Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-7 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.
The term “gently inclined” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, “gently inclined” renders claim 1 indefinite. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, and therefore have the same indefiniteness issues as outlined above with regard to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the molten elastic material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
3. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0059343 (Uchida et al.) (hereinafter “Uchida”) in view of German Publication No. 102010015901 (hereinafter “DE’901”).
Regarding claim 1, Figs.1-3 of Uchida show a guide-equipped belt (1) comprising:
a flat belt portion (2);
a guide portion (including 3 and 5) that is made of an elastic material and protrudes along a longitudinal direction on a surface (lower surface in Fig. 1) of the flat belt portion face to a pulley (34), wherein at a top portion of the guide portion (including 3 and 5) exposed to an outside, a recess (5) gently inclined from corners (inside corners) of the top portion to a center of the top portion is formed along the longitudinal direction. Uchida teaches most of the limitations of this claim, but does not show a guide covering material, as claimed.
DE’901 shows that it is well-known in the art to provide a guide portion (including 6) with a guide covering material (10) that is made of a knitted fabric, includes a dense mesh such that the guide covering material (10) is not embedded in an elastic material constituting the guide portion (including 6), and covers a surface of the guide portion (including 6), for the purpose of reducing running noise and providing high wear protection even under high slippage conditions. See, e.g., numbered paragraph [0007] of the machine translation of DE’901. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the guide portion (including 3 and 5) of Uchida with a guide covering material, for the purpose of reducing running noise and providing high wear protection even under high slippage conditions, as taught by DE’901. Providing the guide portion (including 3 and 5) of Uchida with a guide covering material, in a manner as taught by Fig. 1 of Uchida and the figure in DE’901, results in having in the top portion of the guide portion where the guide covering material is exposed to the outside, the recess being gently inclined from corners (inner corners) of the top portion to the center of the top portion being formed along the longitudinal direction, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the English abstract of DE’901 and numbered paragraphs [0005] - [0011] of the machine translation of DE’901 teach that the guide covering material (10) includes a chain yarn that constitutes a chain stitch, a weft insertion yarn that connects a loop portion of the chain stitch of the chain yarn in a weft direction, and a warp insertion yarn that connects the loop portion of the chain stitch of the chain yarn in a warp direction.
Regarding claim 3, the English abstract of DE’901 and numbered paragraphs [0005] - [0012] of the machine translation of DE’901 teach that the guide covering material (10) includes the dense mesh such that, when the molten elastic material constituting the guide portion (including 6) and the guide covering material (10) are adhered to each other in a manufacturing process, the molten elastic material does not exude through the guide covering material (10) to the outside, and the guide covering material (10) is not embedded in the guide portion (including 6).
Regarding claim 4, numbered paragraph [0011] of the machine translation of DE’901 teaches that the guide covering material (10) has an elongation percentage of 10% or more when measured with a sample having a width of 40 mm. In particular, the elongation is greater than or equal 30% in the warp direction and greater than or equal 50% in the weft direction, regardless of the width. Absent any criticality for the 40mm width dimension of the sample, this width of sample is an obvious matter of design choice. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the sample width 40mm, e.g., for the purpose of sizing the sample to the dimensions of the guide covering material attached to the guide portion of the belt.
Regarding claim 5, numbered paragraph [0011] of the machine translation of DE’901 teaches that the guide covering material (10) has an elasticity of 10% or more in the longitudinal direction when measured with the sample having a width of 40 mm. In particular, the elongation is greater than or equal 30% in the warp direction and greater than or equal 50% in the weft direction, regardless of the width. Absent any criticality for the 40mm width dimension of the sample, this width of sample is an obvious matter of design choice. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the sample width 40mm, e.g., for the purpose of sizing the sample to the dimensions of the guide covering material attached to the guide portion of the belt.
Regarding claim 6, numbered paragraph [0008] of the machine translation of DE’901 teaches that the guide covering material (10) includes an elastic yarn.
Regarding claim 7, Fig. 1 of Uchida shows that a core wire (4) or a fabric is embedded inside the flat belt portion (2).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Mike McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653