DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/17/2025 has been received and fully considered. Claims 1 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that prior art does not teach the amended claim limitation of “wherein the one or more connecting threads penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the structuring layer and penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the support layer and”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the connecting thread penetration limitation of the instant claim, HULTERANTZ does not teach the penetration of the instant claim limitation. BARRETT 2 (US 20070209770 A1) teaches a similar configuration of a double layer through air dry papermaking fabric with an interlinking woven structure using a third weft yarn [abstract]. BARRETT 2 teaches a sample configuration with the woven pattern to show each thread connection [Fig 3]. The weft thread (element 1) wraps five of the ten total upper layer threads (equivalent to 50% penetration). This value is within the instant claim range of “wherein the one or more connecting threads penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the structuring layer”. The same weft thread (element 1) wraps two of the ten total bottom layer threads (equivalent to 20% penetration). This value is within the instant claim range of “penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the support layer and”. BARRETT 2 teaches the weave pattern creates an improvement in fiber retention, uniform drying in TAD applications [0048]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the weave of BARRETT 2 into the weave of HULTERANTZ to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to substitute the weave based on the improvement in fiber retention, uniform drying in TAD applications, as taught by BARRETT 2.
Applicant argues that prior art does not give justification or reasoning to modify the art of HULTERANTZ.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that 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, HULTERANTZ teaches a multilayer woven structure with three dimensional weave. BARRETT also teaches a multilayer fabric with a woven layer is used as a papermaking formation fabric [ABSTRACT]. BARRETT further teaches that the woven fabric layer is connected to the other by binder threads that create a weave [ABSTRACT]. These bonding sites help maintain the connection between the two layers. BARRETT attributes improved fiber support and dewatering characteristics to the uniform surface of the weave [0012].
Applicant argues that no prior art alone or in combination teach the nonwoven limitation of independent claims 1 and 14 making all dependent claims thereon allowable.
Examiner notes that the HULTERANTZ in view of BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach all limitations of claims 1 and 14 as above. This makes the dependent claims rejected and not allowed as well.
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.
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 1-9 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HULTERANTZ (US 20110088859 A1) in view of BARRETT (US 20150211178 A1), BARRETT 2 (US 20070209770 A1) and EBERHARDT (US 20200270811 A1).
For claim 1, HULTERANTZ teaches a structuring cloth used in the papermaking machine [0001]. The web material structuring belt taught by HULTERANTZ comprises:
a. A structured layer that acts as the limitation of a support layer [0001];
b. A carrying layer that supports the web. This acts as the limitation a structuring layer [0001].
HULTERANTZ does not specify the structure of the woven structure between layers. BARRETT also teaches a multilayer fabric with a woven layer is used as a papermaking formation fabric [ABSTRACT]. BARRETT further teaches that the woven fabric layer is connected to the other by binder threads that create a weave [ABSTRACT]. These bonding sites help maintain the connection between the two layers. BARRETT attributes improved fiber support and dewatering characteristics to the uniform surface of the weave [0012]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the fabric of HULTERANTZ with the connection points taught by BARRETT to create a strong fabric structure. One would be motivated to by the common technology of the formation fabric. HULTERANTZ in view of BARRETT teaches the instant limitation of c. one or more connecting threads that associate the support layer and the structuring layer.
Regarding the connecting thread penetration limitation of the instant claim, HULTERANTZ does not teach the penetration of the instant claim limitation. BARRETT 2 teaches a similar configuration of a double layer through air dry papermaking fabric with an interlinking woven structure using a third weft yarn [abstract]. BARRETT 2 teaches a sample configuration with the woven pattern to show each thread connection [Fig 3]. The weft thread (element 1) wraps five of the ten total upper layer threads (equivalent to 50% penetration). This value is within the instant claim range of “wherein the one or more connecting threads penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the structuring layer”. The same weft thread (element 1) wraps two of the ten total bottom layer threads (equivalent to 20% penetration). This value is within the instant claim range of “penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the support layer and”. BARRETT 2 teaches the weave pattern creates an improvement in fiber retention, uniform drying in TAD applications [0048]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the weave of BARRETT 2 into the weave of HULTERANTZ to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to substitute the weave based on the improvement in fiber retention, uniform drying in TAD applications, as taught by BARRETT 2.
Regarding the nonwoven limitation of the instant claim, HULTERANTZ does not teach the use of a nonwoven web as clothing. EBERHARDT teaches the use of multilayered webs as clothing in papermaking [abstract and 0028]. EBERHARDT teaches the web uses polymer threads [0004] similar to HULTERANTZ [0046]. EBERHARDT teaches the multilayer web can be made of a combination of woven and nonwoven elements [0068]. EBERHARDT also teaches the clothing with a nonwoven web improve the startup of the papermachine and reduced remoistening of the web [0037]. EBERHARDT further teaches that either side of the fabric may be nonwoven [0032]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the nonwoven layer of EBERHARDT into the woven layer of HULTERANTZ to produce a superior web clothing. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved startup and reduced remoistening as taught by EBERHARDT. HULTERANTZ in view of EBERHARDT teaches the instant limitation of wherein at least one of the support layer and the structuring layer does not comprise a woven fabric.
For claim 2, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to claim 1, as above. The structured layer of HULTERANTZ is woven [0054] like the corresponding support layer of the instant claim. This meets the limitation of the support layer comprises a woven fabric.
For claim 3, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 1, as above. HULTERANTZ further teaches that the structuring layer has a woven repeating pattern [0014]. This meets the limitation of the structuring layer comprises a pattern.
For claim 4, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 3, as above. HULTERANTZ further teaches that the structuring layer has a woven repeating pattern [0014]. This meets the limitation of the pattern is a non-random repeating pattern.
For claim 5, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 1, as above. HULTERANTZ teaches that the woven threads are made of plastic (polyester/polyamide) [0046]. Polyester and polyamide are both polymers. This plastic woven structure meets the limitation of the structuring layer comprises a polymer.
For claim 6, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 1, as above. HULTERANTZ teaches that the structuring layer includes a thin layer of polymer film coating [0046]. This meets the limitation wherein the structuring layer comprises a film.
For claim 7, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 1, as above. HULTERANTZ teaches that the woven threads are made of plastic (polyester/polyamide) [0046]. Polyester is a form of resin. This meets the limitation wherein the structuring layer comprises a resin.
For claim 8, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 1, as above. BARRETT teaches binding threads that are interconnected by shafts of thread [0017] which are a mechanical form of entanglement. This meets the instant limitation wherein the structuring layer is mechanically entangled with the support layer.
For claim 9, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 1, as above. BARRETT teaches that the bonding fibers have at least two threads connecting the layers [abstract]. This meets the instant limitation wherein at least a portion of the structuring layer that extends into the support layer is bonded to the support layer at one or more bond sites.
For claim 14, HULTERANTZ teaches a structuring cloth used in the papermaking machine [0001]. This meets the method for making a web material structuring belt instant limitation. The web material structuring belt taught by HULTERANTZ comprises:
a. A structured layer that acts as the limitation of providing a support layer;
b. A carrying layer that supports the web. This acts as the limitation providing a structuring layer.
HULTERANTZ does not specify the structure of the woven structure between layers. BARRETT also teaches a multilayer fabric with a woven layer is used as a papermaking formation fabric [ABSTRACT]. BARRETT further teaches that the woven fabric layer is connected to the other by binder threads that create a weave [ABSTRACT]. These bonding sites help maintain the connection between the two layers. BARRETT attributes improved fiber support and dewatering characteristics to the uniform surface of the weave [0012]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the fabric of HULTERANTZ with the connection points taught by BARRETT to create a strong fabric structure. One would be motivated to by the common technology of the formation fabric. HULTERANTZ in view of BARRETT teaches the instant limitation of c. one or more connecting threads that associate the support layer and the structuring layer.
Regarding the connecting thread penetration limitation of the instant claim, HULTERANTZ does not teach the penetration of the instant claim limitation. BARRETT 2 teaches a similar configuration of a double layer through air dry papermaking fabric with an interlinking woven structure using a third weft yarn [abstract]. BARRETT 2 teaches a sample configuration with the woven pattern to show each thread connection [Fig 3]. The weft thread (element 1) wraps five of the ten total upper layer threads (equivalent to 50% penetration). This value is within the instant claim range of “wherein the one or more connecting threads penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the structuring layer”. The same weft thread (element 1) wraps two of the ten total bottom layer threads (equivalent to 20% penetration). This value is within the instant claim range of “penetrate at least 5% and less than 95% into the support layer and”. BARRETT 2 teaches the weave pattern creates an improvement in fiber retention, uniform drying in TAD applications [0048]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the weave of BARRETT 2 into the weave of HULTERANTZ to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to substitute the weave based on the improvement in fiber retention, uniform drying in TAD applications, as taught by BARRETT 2.
Regarding the nonwoven limitation of the instant claim, HULTERANTZ does not teach the use of a nonwoven web as clothing. EBERHARDT teaches the use of multilayered webs as clothing in papermaking [abstract and 0028]. EBERHARDT teaches the web uses polymer threads [0004] similar to HULTERANTZ [0046]. EBERHARDT teaches the multilayer web can be made of a combination of woven and nonwoven elements [0068]. EBERHARDT also teaches the clothing with a nonwoven web improve the startup of the papermachine and reduced remoistening of the web [0037]. EBERHARDT further teaches that either side of the fabric may be nonwoven [0032]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the nonwoven layer of EBERHARDT into the woven layer of HULTERANTZ to produce a superior web clothing. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the improved startup and reduced remoistening as taught by EBERHARDT. HULTERANTZ in view of EBERHARDT teaches the instant limitation of wherein at least one of the support layer and the structuring layer does not comprise a woven fabric.
For claim 15, HULTERANTZ teaches a method for making a structured web material where the web is made by setting fibrous material on the fabric to form the web material [0003]. HULTERANTZ teaches the instant limitation wherein the method comprises the step of depositing a plurality of fibrous elements onto a web material structuring belt. HULTERANTZ in view of BARRETT teaches the instant claim according to Claim 1 such that a structured web material is formed.
For claim 16, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach a structured web material made according to the method of Claim 15, as above.
For claim 17, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the structured web material according to Claim 16, as above. HULTERANTZ teaches the web material is structured by the structuring layer giving the fibrous web structure [0001]. This teaches the instant limitation wherein the structured web material comprises a structured fibrous structure.
For claim 18, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the structured web material according to Claim 17, as above. HULTERANTZ teaches the use of a wet fiber in the formation of the fibrous web [0003]. The examiner understands one skilled in the arts would understand this wet fibre to include forms of pulped fiber. In the alternative, BARRETT also teaches the use of a pulped fiber [0003]. This meets the instant limitation wherein the plurality of fibrous elements comprises a plurality of pulp fibers.
Claims 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HULTERANTZ (US 20110088859 A1), BARRETT (US 20150211178 A1) ), BARRETT 2 (US 20070209770 A1) and EBERHARDT (US 20200270811 A1) in view of FUJIWARA (US 20200079054 A1).
For claim 10 HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 9, as above. Neither HULTERANTZ or BARRETT teach the bonding as chemical bonding. FUJIWARA teaches the formation of a papermaking fabric [0075] with multiple layers [0062]. These layers are bonded by resin threads that are chemical bonded [0076]. The FUJIWARA fabric uses resin, like HULTERANTZ, to combine the layers. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of HULTERANTZ with the chemical bonding of FUJIWARA based on the common use of resin to combine layers of papermaking fabric. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased strength of using a combination of physical and chemical bonding. HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT in view of FUJIWARA teach the limitation wherein at least one of the one or more bond sites are chemical bond sites.
For claim 11, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 9, as above. Neither HULTERANTZ or BARRETT teach the bonding as chemical bonding. FUJIWARA teaches the use of adhesive to connect the fabric layers [0014]. HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT in view of FUJIWARA teach the limitation wherein at least one of the one or more bond sites are adhesive bond sites.
For claim 19, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the structured web material according to Claim 16, as above. Neither HULTERANTZ or BARRETT teach a non-woven layer. FUJIWARA teaches the formation of a papermaking fabric [0075] with multiple layers [0062]. These layers are bonded by resin threads [0076] similar to the bonding threads of BARRETT used to connect layers [ABSTRACT]. The FUJIWARA fabric uses resin, like HULTERANTZ [0046], to combine the layers. FUJIWARA also teaches that the structuring layer may be made porous to aid in dewatering without loss of material [0017]. FUJIWARA teaches this porous fabric is non-woven [0016]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of HULTERANTZ with the porous quality of FUJIWARA based on the common use of resin to create a superior papermaking fabric. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased drainage without compromising the amount of material added. HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT in view of FUJIWARA teach the limitation wherein the structured web material comprises a nonwoven.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HULTERANTZ (US 20110088859 A1), BARRETT (US 20150211178 A1), BARRETT 2 (US 20070209770 A1) and EBERHARDT (US 20200270811 A1) in view of BARAN (US 20130295328 A1).
For claim 12, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring belt according to Claim 1, as above. Neither HULTERANTZ or BARRETT teach the peel force of the laminated layers. BARAN teaches a multilayer article [0039] made of polyester [0046] similar to HULTERANTZ. BARAN also teaches the adhesion between the layers of polyester have an adhesion value of less than 700 grams-force (equivalent to 6.86 N) [0042] by the ASTM D 3330 method. The examiner understands that the value acts a maximum and is equivalent to the peak value expected. The ASTM D 3330 method is the 180° Peel Method of the instant claim. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of HULTERANTZ with the bonding of BARAN based on the common use of resin to combine layers of polymeric fabric. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased strength of using a combination based on the results of BARAN. HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT in view of BARAN teach the limitation wherein the web material structuring belt exhibits a Peak Peel Force of greater than 0.1 N as measured according to the 180° Free Peel Test Method.
For claim 13, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the web material structuring bell according to Claim 1, as above. Neither HULTERANTZ or BARRETT teach the peel force of the laminated layers. BARAN teaches a multilayer article [0039] made of polyester [0046] similar to HULTERANTZ. BARAN also teaches the adhesion between the layers of polyester have an adhesion value of less than 700 grams-force (equivalent to 6.86 J/m) [0042] by the ASTM D 3330 method. The examiner understands that the value acts a maximum and is equivalent to the peak value expected. The ASTM D 3330 method is the 180° Peel Method of the instant claim. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of HULTERANTZ with the bonding of BARAN based on the common use of resin to combine layers of polymeric fabric. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased strength of using a combination based on the results of BARAN. HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT in view of BARAN teach the limitation wherein the web material structuring belt exhibits an Energy of greater than 0.1 J/m as measured according to the 180° Free Peel Test Method.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HULTERANTZ (US 20110088859 A1), BARRETT (US 20150211178 A1), BARRETT 2 (US 20070209770 A1) and EBERHARDT (US 20200270811 A1) in view of SMOOK (HANDBOOK FOR PULP AND PAPER TECHNOLOGISTS SECOND EDITION 2001).
For claim 20, HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT teach the structured web material according to Claim 16, as above. Neither HULTERANTZ or BARRETT teach a spun bound through air dried formation method. SMOOK teaches the formation method of webs and the resulting qualities of the methods used. SMOOK teaches that air drying (through-air-drying) systems result in increased TEA compared to alternative formation drying methods [page 313 Ch. 20.3 SACK GRADES]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the process of HULTERANTZ with the known method taught by SMOOK based on the common use of papermaking fabric to form sheets. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the increased strength as evidenced by SMOOK. HULTERANTZ, BARRETT, BARRETT 2 and EBERHARDT in view of SMOOK teach the limitation wherein the structured web material comprises a through-air-bonded, spunbond nonwoven.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748