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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOKOYAMA (JP 2022-085864 A) in view of TSUJI (JP 2020-051617 A) and TAKAMI (4,773,895).
Regarding Claim 1, YOKOYAMA teaches A joined V-belt comprising: a plurality of wrapped V-belt portions (V); and a tie band (1)(3), wherein outer peripheral surfaces of the wrapped V-belt portions are connected by the tie band, each of the wrapped V-belt portions comprises a belt body and a cover fabric (8) covering an outer surface of the belt body, the belt body comprises a tension member layer (6) comprising a tension member (5), a tension rubber layer (4) laminated on a belt outer peripheral side of the tension member layer (6), and a compression rubber layer (7) laminated on a belt inner peripheral side of the tension member layer (6),
YOKOYAMA does not teach the tie band comprises a short fiber-containing rubber layer in which a short fiber is oriented in a belt width direction, and the short fiber-containing rubber layer comprises a plurality of rib portions extending in a belt longitudinal direction.
TSUJI teaches the tie band (102) comprises a short fiber-containing rubber layer (102a) in which a short fiber is oriented in a belt width direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the belt in YOKOYAMA to have the short fiber rubber layer in TSUJI to increase the stiffness of the belt in the width direction.
TAKAMI teaches the tie band rubber layer (13) comprises a plurality of rib portions (16) extending in a belt longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the belt in YOKOYAMA as modified to have the rib portions in TAKAMI to increase the friction between the back of the belt and a pulley.
Regarding Claim 2, YOKOYAMA as modified teaches wherein an arrangement pitch of the rib portions (TAKAMI 16) is smaller than an arrangement pitch of the wrapped V-belt portions (TAKAMI 14).
Regarding Claim 3, YOKOYAMA as modified teaches wherein an arrangement pitch of the rib portions (TAKAMI 16) is larger than a width of a gap between adjacent wrapped V-belt portions (TAKAMI 14).
Regarding Claim 4, YOKOYAMA as modified teaches wherein the tie band comprises the short fiber-containing rubber layer and a fabric layer, and the fabric layer comprises a fibrous structure laminated on an inner peripheral surface of the short fiber-containing rubber layer [0047]-[0060].
Regarding Claim 5, YOKOYAMA as modified teaches wherein the fibrous structure is a cord fabric comprising a plurality of first threads extending in a belt width direction and a plurality of second threads extending in a direction intersecting the belt width direction, and an arrangement density of the second threads is lower than an arrangement density of the first threads [0047]-[0060].
Regarding Claim 6, YOKOYAMA as modified teaches wherein a center of a top portion of the rib portions (TAKAMI 16) is located at a gap between adjacent wrapped V-belt portions (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, YOKOYAMA as modified teaches wherein a thickness of the tie band (TAKAMI 13)(Fig. 2) is 0.3 to 0.7 times a thickness of the wrapped V-belt portions.
Regarding Claim 8, YOKOYAMA as modified teaches the method comprising: connecting a plurality of wrapped V-belt portion precursors by a tie band precursor; crosslinking and molding the connected wrapped V-belt portion precursors and tie band precursor by heating and pressurizing to obtain a crosslinked molded body; and forming rib portions on an outer peripheral side of the crosslinked molded body [0203][0206](TAKAMI Col. 3 lines 5-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the purposes of YOKOYAMA and TSUJI are different (Remarks pg. 4 para. 7). It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the two belts are both in the same field of transmission belts.
Applicant argues that the structure of the joined belt of TSUJI is substantially different from that of YOKOYAMA, in which the tie band contacts V-belt portions having outer surfaces covered with the cover fabric (Remarks pg. 4 para. 7). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the belt in YOKOYAMA to have the short fiber rubber layer in TSUJI to increase the stiffness of the belt in the width direction. Increased stiffness so there isn’t excessive flexing causing heat build up or compression. In addition, the added short fibers would improve fatigue life and wear resistance.
Applicant argues that the tie band in YOKOYAMA includes a fibrous structure, and thus there would be no reason to modify YOKOYAMA to include short fibers as in TSUJI (Remarks pg. 5 para. 1). The short fibers in TSUJI could be added to the rubber tie band in YOKOHAMA to increase stiffness in the bending direction as well as improve the fatigue life and wear resistance of the belt.
Applicant argues that YOKOYAMA discloses an embodiment where the protective layer may be a rubber sheet (Remarks pg. 5 para. 2). Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the rubber tie band in YOKOYAMA to have the short fiber rubber layer in TSUJI to increase the stiffness of the belt in the width direction for a given application. Increased stiffness so there isn’t excessive flexing causing heat build-up or compression. In addition, the added short fibers would improve fatigue life and wear resistance.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not form rib portions on the tie band since it would reduce side pressure resistance and cause buckling (Remarks pg. 5 para. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the belt in YOKOYAMA as modified to have the rib portions in TAKAMI to increase the friction between the back of the belt and a pulley. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the belt in YOKOYAMA to have the short fiber rubber layer in TSUJI to increase the stiffness of the belt in the width direction to resist buckling.
Applicant argues that where YOKOYAMA contemplates that the protective layer is formed of a fabric, it would have been difficult to form rib portions therein as in a rubber sheet (Remarks pg. 5 para. 3). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the rubber tie band in YOKOYAMA to have the short fiber rubber layer in TSUJI to increase the stiffness of the belt in the width direction for a given application. Increased stiffness so there isn’t excessive flexing causing heat build-up or compression. In addition, the added short fibers would improve fatigue life and wear resistance.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach a rib portions formed after crosslinking (Remarks pg. 6 para. 1). Claim 8 does not claim only forming rib portions after crosslinking. A reasonable interpretation of the claim includes the case where the ribs are formed, before during or after the crosslinking of the molded body since it only requires “forming rib portions.” TAKAMI teaches the forming of ribbed portions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY Y LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-7018. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 ET.
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, MICHAEL MANSEN can be reached at 5712726608. 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.
HENRY Y. LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/HENRY Y LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights