DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
As the applicant is referring to total widths, the examiner is taking connecting member(s) as being an individual set; as opposed to a plurality across a lateral width.
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 1-15 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.
With regard to claim(s) 1, line(s) 5, “the body”, it is unclear which of the previously recited plurality are being referred to.
With regard to claim(s) 5, “spike” lack(s) antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, the term “i.e.”, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (WO 2025/170147).
Lee (WO 2025/170147) disclose(s):
Conveyor belt(s) assembly, 1000, figure(s) 2;
belt(s) links 100;
body 110;
first connecting member(s) 160;
second connecting member(s) comprising two arms 122 & 130;
holes 132 & 161;
pin 150;
spikes 101.
Note Lee (WO 2025/170147) disclose(s) combined arm widths greater than 98% of the first connecting member(s) width.
With regard to claim(s) 2, Lee (WO 2025/170147) disclose(s) connecting member(s) combined widths substantially equal to body width.
With regard to claim(s) 3 & 13, Lee (WO 2025/170147) disclose(s) daisy chain formation by mating engagement between first & second connecting member(s) of adjacent in series links.
With regard to claim(s) 6, Lee (WO 2025/170147) disclose(s) a monolithic body.
With further regard to claim(s) 1, be advised, as the applicant has failed to show criticality or unexpected results, 98% is/are taken as a matter of design choice were this claim(s), or if this claim(s) becomes subject to an obviousness type rejection.
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.
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 5, 9 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2025/170147).
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Further, it has generally been recognized that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as the binary choice of if to make directly interacting components of the same material or not), with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee (WO 2025/170147) to choose appropriate materials of construction in order to increase efficiency.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2025/170147) in view of Schuler (4,004,682).
Lee (WO 2025/170147) may be silent on materials of construction. Schuler (4,004,682) teach(es) links of POM/acetal. Please see claim(s) 4, inter alia.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee (WO 2025/170147) to choose composite materials of construction comprising POM/acetal in order to provide greater durability as taught by Schuler (4,004,682).
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2025/170147) in view of Layne (5,497,874).
Lee (WO 2025/170147) disclose(s) integral spikes. Lee (WO 2025/170147) lack(s) discrete spike member(s) mating with a blind hole. Layne (5,497,874) teach(es) discrete spike member(s) mating with a blind hole; figure(s) 1, 20 into 21.
Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various discrete elements involves only ordinary skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee (WO 2025/170147) to substitute discrete spike member(s) mating with a blind hole in order to accommodate practical considerations as taught by Layne (5,497,874).
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2025/170147) in view of Lim et al. (7,611,007).
Lee (WO 2025/170147) lack(s) employing a bushing. Lim et al. (7,611,007) teach(es) bushing application in a belt(s) link hole; element 17.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee (WO 2025/170147) to substitute a bushing in order to accommodate practical considerations as taught by Lim et al. (7,611,007).
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2025/170147) in view of Elsner et al. (11,713,194).
Lee (WO 2025/170147) disclose(s) conveying mammal carcasses. Lee (WO 2025/170147) lack(s) conveying fish. Elsner et al. (11,713,194) disclose(s) conveying fish on a link conveyor belt(s).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee (WO 2025/170147) to substitute conveyance of fish in order to increase versatility as taught by Elsner et al. (11,713,194).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wood (2,256,005) and Mattson (3,331,489) are among the oldest disclosing the relative body-connecting member(s) relative widths; with only the former employing a pin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights