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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 41-59) in the reply filed on February 09, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that dependent claim 60 relates to the use of the belt of claim 52; therefore, claims 60 and 52 inherently share the same or correspondent special technical features, which is the woven yarn fabric of the recited weave and not disclosed in US 2008/0237911 A1 (hereinafter “Ardiff”). This is not found persuasive because Ardiff does disclose the woven yarn fabric (para. 60 and 75) and the basket weave (para. 65, line 5).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
An action on the merits of the elected claims 41-59 follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should avoid using the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,”. Therefore, the phases, “comprises (lines 2-4)” should be changed to “includes”.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 41-43 and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ardiff et al. (hereinafter “Ardiff”) (US 2008/0237911 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Ardiff discloses a flexible nonstick material, comprising a nonstick polymer coated flexible substrate (see para. 13. 15, and 42, which disclose non-stick properties) having a thickness of 15 mils or less (see para. 76), wherein the flexible substrate comprises a woven yarn fabric (see para. 60 and 75) having a conformable weave (para. 65).
Regarding the recitation " for use in press operations" in the preamble, said recitation is used to describe an intended use of the material. Recitations of intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art teaches the structures of the claimed invention, then the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, therefore, the prior art meets the claimed limitation. See In Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114(11). Additionally, Ardiff broadly discloses that material is place into a press (para. 21 and 61); therefore, it can be interpreted as the material is being used in a pressing operation.
Regarding claim 42, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff further discloses wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises a basket weave or a satin weave (see para. 65).
Regarding claim 43, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff further discloses wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises yarns of fiberglass and/or a polymer material (see abstract) selected from aramid (see “aramid yarns” in para. 75), polyimide, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethersulfone, polyetheretherketone, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 49, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff further discloses a nonstick polymer coating of a fluoropolymer (see para. 15 and 42), a fluoroplastic, a fluoroelastomer, a silicone rubber, a thermoplastic having a heat resistance over 350°F (177°C), or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 50, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff discloses wherein the material is a continuous conveyor belt (see para. 15) or a tensioned press platen.
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.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardiff in view of Imamura (US 4,265,627).
Regarding claim 44, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff discloses the woven yarn fabric as set forth above. Ardiff discloses the fabric can be used as a conveyor belt material (see para. 15). Ardiff does not expressly disclose the woven yard fabric includes two or more warp fibers alternately interlaced with two or more weft fibers.
Imamura discloses a woven yard fabric that can be used as a belt material (col. 3, lines 5-15), the fabric includes two or more warp fibers alternately interlaced with two or more weft fibers (see col. 3, lines 24-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, to include two or more warp fibers alternately interlaced with two or more weft fibers, as taught by Imamura, in order to enhance durability and efficiency of the material (col. 1, lines 60-65).
Claims 45 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardiff in view of Vito (US 2013/0090029 A1).
Regarding claim 45, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff discloses the woven yarn fabric as set forth above. Ardiff does not expressly disclose wherein the woven yarn fabric includes fibers extending in one direction over at least three of a plurality of fibers extending in a second direction before passing under one of the plurality of fibers extending in the second direction.
Vito can be applied to show a woven yard fabric includes fibers extending in one direction over at least three of a plurality of fibers extending in a second direction before passing under one of the plurality of fibers extending in the second direction (para. 31 and figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, to include fibers extending in one direction over at least three of a plurality of fibers extending in a second direction before passing under one of the plurality of fibers extending in the second direction, as taught by Vito, in order to enhance properties of the material.
Regarding claim 47, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff discloses the woven yarn fabric as set forth above. Ardiff does not expressly disclose wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises 4 to 8 harness satin weave.
Vito can also be applied to show a woven yard fabric comprises 4 to 8 harness satin weave (para. 31, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, to include 4 to 8 harness satin weave, as taught by Vito, in order to enhance properties of the material.
Regarding claim 48, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 47, as set forth above, modified Ardiff discloses woven yard fabric comprises 4 to 8 harness satin weave. Modified Ardiff does not expressly disclose a thicker polymer coating on a rough side of the 4 to 8 harness satin weave than on a smooth side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design uneven coating of the harness satin weaver because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering and design practice in order to better adapt the thicker coated surface to the prospective use and enhance the durability of the material.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardiff in view of Ribbans III (hereinafter “Ribbans”) (US 3,843,386).
Regarding claim 46, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 41, Ardiff discloses the woven yarn fabric comprises a basket weave (see para. 65). Ardiff does not expressly disclose wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises at least a 2x2 basket weave.
Ribbans discloses a woven yarn fabric comprises at least a 2x2 basket weave (col. 8, lines 43-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a 2X2 weaving of the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, as taught by Ribbans, in order to enhance durability and efficiency of the material.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardiff in view of Rubio et al. (hereinafter “Rubio”) (US 5,006,358).
