DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 6-12 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 6, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 7-12 are included in this rejection based on their ultimate dependency from claim 6.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0071282 (hereinafter “Zapf”).Regarding claim 1 Zapf teaches a supporting belt (drive belt) for an elevator installation (abstract). Zapf teaches the supporting belt (drive belt) is a supporting means 1 that includes load-bearing elements (first conducting element formed by a plurality of tensile members) 3 of metal wires surrounded by (embedded in) a casing 5 of polymeric material (paragraphs [0001], [0089] and [0090], and Figures 1-4). Zapf teaches the load-bearing elements (first conducting element) 3 is electrically connected to a sensor 7 via a protrusion 23 (paragraph [0094]), which corresponds to the first conducting element is for transmitting electrical energy. Zapf teaches the load-bearing elements (first conducting element) 3 extend in a longitudinal direction 9 of the supporting means (drive belt) 1 and are arranged in parallel to one another (paragraph [0089] and Figures 1-4). Zapf teaches the sensor 7 and protrusion 23 (at least one second conducting element) from the supporting means (drive belt) 1 transmits data (paragraphs [0094] and [0099]). Zapf teaches the sensor 7 is mechanically and electrically or thermally connected to the load-bearing elements (first conducting element) 3 via the protrusions 23 (paragraph [0094]), where the interface between: (i) the sensor 7 and protrusions 23; or (ii) the protrusions 23 and load-bearing elements (first conducting element) 3 corresponds to the second conducting element having a substrate with conductor tracks printed thereon.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Zapf teaches a front surface 19 of the supporting means (drive belt) 1 may be textured (toothed belt, V-belt or V-ribbed belt) or smooth (flat belt) (paragraph [0091] and Figures 2-4).Regarding claim 3 In addition, Zapf teaches the supporting means (drive belt) 1 includes an end fastened to an elevator car 102 or wound around a pulley fastened to said elevator car, and an opposite end fastened to a ceiling or holding a counter weight (paragraphs [0076] – [0077] and Figure 1), which corresponds to the drive belt is a non-closed drive belt having a predetermined length and two ends.Regarding claim 4 In addition, Zapf teaches multiple sensors 7 made be attached to the rear surface (substrate) 21 of the casing 5, where said casing 5 consists of the polymeric material (of the drive belt) (paragraphs [0090] and [0093]).Regarding claim 5 In addition, Zapf teaches the rear surface (substrate) 21 of the casing 5 and the interface between: (i) the sensor 7 and protrusions 23; and/or (ii) the protrusions 23 and load-bearing elements (first conducting element) 3 (conductor tracks) are embedded in the casing 5 which consists of the polymeric material (embedded in the polymer material of the drive belt) (Figure 2 and paragraph [0093]).Regarding claim 13 Claim 13 recites the intended use for the drive belt, i.e. the drive belt is in a linear drive as in claim 13. According to MPEP § 2111.02, intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the structure of the drive belt of Zapf is capable of performing the intended use of being located in a linear drive.Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 recites the intended use for the drive belt, i.e. the drive belt is within a storage and retrieval unit as in claim 13. According to MPEP § 2111.02, intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the structure of the drive belt of Zapf is capable of performing the intended use of being located within a storage and retrieval unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The closest prior art of record Zapf, Bosman (US 2020/0277732), Padilla (US 2019/0218062), Haapaniemi (US 2019/0210835), Stucky (US 2007/0180925), and Stucky-12 (US 2007/0170012) while broadly teaching the limitations of the presently claimed invention, do not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as presently claimed in claim 15.
Specifically, none of Zapf, Bosman, Padilla, Haapaniemi, Stucky, and/or Stucky-12, when considered alone or in combination, teach or reasonably suggest a drive belt comprising: a first conducting element embedded in a polymer material for transmitting electrical energy; the first conducting element is formed by a plurality of tensile members that extend in a longitudinal direction (X) of the drive belt and are arranged parallel to one another; the drive belt has at least one second conducting element for transmitting data; the second conducting element has a substrate with conductor tracks printed thereon; the drive belt is a non-closed drive belt having a predetermined length and two ends; the substrate consists of the polymer material of the drive belt; the substrate and the conductor tracks are embedded in the polymer material of the drive belt; the drive belt has at least one connection adapter arranged at an end side of the drive belt, wherein the first conducting element and the second conducting element are combined in the connection adapter for feeding in and/or tapping the electrical energy and the data; the drive belt has at least one contact-connection element to which the first conducting element is electrically connected at the end, wherein the contact-connection element connects the first conducting element to the connection adapter; the contact-connection element is connected to a cable that leads into the connection adapter; the contact-connection element has at least one pair of fork-shaped prongs extending in a vertical direction (Z) for receiving the tensile members that extends in the longitudinal direction (X) of the drive belt; and wherein the contact-connection element is inserted into the polymer material in the vertical direction (Z).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights