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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 4, line 9 has the word’ “contract”. It appears from the text the word may be a misspelling of the word, “contact”.
Appropriate correction 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)(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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6129205 to Ergenbright et al., hereinafter referred to simply as, “Ergenbright”.
With respect to claim 1, Ergenbright discloses a conveyor belt (see title) comprising:
a plurality of belt rows extending in width from a first outer side to a second outer side and in a conveying direction from a first end to a second end, each belt row (see numeral 1 in Fig. 1 and col. 7, line 1) including:
a first tension link at the first outer side and having a first rod hole at the first end
and a second rod hole at the second end;
a second tension link at the second outer side and having a first rod hole
at the first end and a second rod hole at the second end;
a plurality of hinge rods (see annotated Fig. 4, below);
a wire mesh extending around the hinge rods at the first and second ends of each belt row between the first and second tension links in the form of a spiral having a first transverse pitch in spaced-apart first regions across the width of each belt row and a different second transverse pitch in one or more second regions each between two of the first regions across the width of the belt row (see annotated Fig. 4, below):
PNG
media_image1.png
303
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first rod holes of the first and second tension links of each belt row are aligned with the second rod holes of the first and second tension links of an adjacent belt row and wherein the hinge rods extend through the aligned first and second rod holes and the wire mesh at the first and second ends of the adjacent belt rows to join the belt rows together at hinge joints between adjacent belt rows (see annotated Fig. 4, below):
PNG
media_image2.png
216
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Ergenbright discloses wherein the first transverse pitch is greater than the second transverse pitch (see annotated Fig. 4 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
303
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Ergenbright discloses wherein at least some of the first regions are adjacent the first and second tension links (see annotated Fig. 4 above where the tension links 25 are adjacent to both regions):
With respect to claim 4, Ergenbright discloses wherein the first regions are wider than the second regions (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
PNG
media_image3.png
304
1072
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5, Ergenbright discloses wherein the number of first regions in each belt row exceeds the number of second regions by one. This is a design function based on the needs of the individual conveyor.)
With respect to claim 6, Ergenbright discloses wherein the first regions of all the belt rows are aligned in the conveying direction and the second regions of all the belt rows are aligned in the conveying direction (see Fig. 4 pictured below).
PNG
media_image4.png
214
789
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Ergenbright discloses wherein the spiral has a stadium shape in an axial view (see Fig. 12b with “stadium” defined by applicant as an oval shape).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8, 10,11, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6129205 to Ergenbright et al.
With respect to claim 8, Ergenbright discloses a conveyor (see numeral 21 in Fig. 1 and col. 8, line 43) comprising:
extending in length in a conveying direction and in width from a first side to a second side;
one or more extending along the length between the first and second sides;
a conveyor belt (21) supported, the conveyor belt including:
a series of belt rows hingedly joined end to end at hinge joints by hinge rods;
a wire mesh extending around the hinge rods of each belt row in the form of a spiral having a first transverse pitch in spaced-apart first regions across the width of
each belt row and a smaller second transverse pitch in one or more second
regions across the width of the belt row (see annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
572
1669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more second regions of each belt row contact.
Ergenbright does not disclose a carryway or one or more wearstrips extending along the carryway between the first and second sides or more than one wearstrip. The Examiner takes official notice that wearstrips and carryways are known in the art because conveyors must exist supported in some form by carryways and it is known to use guides, or wearstrips, in association with conveyors. The application does not define either the wearstrip nor the carryway. Based on the context of the application the carryway could be a support for the conveyor and the wearstrip could be a type of guide, both of which are known in the art. In the context of the application, applicant’s wearstrip is described in terms of location and alignment, but there are no physical limitations that separate it from other things well known in the art.
With respect to claim 10, Ergenbright discloses all the claimed matter but does not disclose wherein the width of the second regions is slightly greater than the width of the wearstrips. This is a design choice based on obtaining the lowest frictional coefficient for the operation of the conveyor. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claim 11, Ergenbright discloses wherein the conveyor belt has outer sides and tension links at the outer sides of each belt row, see annotated Fig. 5 below:
PNG
media_image6.png
353
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, Ergenbright discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the first regions are wider than the second regions.
This is a design choice base on the exigencies of the current application, some of which include the items conveyed, the size of the conveyor, the actual physical conveyance considerations like number of turns, speed, the use of guides or other flow adjustments in the conveyance direction of the conveyor, etc. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claim 14, Ergenbright discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein the number of first regions in each belt row exceeds the number of second regions by one.
This is a design choice base on the exigencies of the current application, some of which include the items conveyed, the size of the conveyor, the actual physical conveyance considerations like number of turns, speed, the use of guides or other flow adjustments in the conveyance direction of the conveyor, etc. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claim 15, Ergenbright discloses all the claim language but not yet discussed is wherein the spiral exhibits a stadium shape in an axial view.
Ergenbright discloses wherein the spiral has a stadium shape in an axial view (see Fig. 12b with “stadium” defined by applicant as an oval shape).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ergenbright as set out above in view of U.S. Pat. No. 10,017,326 to Puskar.
With respect to claim 9, Ergenbright discloses all the claimed matter but does not disclose wherein the first regions do not contact the wearstrips.
Puskar teaches wherein the first regions do not contact the wearstrips (see col. 3, lines 27-28 wherein contact in any region is optional). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it is a function of the most efficient way to protect the conveyor.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ergenbright in view of U.S. Pat. No. 4643129 to Sari.
With respect to claim 12, Ergenbright discloses all the claim language but does not disclose wherein each belt row has first regions adjacent the tension links.
Sari teaches wherein each belt row (see col. 3, lines 15-16) has first regions (see numeral col. 3, lines 11-19) against the tension links (“first loops adjacent the tension links”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the disclosure of Ergenbright with the teachings of Sari because both concern tension links and mesh belts and have to do with relieving stress on a belt during the conveying process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER RUSHIN, III whose telephone number is (313)446-4905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4p CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at 571-272-6911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LESTER RUSHIN, III/
Examiner
Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights