, line 2, the limitation “between the meshed teeth of the belt and the teeth of the driver wheel” should read -- between meshed teeth of the toothed belt and teeth of the toothed driver wheel --.
In claim 9, line 3, the limitation “the belt…the driver wheel” should read -- the toothed belt…the toothed driver wheel --.
In claim 10, lines 3 and 5, the limitation “the belt” should read -- the toothed belt --.
In claim 10, lines 4 and 6, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 11, lines 1 and 2, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 12, lines 1 and 2, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 13, line 1, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 14, lines 1 and 2, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 15, lines 1 and 2, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 16, lines 1 and 2, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 17, lines 1 and 2, the limitation “the wheel” should read -- the toothed wheel --.
In claim 18, line 1, the limitation “the belt” should read -- the toothed belt --.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 limitation “each of the belt and the wheel having a respective fit…the fit of the wheel is within 5% of the fit of the belt” (in lines 2-4) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what specific characteristic(s), property(ies), and/or dimension(s) of the belt and the wheel are being defined by the term “fit”, how the “fit” of the belt is determined, and how the “fit” of the wheel is determined. In other words, what features of the belt and the wheel constitute the fit of the belt and the fit of the wheel? Furthermore, it is also unclear if the limitation “the fit of the wheel is within 5% of the fit of the belt” is attempting to recite the fit of the wheel being 5% less than the fit of the belt, or if its attempting to recite the fit of the wheel being 5% more than the fit of the belt. In addition, what is the 5% based upon or how is the 5% calculated? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claims 2-6 depends from parent claim 1. Subsequently, claims 2-6 are also rejected as being indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 5 limitation “the second wheel having a fit…the fit of the second wheel is within 5% of the fit of the belt” (in lines 1-3) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what specific characteristic(s), property(ies), and/or dimension(s) of the second wheel are being defined by the term “fit”, and how the “fit” of the second wheel is determined. In other words, what features of the second wheel constitute the fit of the second wheel? Furthermore, it is also unclear if the limitation “the fit of the second wheel is within 5% of the fit of the belt” is attempting to recite the fit of the second wheel being 5% less than the fit of the belt, or if its attempting to recite the fit of the second wheel being 5% more than the fit of the belt. In addition, what is the 5% based upon or how is the 5% calculated? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 7 limitations “a belt fit” (in line 2), “a driver wheel fit” (in line 3), and “a driven wheel fit” (in line 5) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what specific characteristic(s), property(ies), and/or dimension(s) of the belt, the driver wheel, and the driven wheel are being defined by the term “fit”, how the “fit” of the belt is determined, how the “fit” of the driver wheel is determined, and how the “fit” of the driven wheel is determined. In other words, what features of the belt, the driver wheel, and the driven wheel constitutes the fit of the belt, the fit of the driver wheel, and the fit of the driven wheel? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 7 limitation “the driver wheel fit is within 5% of the belt fit” (in line 7) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is also unclear if said limitation is attempting to recite the driver wheel fit being 5% less than the belt fit, or if its attempting to recite the driver wheel fit being 5% more than the belt fit. In addition, what is the 5% based upon or how is the 5% calculated? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claims 8-9 depends from parent claim 7. Subsequently, claims 8-9 are also rejected as being indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 10 limitations “determining a fit of the belt; determining a desired fit of the wheel, the desired fit of the wheel within 5% the fit of the belt…obtaining the desired fit of the wheel” (in lines 3-6) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what specific characteristic(s), property(ies), and/or dimension(s) of the belt and the wheel are being defined by the term “fit”, what features of the belt constitute the “fit” of the belt, and what features of the wheel constitute the “fit” of the wheel. Furthermore, it is also unclear if the limitation “the desired fit of the wheel within 5% the fit of the belt” is attempting to recite the fit of the wheel being 5% less than the fit of the belt, or if its attempting to recite the fit of the second wheel being 5% more than the fit of the belt (e.g. what is the 5% based upon or how is the 5% calculated?). In addition, regarding “modifying an outer diameter of the wheel” (in line 6), is the wheel intentionally constructed to be the wrong size such that it needs modifying, or is the outer diameter modified during a design/development process prior to making/producing the wheel? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claims 11-18 depends from parent claim 10. Subsequently, claims 11-18 are also rejected as being indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 14 limitations “means for increasing the outer diameter of the wheel” (in line 2) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what disclosed structure/process is being used to increase the outer diameter of the wheel? Furthermore, is the “means for increasing the outer diameter of the wheel” different from the coating being applied to wheel as recited within parent claim 12 (which is also used to increase the outer diameter of the wheel). Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim 16 limitations “means for decreasing the outer diameter of the wheel” (in line 2) renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what disclosed structure/process is being used to decrease the outer diameter of the wheel? Clarification by the applicant is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cathey et al. (U.S. Patent 4,515,577 A hereinafter referred to as “Cathey”).
In regards to claim 1, Cathey teach (Figures 1-3) a belt system (combine structure of the endless belt 10, the driving pulley 11, and the driven pulley 12) comprising: a flexible endless belt (endless belt 10) having a belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’, which coincide with the line extending along the pulley land line ‘Lp’ as illustrated in figure 6), a fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10; which is defined by the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length ‘EF’, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’), and a pitch (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent belt teeth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’); a wheel (driving pulley 11) having a fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11; which is defined by the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length ‘27p’, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’), and a pitch (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent pulley teeth of the driving pulley 11) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’); wherein, the fit of the wheel (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11) is within 5% of the fit of the belt (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) (Col. 5, line 25-33 and Col. 10, line 12 disclose, the belt tooth width ‘W’ = 0.205in, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ = 0.174in, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ = 0.035in, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’ = 0.038in, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ = 0.074in, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ = 21.5 degrees, and the belt tooth height ‘H’ = 0.60W = 0.60 X 0.205 = 0.123in; while Col. 8, line 13-20 and Col. 10, line 25-26 disclose, the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’ = 0.209in, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’= 0.169in, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’ = 0.033in, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’ = 0.038in, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p = 0.080in, the pressure angle ‘αp’ = 22 degrees, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’= 0.59W = 0.59 X 0.209 = 0.123in. Furthermore, a simple calculation can be used to determine: 5% more of the belt tooth width ‘W’ being 0.215in, 5% less of the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ being be 0.165in, 5% less of the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ being 0.033in, 5% more of the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ being 0.078in, 5% more of the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ being 22.125 degrees. Therefore, it is evident that the values for the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’, and all either equal to or within 5% of the corresponding values for the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’; which results in the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11 being within 5% of the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) (see also Col. 3, line 60 - Col. 9, line 5 and Col. 9, line 63 - Col. 10, line 29).
In regards to claim 4, Cathey teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cathey further teach (Figures 1-3), the belt (endless belt 10) being a toothed belt (as clearly illustrated in figures 1 and 2) and the wheel (driving pulley 11) is a toothed wheel (as clearly illustrated in figures 1 and 3).
In regards to claim 5, Cathey teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cathey further teach (Figures 1-3), the belt system (combine structure of the endless belt 10, the driving pulley 11, and the driven pulley 12) additionally comprising a second wheel (driven pulley 12) having a fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driven pulley 12; which is defined by the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length ‘27p’, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’), and a pitch (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent pulley teeth of the driven pulley 12) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’); wherein, the fit of the second wheel (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driven pulley 12) is within 5% of the fit of the belt (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) (Col. 5, line 25-33 and Col. 10, line 12 disclose, the belt tooth width ‘W’ = 0.205in, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ = 0.174in, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ = 0.035in, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’ = 0.038in, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ = 0.074in, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ = 21.5 degrees, and the belt tooth height ‘H’ = 0.60W = 0.60 X 0.205 = 0.123in; while Col. 8, line 13-20 and Col. 10, line 25-26 disclose, the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’ = 0.209in, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’= 0.169in, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’ = 0.033in, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’ = 0.038in, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p = 0.080in, the pressure angle ‘αp’ = 22 degrees, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’= 0.59W = 0.59 X 0.209 = 0.123in. Furthermore, a simple calculation can be used to determine: 5% more of the belt tooth width ‘W’ being 0.215in, 5% less of the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ being be 0.165in, 5% less of the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ being 0.033in, 5% more of the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ being 0.078in, 5% more of the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ being 22.125 degrees. Therefore, it is evident that the values for the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’, and all either equal to or within 5% of the corresponding values for the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’; which results in the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driven pulley 12 being within 5% of the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10).
In regards to claim 6, Cathey teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cathey further teach (Figures 1-3), the belt (endless belt 10) being a toothed belt (as clearly illustrated in figures 1 and 2), the wheel (driving pulley 11) being a toothed wheel (as clearly illustrated in figures 1 and 3), and the second wheel (driven pulley 12) being a toothed second wheel (as clearly illustrated in figures 1 and 3).
In regards to claim 7, Cathey teach (Figures 1-3) a belt system (combine structure of the endless belt 10, the driving pulley 11, and the driven pulley 12) comprising: a flexible endless toothed belt (endless belt 10) having a belt fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10; which is defined by the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length ‘EF’, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’), and a belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’, which coincide with the line extending along the pulley land line ‘Lp’ as illustrated in figure 6); a toothed driver wheel (driving pulley 11) having a driver wheel fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11; which is defined by the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length ‘27p’, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’), and a driver wheel pitch (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent pulley teeth of the driving pulley 11) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) depended on an outer diameter of the toothed driver wheel (outer diameter of the driving pulley 11, which can be defined by the pulley land line ‘Lp’); a toothed driven wheel (driven pulley 12) having a driven wheel fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driven pulley 12; which is defined by the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length ‘27p’, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’), and a driven wheel pitch (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent pulley teeth of the driven pulley 12) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) dependent on an outer diameter of the toothed driven wheel (outer diameter of the driven pulley 12, which can be defined by the pulley land line ‘Lp’); wherein, the driver wheel fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11) is within 5% of the belt fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) (Col. 5, line 25-33 and Col. 10, line 12 disclose, the belt tooth width ‘W’ = 0.205in, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ = 0.174in, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ = 0.035in, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’ = 0.038in, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ = 0.074in, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ = 21.5 degrees, and the belt tooth height ‘H’ = 0.60W = 0.60 X 0.205 = 0.123in; while Col. 8, line 13-20 and Col. 10, line 25-26 disclose, the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’ = 0.209in, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’= 0.169in, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’ = 0.033in, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’ = 0.038in, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p = 0.080in, the pressure angle ‘αp’ = 22 degrees, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’= 0.59W = 0.59 X 0.209 = 0.123in. Furthermore, a simple calculation can be used to determine: 5% more of the belt tooth width ‘W’ being 0.215in, 5% less of the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ being be 0.165in, 5% less of the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ being 0.033in, 5% more of the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ being 0.078in, 5% more of the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ being 22.125 degrees. Therefore, it is evident that the values for the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’, and all either equal to or within 5% of the corresponding values for the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’; which results in the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11 being within 5% of the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) (see also Col. 3, line 60 - Col. 9, line 5 and Col. 9, line 63 - Col. 10, line 29).
In regards to claim 8, Cathey teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cathey further teach (Figures 1-3), the driven wheel fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driven pulley 12) being within 5% of the belt fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) (Col. 5, line 25-33 and Col. 10, line 12 disclose, the belt tooth width ‘W’ = 0.205in, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ = 0.174in, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ = 0.035in, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’ = 0.038in, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ = 0.074in, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ = 21.5 degrees, and the belt tooth height ‘H’ = 0.60W = 0.60 X 0.205 = 0.123in; while Col. 8, line 13-20 and Col. 10, line 25-26 disclose, the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’ = 0.209in, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’= 0.169in, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’ = 0.033in, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’ = 0.038in, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p = 0.080in, the pressure angle ‘αp’ = 22 degrees, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’= 0.59W = 0.59 X 0.209 = 0.123in. Furthermore, a simple calculation can be used to determine: 5% more of the belt tooth width ‘W’ being 0.215in, 5% less of the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ being be 0.165in, 5% less of the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ being 0.033in, 5% more of the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ being 0.078in, 5% more of the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ being 22.125 degrees. Therefore, it is evident that the values for the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’, and all either equal to or within 5% of the corresponding values for the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’; which results in the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driven pulley 12 being within 5% of the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10).
In regards to claim 9, Cathey teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cathey further teach (Figures 1-3), upon meshing the toothed belt (endless belt 10) and the toothed driver wheel (driving pulley 11), a load between meshed teeth of the toothed belt (belt teeth 13 of the endless belt 10) and teeth of the toothed driver wheel (pulley teeth of the driving pulley 11) being equally distributed across the meshed teeth of the toothed belt (belt teeth 13 of the endless belt 10) and the teeth of the driver wheel (pulley teeth of the driving pulley 11) (because the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11 are within 5% of the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10, and because the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each belt cavity of the endless belt 10 are within 5% of the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley tooth of the driving pulley 11, the load or forces produced between the belt teeth 13 of the endless belt 10 and the teeth of the pulley teeth of the driving pulley 11 would inherently be evenly distributed across the meshed teeth of the endless belt 10 and the driving pulley 11).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okabe et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2023/0128744 A1 hereinafter referred to as “Okabe”).
In regards to claim 1, Okabe teach (Figures 1-6) a belt system (toothed belt power-transmission apparatus 21) comprising: a flexible endless belt (toothed belt 3) having a belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3), a fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3), and a pitch (tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3); a wheel (driving pulley 22) having a fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3), and a pitch (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3); wherein, the fit of the wheel (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) is within 5% of the pitch of the belt (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0052 disclose, the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22 substantially coinciding with each other, as long as the difference therebetween is within a range of -5% to +5%) (see also paragraphs 0029-0176).
In regards to claim 2, Okabe teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Okabe further teach (Figures 1-6), the pitch of the belt (tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) being less than the pitch of the wheel (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0096, 0101-0102, 0163, 0171, and 0173-0175 disclose, the tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3 can be -0.4% of the tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22, it can be -0.2% of said tooth pitch ‘PP’, or it can be -0.1% of said tooth pitch ‘PP’).
In regards to claim 3, Okabe teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Okabe further teach (Figures 1-6), the pitch of the belt (tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) being greater than the pitch of the wheel (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0096, 0101-0102, 0163, 0171, and 0173-0175 disclose, the tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3 can be +0.1% of the tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22, or it can be +0.1% of said tooth pitch ‘PP’).
In regards to claim 4, Okabe teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Okabe further teach (Figures 1-6), the belt (toothed belt 3) being a toothed belt, and the wheel (driving pulley 22) being a toothed wheel (figures 1-3 and 5 clearly illustrates, the toothed belt 3 including the tooth portions 7, while the driving pulley 22 including the driving pulley teeth 221) (see also paragraphs 0030, 0032, 0034, 0036, 0038, 0050-0051, 0059-0064, 0068, 0073-0075, 0078, 0080-0081, 0086, 0092-0095, and 0101).
In regards to claims 5-6, Okabe teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Okabe further teach (Figures 1-6), the belt system (toothed belt power-transmission apparatus 21) additionally comprising a second wheel (driven pulley 23) having a fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3), and a pitch (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driven pulley 23) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3); and the fit of the second wheel (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) being within 5% of the fit of the belt (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0034 disclose, pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23 coinciding with each other; while paragraphs 0052 disclose, the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22 substantially coinciding with each other, as long as the difference therebetween is within a range of -5% to +5%; therefore, it is apparent that the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23 also substantially coinciding with each other, where the difference therebetween is also within a range of -5% to +5%); wherein, the belt (toothed belt 3) is a toothed belt, the wheel (driving pulley 22) is a toothed wheel, and the second wheel (driven pulley 23) is a toothed second wheel (figures 1-3 and 5 clearly illustrates, the toothed belt 3 including the tooth portions 7, the driving pulley 22 including the driving pulley teeth 221, and the driven pulley 23 including the driven pulley teeth 231; see also paragraphs 0030, 0032, 0034, 0036, 0038, 0050-0051, 0059-0064, 0068, 0073-0075, 0078, 0080-0081, 0086, 0092-0095, and 0101).
In regards to claim 7, Okabe teach (Figures 1-6) a belt system (toothed belt power-transmission apparatus 21) comprising: a flexible endless belt (toothed belt 3) having a belt fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3), and a belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3); a toothed driver wheel (driving pulley 22) having a driver wheel fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22), and a driver wheel pitch (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) that is dependent on an outer diameter of the toothed driver wheel (outer diameter ‘OD’ of the driving pulley 22); a toothed driven wheel (driven pulley 23) having a driven wheel fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23), and a driven wheel pitch (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driven pulley 23) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) that is dependent on an outer diameter of the toothed driven wheel (outer diameter ‘OD’ of the driven pulley 23); wherein, the driver wheel fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) is within 5% of the belt fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0052 disclose, the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22 substantially coinciding with each other, as long as the difference therebetween is within a range of -5% to +5%) (see also paragraphs 0029-0176).
In regards to claim 8, Okabe teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Okabe further teach (Figures 1-6), the driven wheel fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) being within 5% of the belt fit (pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0034 disclose, pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23 coinciding with each other; while paragraphs 0052 disclose, the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driving pulley 22 substantially coinciding with each other, as long as the difference therebetween is within a range of -5% to +5%; therefore, it is apparent that the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the toothed belt 3 and the pitch line distance ‘PLD’ of the driven pulley 23 would also substantially coinciding with each other, and the difference therebetween would also be within a range of -5% to +5%); wherein, the belt (toothed belt 3).
In regards to claim 9, Okabe teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Okabe further teach (Figures 1-6), upon meshing the toothed belt (toothed belt 3) and the toothed driver wheel (driving pulley 22), a load between meshed teeth of the toothed belt (tooth portions 7 of the toothed belt 3) and meshed teeth of the toothed driver wheel (driving pulley teeth 221 of the driving pulley 22) being equally distributed across the meshed teeth of the toothed belt (tooth portions 7 of the toothed belt 3) and the meshed teeth of the toothed driver wheel (driving pulley teeth 221 of the driving pulley 22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey in view of Okabe.
In regards to claims 2-3, Cathey teach all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Ye, Cathey does not explicitly disclose, the pitch of the belt (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent belt teeth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) being less than the pitch of the wheel (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent pulley teeth of the driving pulley 11) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’), or the pitch of the belt (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent belt teeth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) being greater than the pitch of the wheel (distance between the center lines X-X of two adjacent pulley teeth of the driving pulley 11) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’).
However, Okabe does teach (Figures 1-6) a belt system (toothed belt power-transmission apparatus 21) comprising: a flexible endless belt (toothed belt 3) having a belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) and a pitch (tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3); a wheel (driving pulley 22) having a pitch (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3); wherein the pitch of the belt (tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) is less than the pitch of the wheel (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0096, 0101-0102, 0163, 0171, and 0173-0175 disclose, the tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3 can be -0.4% of the tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22, it can be -0.2% of said tooth pitch ‘PP’, or it can be -0.1% of said tooth pitch ‘PP’), or the pitch of the belt (tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) is greater than the pitch of the wheel (tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22) at the belt pitch line (pitch line ‘PL’ of the toothed belt 3) (paragraphs 0096, 0101-0102, 0163, 0171, and 0173-0175 disclose, the tooth pitch ‘BP’ of the toothed belt 3 can be +0.1% of the tooth pitch ‘PP’ of the driving pulley 22, or it can be +0.1% of said tooth pitch ‘PP’) (see also paragraphs 0029-0176).
Accordingly, based on the suggestions in Okabe reference, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pitch of the belt of Cathey’s belt system and the pitch of the pulley of said belt system, in any preferable manner (to include, setting the pitch of the belt to be slightly less than the pitch of the wheel, or setting the pitch of the belt to be slightly greater than the pitch of the wheel) so as to obtain improved wrap, fit, and/or meshing of the belt around the wheel. Determining the ideal pitch of the belt and the ideal pitch of the wheel, based on desirable performance characteristics of the belt system and based on preferred structural/physical characteristics of the belt and the wheel (e.g. dimensions of the belt/wheel teeth, number of belt teeth, dimensions of the belt/wheel cavities, flexibility of the belt, elasticity of the belt, frictional properties of the belt, dimensions of the belt width, number of wheel teeth, width of the wheel, outer diameter of the wheel, frictional properties of the wheel, or other physical features that are typically considered in the art), is a known process that is widely performed in the art with the use of routine/identified experimental techniques (e.g. computerized modeling, finite element analysis, or other similar testing procedures). In addition, one or ordinary skill in the art with basic understating of belt system development and design would had the necessary knowledge to recognize, that following improvements can be achieved by setting the belt pitch to be slightly less than or greater than the pitch of the wheel: complete/full engagement of the belt teeth with the wheel cavities/grooves, complete/full engagement of the wheel teeth with the belt cavities/groves, reduced backlash between the belt teeth and the wheel cavities/grooves, reduced backlash between the wheel teeth with the belt cavities/grooves, and increase torque transfer efficiency within the belt system due to better messing between teeth/cavities of the belt and the wheel. Thus, changing the belt pitch and the wheel pitch in Cathey’s belt system in an appropriate manner based on testing data acquired during the development of the belt system, will result in the said belt system having optimal performance and desirable operation efficiency.
Claims 10-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey.
In regards to claim 10, Cathey teach (Figures 1-3) a method of optimizing a belt system (combine structure of the endless belt 10, the driving pulley 11, and the driven pulley 12) having a toothed belt (endless belt 10) and a toothed wheel (driving pulley 11), the method comprising: determining a fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10; which is defined by the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length ‘EF’, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’) of the toothed belt (endless belt 10); determining a desired fit (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11; which is defined by the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length ‘27p’, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’) of the toothed wheel (driving pulley 11); and setting the fit of the toothed wheel (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11) to be within 5% of the fit of the toothed belt (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) at the belt pitch line (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’) (Col. 5, line 25-33 and Col. 10, line 12 disclose, the belt tooth width ‘W’ = 0.205in, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ = 0.174in, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ = 0.035in, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’ = 0.038in, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ = 0.074in, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ = 21.5 degrees, and the belt tooth height ‘H’ = 0.60W = 0.60 X 0.205 = 0.123in; while Col. 8, line 13-20 and Col. 10, line 25-26 disclose, the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’ = 0.209in, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’= 0.169in, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’ = 0.033in, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’ = 0.038in, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p = 0.080in, the pressure angle ‘αp’ = 22 degrees, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’= 0.59W = 0.59 X 0.209 = 0.123in. Furthermore, a simple calculation can be used to determine: 5% more of the belt tooth width ‘W’ being 0.215in, 5% less of the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’ being be 0.165in, 5% less of the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’ being 0.033in, 5% more of the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF’ being 0.078in, 5% more of the tooth pressure angle ‘α’ being 22.125 degrees. Therefore, it is evident that the values for the pulley cavity width ‘Wp’, the cavity flank radii ‘R1p/R2p’, the cavity tip radii ‘R5p/R6p’, the cavity bottom radii ‘R3p/R4p’, the cavity bottom connecting line length 27p, the pressure angle ‘αp’, and the pulley cavity depth ‘Hp’, and all either equal to or within 5% of the corresponding values for the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length 27/‘EF, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’; which results in the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11 being within 5% of the overall meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10) (see also Col. 3, line 60 - Col. 9, line 5 and Col. 9, line 63 - Col. 10, line 29). Yet, Cathey does not teach, an outer diameter of the toothed wheel (outer diameter of the driving pulley 11, which can be defined by the pulley land line ‘Lp’) being modified in order to obtain the desired fit of the toothed wheel (meshing profile/dimensions of each pulley cavity 13p of the driving pulley 11).
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the fit of the toothed wheel in Cathey’s belt system by adjusting/modifying any physical characteristics of said toothed wheel, such as the outer diameter of the toothed wheel. Determination and consideration of the structural features/physical characteristics of toothed wheels and toothed belts employed in belt systems, via known development techniques (e.g. computerized modeling, finite element analysis, or other similar experimental/testing procedures), that would yield optimal belt system operational performance is a routine process that is widely performed in the art when a belt system is being designed. Furthermore, the outer diameter of the toothed wheel is widely known to inherently effect other key dimensional, structural, and functional properties of the toothed wheel that impact its engagement with the toothed belt; for example, changing the outer diameter of the toothed wheel would result in the pitch of the toothed wheel being altered, the dimensions of the teeth on the toothed wheel being altered, the dimensions of the belt teeth engagement grooves/cavities on the toothed wheel being altered, the pitch line deferential of the toothed wheel being altered, and the meshing/wrapping/fit between the toothed wheel and the toothed belt being altered. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to optimize the overall meshing, wrapping, and/or fit between the toothed wheel and the toothed belt in the belt system taught by Cathey, would have conceived to modify the outer diameter of the toothed wheel by an ideal amount, based on the testing data acquired during development process of the belt system, that indicates the superior outer diameter for the toothed wheel which yields the preferred performance and efficiency of said belt system.
In regards to claims 11-12 and 14-16, Cathey render obvious all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Although, the modification of the outer diameter of the toothed wheel by increasing or decreasing the sized of said outer diameter is not discussed by Cathey, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either increase or decrease the outer diameter of the toothed wheel in Cathey’s belt system to provide the toothed wheel and the belt system achieve with desirable structural and performance characteristics, as set forth above in the claim 10 rejection statement. Furthermore, choosing to increase or decrease the outer diameter of the toothed wheel in order to modify said outer diameter by a preferred amount, is a finite number of identified and predictable solutions that would result in a reasonable expectation of success; in fact, the only possible ways to modify the outer diameter of the toothed wheel is to, either increase or decrease said outer diameter. In addition, it would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the outer diameter of the toothed wheel via a known wheel diameter increasing means selected from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, and to decrease the outer diameter of the toothed wheel via a known wheel diameter decreasing means selected from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; where said wheel diameter increasing means involves adding a required/necessary amount of material to the outer portion of the toothed wheel, such as by applying a coating onto the outer surface of the toothed wheel; while said wheel diameter decreasing means involves removing preferred/required/necessary amount of material from the outer portion of the toothed wheel through a known machining technique. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to improve and/or modify the outer diameter of the toothed wheel in Cathey’s belt system so as to optimizes said belt system performance, would have recognized that the only possible method to increase the outer diameter of the toothed wheel is to apply more material or a coating onto the outer area of said toothed wheel, and that the only possible method to decrease the outer diameter of the toothed wheel is to remove the material forming the outer areas of said toothed wheel. Consequently, increasing or decreasing overall size of the outer diameter of the toothed wheel in the belt system taught by Cathey using a known technique, would have been easily conceived by a person knowledgeable in the art.
In regards to claim 17, Cathey render obvious all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Although, the modification of the outer diameter of the toothed wheel by modifying the surface properties of the toothed wheel at the outer diameter, is not explicitly discussed in Cathey reference, it would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the surface properties at the outer diameter of the toothed wheel in Cathey’s belt system, in any appropriate manner that would yield desired structural and performance characteristics of the toothed wheel and the belt system. As set forth above in the claim 10 rejection statement, the features/structure of the toothed wheel can be modified based on ideal structural characteristics for the toothed wheel determined though known development techniques (e.g. computerized modeling, finite element analysis, or other similar experimental/testing procedures) performed during the design/development phase of the belt system. Accordingly, determined and providing the outer diameter of the toothed wheel with beneficial surface properties (e.g. number of teeth, number of grooves/cavities, coefficient of friction, roughness, abrasion resistance, etc.), would also be advantageous in improving the fit of the toothed wheel with the toothed belt, in optimizing the belt engagement/meshing characteristics of the toothed wheel, in increasing the torque transfer capability of the toothed wheel, and in improving the overall performance/operational efficiency of the belt system.
In regards to claim 18, Cathey render obvious all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Cathey further teach (Figures 1-3), determining the fit of the toothed belt (meshing profile/dimensions of each belt tooth 13 of the endless belt 10; which is defined by the belt tooth width ‘W’, the tooth flank radii ‘R1/R2’, the tooth root radii ‘R5/R6’, the tooth tip radii ‘R3/R4’, the tooth tip land length ‘EF’, the tooth pressure angle ‘α’, and the belt tooth height ‘H’) comprising determining a belt pitch line location (line extending along the belt land line ‘L’).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey in view of Takemura et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2002/0028033 A1 hereinafter referred to as “Takemura”).