Regarding claim 51, Ardiff discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Ardiff does not expressly disclose wherein the press operations are selected from food pressing, and the flexible nonstick material supports an object to be pressed.
Rubio discloses press operations selected from food pressing (see “tortillas” in abstract), and a flexible nonstick material (14) supports an object to be pressed (fig. 5 and col 4, lines 56-58). Since both of Ardiff and Rubio disclose polytetrafluorethylene-coated belts (see “polytetrafluorethylene” in para. 15, lines 10-11 of Ardiff and “Teflon coated fiberglass fabric” in col. 4, line 57 of Rubio, [it is noted that Teflon is polytetrafluorethylene]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ardiff and Rubio, and design the flexible nonstick material, as disclosed in Ardiff, while utilizing the material for the press operation, as disclosed in Rubio, in order to enhance the area of applicability of the manufactured material.
Claims 52-53, 56, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardiff in view of Ribbans III (hereinafter “Ribbans”) (US 3,843,386).
Regarding claim 52, Ardiff discloses a flexible belt (see “conveyor belt” in para. 15), comprising a nonstick polymer coated flexible substrate (see para. 13. 15, and 42, which disclose non-stick properties) having a thickness of 15 mils or less (see para. 76), wherein the flexible substrate comprises a woven yarn fabric (see para. 60 and 75) comprising a basket weave (para. 65).
Ardiff does not expressly disclose wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises at least a 2x2 basket weave.
Ribbans discloses a woven yarn fabric comprises at least a 2x2 basket weave (col. 8, lines 43-53).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a 2X2 weaving of the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, as taught by Ribbans, in order to enhance durability and efficiency of the material.
Regarding claim 53, the flexible belt of Claim 52, Ardiff further discloses wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises yarns of fiberglass and/or a polymer material (see abstract) selected from aramid (see “aramid yarns” in para. 75), polyimide, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethersulfone, polyetheretherketone, or combinations thereof, and further comprises a nonstick polymer coating of a fluoropolymer (see para. 15 and 42).
Regarding claim 56, the flexible belt of Claim 53, modified Ardiff discloses wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises at least a 2x2 basket weave (see claim 52 above).
Regarding claim 59, the flexible belt of Claim 52, Ardiff discloses wherein the belt is a continuous conveyor belt (see para. 15).
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardiff and Ribbans, further in view of Imamura (US 4,265,627).
Regarding claim 54, modified Ardiff discloses the woven yarn fabric as set forth above. Ardiff discloses the fabric can be used as a conveyor belt material (see para. 15). Ardiff does not expressly disclose the woven yard fabric includes two or more warp fibers alternately interlaced with two or more weft fibers.
Imamura discloses a woven yard fabric that can be used as a belt material (col. 3, lines 5-15), the fabric includes two or more warp fibers alternately interlaced with two or more weft fibers (see col. 3, lines 24-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, to include two or more warp fibers alternately interlaced with two or more weft fibers, as taught by Imamura, in order to enhance durability and efficiency of the material (col. 1, lines 60-65).
Claims 55 and 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardiff and Ribbans, further in view of Vito (US 2013/0090029 A1).
Regarding claim 55, Ardiff discloses the woven yarn fabric as set forth above. Ardiff does not expressly disclose wherein the woven yarn fabric includes fibers extending in one direction over at least three of a plurality of fibers extending in a second direction before passing under one of the plurality of fibers extending in the second direction.
Vito can be applied to show a woven yard fabric includes fibers extending in one direction over at least three of a plurality of fibers extending in a second direction before passing under one of the plurality of fibers extending in the second direction (para. 31 and figs. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, to include fibers extending in one direction over at least three of a plurality of fibers extending in a second direction before passing under one of the plurality of fibers extending in the second direction, as taught by Vito, in order to enhance properties of the material.
Regarding claim 57, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 53, Ardiff discloses the woven yarn fabric as set forth above. Ardiff does not expressly disclose wherein the woven yarn fabric comprises 4 to 8 harness satin weave.
Vito can also be applied to show a woven yard fabric comprises 4 to 8 harness satin weave (para. 31, lines 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the woven yarn fabric of Ardiff, to include 4 to 8 harness satin weave, as taught by Vito, in order to enhance properties of the material.
Regarding claim 58, the flexible nonstick material of Claim 57, as set forth above, modified Ardiff discloses woven yard fabric comprises 4 to 8 harness satin weave. Modified Ardiff does not expressly disclose a thicker polymer coating on a rough side of the 4 to 8 harness satin weave than on a smooth side.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design uneven coating of the harness satin weaver because such selection or determination would be the result of routine optimization and does not itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering and design practice in order to better adapt the thicker coated surface to the prospective use and enhance the durability of the material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2005005024 A to Motojima et al. discloses a woven fabric is coated with a polymer (see abstract) and having a thickness of 15 mils or less (see page 24 of the English translation).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights