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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder, such as “assembly”, “member”, or “device”, that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “blade mounting assembly” associated with the base member and adapted for mounting a scraper blade thereto, wherein the blade mounting assembly is configured for rotational movement relative to the base member in claims 1 and 7, the “biasing member” that biases the base member into a retracted condition, and an actuation device in claim 3, and the “actuation device” the actuation of which results in linear movement of the blade mounting assembly relative to the base member, such that the scraper blade is maintained in abutment with the conveyor belt in claim 3 .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2 and 7-15 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.
Claims 2 and 7 recite the limitation "the elongate support member" in lines 6 and 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Schwarze (6,843,363).
In regard to claims 1 and 7, Schwarze shows a cleaning apparatus 3 with a plurality of cleaning assemblies 6 for cleaning a conveyor belt 1. Each cleaning assembly includes a base member 7/11 adapted to be mounted relative to the conveyor belt 1 a blade mounting assembly 12/BMA associated with the base member 7/11 and adapted for mounting a scraper blade 8 thereto (see the annotated figure below). The blade mounting assembly 12/BMA is configured for rotational movement relative to the base member about axis 14 (see discussion of the top swivel mount in column 9, lines 15-30). The base member is mounted on an elongate support member 4. Each cleaning assembly 6 is configured to maintain the scraper blade in abutment with the conveyor belt.
In regard to claim 2, the base member 7/11 includes an upper region 7 that may be associated with a blade mounting assembly 12/BMA, and a lower region 11 that may be associated with the elongate support member 4.
In regard to claim 4, the blade mounting assembly 12/BMA includes an adjustment member 19. The adjustment member facilitates 19 the rotational movement of the blade mounting assembly 12/BMA relative to the base member 7 such that the scraper blade 8 is maintained in abutment with the conveyor belt 1.
In regard to claim 5, the blade mounting assembly 12/BMA INCLUDES a resilient member formed by a torsion spring bearing 16. The resilient member provides yielding support to the scraper blade 8 such that the scraper blade is maintained in abutment with the conveyor belt 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 10, at least a portion A of each of the plurality of cleaning assemblies and at least a portion B of the elongate support member include cooperating shapes.
In regard to claim 11, the base 7/11 member of each of the plurality of cleaning assemblies 6 is configured to be at least partially received within a portion B of the elongate support member.
In regard to claim 12, the elongate support member 4 includes bores defined by the portions B of the elongate support member 4 that extend transversely to the longitudinal axis of the elongate support member 4. The base member 7/11 of each of the plurality of cleaning assemblies 6 is configured to be at least partially received within the transverse bore.
PNG
media_image2.png
372
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 15, the conveyor belt cleaning apparatus includes one stabilizing roller 2 configured to hold the conveyor belt down and optimize conveyor belt contact with the scraper blades 8.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarze in view of Swinderman (US 6,374,990).
In regard to the or more sensors and/or measuring devices configured to monitor conveyor belt and/or scraper blade wear, it should be noted that Swinderman teaches that sensors 46/48 may advantageously be placed within a conveyor belt scraper blade 10 to monitor the wear of the scraper blade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide such sensors in the conveyor belt scraper blade 8 of Schwarze in order monitor the wear of the scraper blade 8. When this is done, the resulting apparatus would have all the structure required by claims 6 and 8.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarze in view of Baig et al. (US 5,355,992)
In regard to the spray bar and one or more nozzles configured to disperse a liquid onto a surface of the conveyor belt of claim 14, it should be noted that Baig teaches that a spray bar 36 with one or more nozzles 37 may advantageously be used to disperse liquid onto a surface of a conveyor belt 16 it aid a scraper 34 in cleaning the belt 16. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide such a spray bar to spray the conveyor belt 1 of Schwarze in order aid in cleaning of the conveyor belt 1. When this is done, the resulting apparatus would have all the structure required by claim 14.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,760,581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 are generic to all that is cited in claims 1-13 of the patent and claim 1-13 of the patent fully encompasses the subject matter of claims 1-15 of the present application and therefore anticipate the claims. In particular claims 1-2 are unpatentable over claim 1 of the patent and claims 3-12 and unpatentable over claims 2-11 of the patent respectively, claim 13 is unpatentable over claim 7 of the patent and claims 14-15 are unpatentable over claims 12-13 of the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule.
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.
/MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