In regards to claim 13, Cathey can render obvious all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Yet, Cathey alone does not teach, the coating applied to the wheel (driving pulley 11) having a thickness of at least 10 micrometers.
However, Takemura teach (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0014-0025) a method of optimizing a belt system (rolling bearing 1, iron pulley 2, belt 2, and rotary shaft 4) having a toothed belt (belt 3) and a toothed wheel (iron pulley 2), the method comprising: modifying an outer diameter of the toothed wheel (iron pulley 2) by applying a coating (insulative coating film 9, which is a electrodeposition coating with an insulative resin, such as amino-alkyd resin, epoxy resin, acrylic resin, or vinyl chloride resin) onto the toothed wheel (outer surface 2E of the iron pulley 2), in order to increase the outer diameter of the toothed wheel (iron pulley 2); wherein said coating (insulative coating film 9) has a thickness of at least 10 micrometers (as disclosed in paragraph 0015 and Table 1A).
Consequently, using the suggestions in Takemura, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the outer dimeter of the toothed wheel in Cathey’s belt system by applying a coating that has a thickness of at least 10 micrometers, onto the outer surface of said toothed wheel. Modifying the toothed wheel in such a manner (i.e. by providing the outer surface of said toothed wheel with a coating having a thickness of at least 10 micrometers), would facilitate proper engagement between the teeth of the toothed wheel and the teeth of the toothed belt, it would inherently reduce the wear on the outer engagement surfaces of both the toothed wheel and the toothed belt, and it would also lower the static electricity generated by the friction between the toothed belt and the toothed wheel (e.g. as disclosed in Takemura reference); thereby improving the overall structure, lifespan, performance, and operative functionality of said toothed belt, said toothed wheel, and the belt system taught by Cathey.
Claim 13 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey in view of Oh et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0303320 A1 hereinafter referred to as “Oh”).
In regards to claim 10, Cathey can render obvious all intervening claim limitations as shown above. Yet, Cathey alone does not teach, the coating applied to the wheel (driving pulley 11) having a thickness of at least 10 micrometers.
However, Oh teach (Figures 3-10 and Paragraphs 0049-0105) a method of optimizing a toothed wheel (pulley 100), the method comprising: modifying an outer diameter of the toothed wheel (pulley 10) by applying a coating (first coating layer 130/second coating layer 140) onto the toothed wheel (pulley 100), in order to increase the outer diameter of the toothed wheel (pulley 100); wherein said coating (first coating layer 130/second coating layer 140) has a thickness of at least 10 micrometers (as disclosed in paragraphs 0028 and 0100-0101, the first coating layer 130 and the second coating layer 140 formed through the surface treatment of the pulley 100, respectively have a coating thickness within a range of 5 micrometers to 40 micrometers, which include a coating thickness of 10 micrometers) (see also paragraphs 0040-0041, 0056-0062, and 0092-0101).
Therefore, using the suggestions in Ho, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the outer dimeter of the toothed wheel in Cathey’s belt system by applying a coating that has a thickness of at least 10 micrometers, onto the outer surface of said toothed wheel. Modifying the toothed wheel in such a manner (i.e. by providing the outer surface of said toothed wheel with a coating having a thickness of at least 10 micrometers) would increase the overall hardness of the outer/toothed surface of the toothed wheel, while also enhancing the abrasion and corrosion resistance of the toothed wheel (see also paragraphs 0040-0041, 0059, 0061, 0093, 0097-0098, and 0101 in Ho reference); thereby improving the overall structure, lifespan, performance, and operative functionality of said toothed wheel and the belt system taught by Cathey.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See the attached PTO-892 for complete list of pertinent prior art references made of record by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEEN J DIAS whose telephone number is (571) 272-2195. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00AM - 4:30PM, Alternate Fridays.
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, VICTORIA P AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights