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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stigberg (US5208087).
Stigberg is directed to a belt for use on a long nip press for dewatering a fibrous web may be manufactured by winding an elongated strip onto a pair of process rolls to form a closed helix. Adjacent coils of the closed helix are bound to one another with an adhesive. The elongated strip includes a reinforcing web coated on one side with a uniformly smooth coating of a polymeric resin. The other side of the reinforcing web is coated with another polymeric resin of higher hardness value, and is provided with grooves (ABST).
Stigberg teaches the press belt is constructed by winding an elongated strip around and between a pair of process rolls to produce a closed helix having a desired length, as measured longitudinally around the closed helix, and a desired width, as measured transversely across the closed helix (col. 3, lines 44-54).
Stigberg teaches the elongated strip includes a reinforcing web, which may be a narrow strip of woven fabric, having a first side and a second side. The first side is coated with a first coating of a first polymeric resin, this first coating being uniformly smooth (col. 3, lines 50-55).
Stigberg teaches the construction of the elongated strip 36, FIG. 5 wherein the elongated strip first comprises a reinforcing web 50, which may be a narrow strip of woven fabric. The woven fabric is made from monofilament yarns extruded from any of the synthetic polymeric resins commonly used to manufacture yarns for papermachine fabrics. The monofilament yarns are equated with linear components and as shown in Fig. 5, the linear components are the reinforcing web 50 (col 6, lines 9-21).
While Stigberg teaches coating the polymer on the first side and second side which produces the same structure as the claimed extruded polymer matrix, Stigberg also teaches the polymer can be formed via a composite extrusion process instead of coating as noted in (col. 6, lines 53-60) cited below. Stigberg anticipates the claimed extruded polymer matrix in the form of a strip.
Stigberg teaches the elongated strip 36 may be manufactured by a process of composite extrusion, such as that used to manufacture some belting products. Elongated strip 36 may be from 1 inch to 6 inches wide, and 0.300 inch thick. Synthetic polymeric resins, such as 100% solid polyurethane resins, may be used in the composite extrusion process to provide the first coating 56 and the second coating 58 (col. 6, lines 53-60).
Stigberg teaches the papermaking belt is made by a process of spirally winding the strips across a first a second roller as shown in Fig. 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
626
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stigberg teaches the strips are attached by adhesive which may be heat activated (col. 5, lines 28-40). As Stigberg bonds the polymer matrix of the strips together and therefore Stigberg is teaching the claimed structure has strips joined directly.
As to claims 1 and 2, Stigberg teaches the web is fully encapsulated coated with the polymer resin and formed via composite extrusion which would inherently encapsulate the web and is fully encapsulated as shown in Fig. 5, the reinforcing web is encapsulated with the polymer resin.
As to claims 4 and 5, Stigberg shows the web filaments of the woven are parallel and in the same plane to each other in Fig. 5. A woven fabric would inherently have parallel filaments in the weave.
As to claim 7, Stigberg teaches the elongated strip 36 may be manufactured by a process of composite extrusion, such as that used to manufacture some belting products. Elongated strip 36 may be from 1 inch to 6 inches wide, and 0.300 inch thick. Synthetic polymeric resins, such as 100% solid polyurethane resins, may be used in the composite extrusion process to provide the first coating 56 and the second coating 58 (col. 6, lines 53-60).
This process is equated with crosshead extrusion. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As to claim 8, Stigberg teaches the monofilaments can be polyamide and polyester (col. 6, lines 17-18).
As to claim 10, Stigberg teaches the polymer resin can be polyurethane (col. 6, lines 57-58).
As to claims 11, Stigberg teaches the extruded polymer matrix comprises a first side and a second side and the linear components are encased in the polymer matrix as shown in fig. 5.
As to claims 15 and 16, Stigberg teaches papermaking wet press fabric (col. 5, lines 6-7) which is equated with a papermachine clothing.
As to claim 19, Stigberg teaches the reinforcements and an extruded polymeric matrix. As Stigberg teaches the same materials and structure as claimed, it is reasonable to presume the property of CD reinforcement for the fabric. As the monofilaments have the same structure and materials it is reasonable to presume the property is inherent to Stigberg. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claims 21 and 22, Stigberg teaches monofilament yarns.
As to claim 23, Stigberg teaches providing a woven fabric that has monofilaments. The monofilaments would inherently be in the machine direction. The monofilaments are equated with linear components. Stigberg teaches a method of composite extrusion to apply the first coating and second coating onto the woven web that comprises monofilaments.
Stigberg teaches the method of winding the elongated strip (of linear components and polymer resin) onto a pair of process rolls to form a closed helix. A helix is equated with spirally winding.
The strips are overlapped in winding and coated with adhesive to provide more effective bonding (col. 6, lines 61-68). As the adhesive joins the polymer matrix, the method is equated with the polymeric matrix material of each strip self-joins to the polymer matrix material of the adjacent strip.
Stigberg teaches monofilament yarns of polyamide or polyester and reasonable to presume that they have sufficient load bearing modulus. As the monofilaments have the same structure and materials it is reasonable to presume the property is inherent to Stigberg. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 23, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Romanski (US 7011731).
Romanski is directed to a long nip press belt made form thermoplastic resin impregnated fibers. Romanski is directed to a method for manufacturing a papermaking belt structure using tapes made of a solid thermoplastic resin surrounding a fibrous matrix. The method calls for applying a layer of CD oriented tapes to a mandrel surface, then applying a layer of MD oriented tapes over the CD layer, applying pressure and heat to the mandrel containing the CD and MD layers so to melt the resin and entirely bond/encapsulate the fibrous matrix. The belt structure thus obtained may thereafter be grooved, drilled or other processed as desired.
Romanski teaches the present invention solves this problem by forming a belt using pre-impregnated tape. The tape comprises individual filaments laid side by side in a ribbon like fashion, and encapsulated and protected with thermoplastic resin (see FIG. 1). The use of thermoplastic-impregnated filaments enables rein-forcing elements to be put into a belt structure without substantially increasing the belt caliper. These individual filaments are smaller than yarns that are comprised of bundles of filament, as used in the manufacture of conventional belts. This "prepreg" tape is the building block of the present invention (col. 2, lines 40-50).
Romanski teaches the fiber reinforced thermoplastic tape 10 used in manufacturing the belt is shown in Fig. 1 where in resin 12 surround the fibrous matrix 14 (col. 3, lines 23-35).
Romanski teaches to form the tape 10, the matrix materials 14 are impregnated, via a heated die, with the unique thermoplastic elastomeric resin 12. The "prepreg" 10 is in solid form and of a fixed cross section. As shown in FIGS. 2,4, this prepreg 10, is used to lay an array of both MD and CD oriented tapes 22, 24 onto a building mandrel 16. The mandrel 16 containing the MD and CD array of prepreg tapes 22, 24 is then wrapped with a woven tape or shrinkable film (not shown) to supply pressure during a subsequent heating process. This heating process re-liquefies the thermoplastic resin 12 and creates a homogeneous resin encapsulation of all the MD and CD yarns 14. Once the mandrel 16 containing the now homogeneous resin and yarn reinforcement is cooled, any imperfections such as air bubbles may be repaired by re-melting the affected area with a hot tool (col. 3, lines 35-52).
Romanski teaches thermoplastic impregnated filaments and the filaments are equated with linear components. Romanksi teaches a polymer matrix material in the form of a strip. The strips are wound spirally as shown in fig. 4 below (col. 3, lines 65-67). There are two or more spiral wound strips in the belt and equated with a nonwoven as the structure is the same as claimed. The thermoplastic resin bonds/encapsulates the fibrous matrix and is equated with joins directly.
Romanski does not explicitly teach extruding the polymeric matrix. Extruding is a product by process limitation. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
PNG
media_image3.png
516
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
578
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Romanski teaches the polymer encapsulates the fibers (col. 3, lines 45-50).
As to claims 4 and 5, Romanski teaches the linear components (filaments) are arranged parallel to each other as shown in Fig. 1 above and substantially in the same plane as claimed.
As to claim 6 and 36, Romanski teaches a plurality of planes as shown in Fig. 4 as the strips are oriented in MD and CD directions.
As to claim 7, Romanski does not teach the method of crosshead extrusion.
Extruding is a product by process limitation. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As to claims 8 and 10, Romanski teaches thermoplastic resins (co. 2, lines 54-63).
As to claim 11, Romanski does not explicitly teach the first side and second side and the linear components. Romanski’s belt as shown has a first side and a second side and the fibers (linear components) are encapsulated so therefore do not extend through the first or second side.
As to claims 15 and 16, Romanski teaches the belt is for a shoe press and a papermaking belt.
As to claim 19, Romanski teaches the strips are placed in the MD and CD direction provide for strength in the CD direction. Romanski is not specific with regard to the polymer providing for the CD reinforcement. As Romanski teaches the same materials and structure as claimed it is reasonable to presume that the properties are inherent to Romanski.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
As to claim 23, Romanski is silent with regard to property of modulus and load-bearing. Romanski teaches the filament are strong enough and do not rely on resin for strength (col. 4, lines 50-56).
As to claims 38, Romanski does not teach a weld line however Romanski teaches heat bonding to melt the thermoplastic polymer in each strip to bond the strips together which would inherently produce a weld line (col. 4, lines 16-28).
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.
Claim 6 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Boyer et al (US 4795480 A).
As to claims 6 and 36, Stigberg differs and does not teach linear components are in a plurality of planes.
Boyer is directed to a press felt base with single of multiple layers having a plastic fiber reinforced resinous matrix surface. FIG. 2 is an enlarged cross-sectional view of the felt 10 shown in FIG. 1 and shows that the woven base 20 having a matrix coating 25 which is comprised of a thermoplastic resin 40, a network of fibers 30 and voids, and open channels 50 throughout the matrix. The voids and channels permit fluid flow in the matrix (col. 2, lines 36-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a single or multiple fibrous layers motivated to produce a papermakers felt that have voids or channels to permit fluid flow in the matrix.
Claim 6 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Baker et al (US6124015).
As to claims 6 and 36, Stigberg differs and does not teach linear components are in a plurality of planes.
Baker is directed to a multiply industrial fabric that has at least one woven or nonwoven ply. As there are multiple plies. The woven ply comprises monofilaments and therefore linear elements. As there are multiple plies there are a plurality of planes.
Baker teaches the spiral winding method of interconnecting the layers provides the advantage of building up the fabric and improved joint strength (col. 7, lines 39-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include multiple plies motivated to employ a spiral wound connection with improved strength.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Li et al (US 20050208288 A1).
As to claim 9, Stigberg differs and does not teach the matrix material comprises nanoparticles, nanomaterials, fiber, glass carbon or inorganic or polymer fillers.
Li is directed to urethane based coating having nanoparticles for improving characteristics of papermaking process belt, roll cover and belts used in textile applications. The use of the nanoparticles improves resistance to flex fatigue, crack propagation, groove closure and wear characteristics (ABST).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ nanoparticles in the matrix polymer coating motivated improve the wear resistance of the industrial fabric.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Eagles et al (US 20130081772 A1).
As to claim 12, Stigberg differs and does not teach the fibers are partially extend through the first or second side of the polymer.
Eagles is directed to an industrial fabric including spirally wound material strips with reinforcement (Title). The industrial fabric, belt or sleeve is produced by spirally winding strips of polymeric material, such as an industrial strapping or ribbon material, and joining the adjoining sides of the strips of material using ultrasonic welding or laser welding techniques (ABST).
Eagles teaches the strip of material or strapping may include reinforcing material to improve the mechanical strength of the overall structure. The reinforcing material can be fibers, yarns, monofilaments or multifilament yarns that can be oriented in the MD of the fabric, sleeve or belt along the length of the strapping material. The reinforcing materials improve the mechanical strength of the overall structure. The reinforcing material may be included through an extrusion or pultrusion process. The fibers or yarns may be fully embedded within the strapping or them may be partially embedded onto one or both surfaces of the strapping material [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to partially embed the reinforcing fibers in the strips of the spiral industrial belt motivated to reinforce the strips and improve the overall strength of the belt.
As to claim 20, Stigberg differs and does not teach all linear components are disposed in the MD. Stigberg teaches a woven reinforcement with linear components in the MD and the CD by nature of a weave.
Eagles teaches the reinforcement can be fibers, yarns, monofilaments or multifilament yarns that can be oriented in the MD of the fabric, sleeve or belt along the length of the strapping material. The reinforcing material improves the strength {0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate reinforcing yarns in the MD direction motivated to improve the strength of the belt.
Claims 13, 14 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Sayers et al (US 20050280184 A1).
As to claims 37, 13 and 14, Stigberg differs and does not teach 3D or ink-jet printing by resin deposition. Stigberg differs and does not teach additive element for imparting a texture on the product.
Sayers is directed to a three dimensional tomographic fabric assembly. Sayers teaches a fabric made by selective deposition modeling or fused deposition modeling, where the material is fed from at least one nozzle onto a moveable belt. The nozzle is moveable translationally and the spacing between the nozzle and the belt is adjustable. Flow through the nozzle and translational movement of the nozzle is controlled such that the nozzle dispenses the material in a controlled manner to form the fabric layer by layer (ABST).
Sayers teaches the use of Free Form Fabrication (FFF) technology in the manufacture of papermachine clothing and other industrial fabrics has not previously been contemplated in that the potential of applying that technology to flat, wide, long flexible structures has not hitherto been considered [0014].
The preferred material for making the fabric by selective deposition modelling would comprise a meltable polymer which solidifies on cooling. Such polymers are often referred to as "phase change materials". Suitable thermoplastic materials for the construction of the fabric by selective deposition modelling include, but are not limited to, any of the following either alone or in combination:--polyamides, co-polyamides, polyesters, co-polyesters, amide esters, olefin resins, urethanes, amide urethanes and sulphones [0025].
Sayers teaches a resin deposition via 3D printing.
Sayers teaches the benefit is the fabric would preferably be built up in endless form to avoid seaming problems as are commonly encountered in the art when making seamed belts, particularly for use in papermaking. Such problems are more apparent for belts used at the wet end of the papermachine; i.e. forming fabrics [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a resin deposition by 3D printing motivated to build up a forming fabric for papermaking machine.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Davenport (US 7147756 B2).
As to claims 17 and 18, Stigberg differs and does not teach the linear components differ in one of number, material composition or size.
Davenport is directed to an industrial process fabric that is made via spirally wound strip made of material. For a fabric of multilayer type, it is further possible in known manner to use different thread spacings/structures for the different layers in order to obtain, for example, special dewatering-enhancing properties (col. 5, lines 22-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ different thread spacing/structure for the differing layer motivated to provide for dewatering enhancing properties.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Hansen (US20020102894).
As to claim 20, Stigberg differs and does not teach all linear components are disposed in the MD. Stigberg teaches a woven reinforcement with linear components in the MD and the CD by nature of a weave.
Hansen is directed to a fabric for the forming, press and dryer sections of a paper machine, for use as a reinforcing base for a polymeric-resin-coated paper-processing belt or as a corrugator belt, or in other industrial settings where a material is being dewatered, is formed from a monofilament yarn, which is spirally wound in the form of a closed helix, adjacent turns thereof being abutted against and joined securely to one another.
Hansen teaches the monofilament yarn is spirally wound in a plurality of turns wherein the first side of the monofilament yarn fits against the second side of an adjacent abutting spiral turn thereof. Adjacent spiral turns of the monofilament yarn are secured to one another at the abutting first and second sides to form the fabric by a variety of means [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ linear components that are all disposed in the MD motivated to produce a papermakers fabric.
Claims 24, 25, 30, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Grondahl (US 5792323 A).
Stigberg is directed to a belt for use on a long nip press for dewatering a fibrous web may be manufactured by winding an elongated strip onto a pair of process rolls to form a closed helix. Adjacent coils of the closed helix are bound to one another with an adhesive. The elongated strip includes a reinforcing web coated on one side with a uniformly smooth coating of a polymeric resin. The other side of the reinforcing web is coated with another polymeric resin of higher hardness value, and is provided with grooves (ABST).
Stigberg teaches the press belt is constructed by winding an elongated strip around and between a pair of process rolls to produce a closed helix having a desired length, as measured longitudinally around the closed helix, and a desired width, as measured transversely across the closed helix (col. 3, lines 44-54).
Stigberg teaches the elongated strip includes a reinforcing web, which may be a narrow strip of woven fabric, having a first side and a second side. The first side is coated with a first coating of a first polymeric resin, this first coating being uniformly smooth (col. 3, lines 50-55).
Stigberg teaches the construction of the elongated strip 36, FIG. 5 wherein the elongated strip first comprises a reinforcing web 50, which may be a narrow strip of woven fabric. The woven fabric is made from monofilament yarns extruded from any of the synthetic polymeric resins commonly used to manufacture yarns for papermachine fabrics. The monofilament yarns are equated with linear components and as shown in Fig. 5, the linear components are the reinforcing web 50 (col 6, lines 9-21).
While Stigberg teaches coating the polymer on the first side and second side which produces the same structure as the claimed extruded polymer matrix, Stigberg also teaches the polymer can be formed via a composite extrusion process instead of coating as noted in (col. 6, lines 53-60) cited below. Stigberg anticipates the claimed extruded polymer matrix in the form of a strip.
Stigberg teaches the elongated strip 36 may be manufactured by a process of composite extrusion, such as that used to manufacture some belting products. Elongated strip 36 may be from 1 inch to 6 inches wide, and 0.300 inch thick. Synthetic polymeric resins, such as 100% solid polyurethane resins, may be used in the composite extrusion process to provide the first coating 56 and the second coating 58 (col. 6, lines 53-60).
Stigberg teaches the papermaking belt is made by a process of spirally winding the strips across a first a second roller as shown in Fig. 3.
Stigberg the belt is manufactured on apparatus 30 from an elongated strip 36, the details of which will be provided below during the discussion regarding FIGS. 5 through 7. To begin the manufacture of the belt, the beginning of the elongated strip 36 is extended in a taut condition from the first process roll 32 toward the second process roll 34, around the second process roll 34, and back to the first process roll 32 forming a first coil of a closed helix 38. To close the first coil of the closed helix 38, the beginning of the elongated strip 36 is joined to the elongated strip 36 just being wound onto the first process roll 32 by a suitable adhesive at point 40. This adhesive may be heat-activated (col. 5, lines 28-40).
Stigberg teaches the strips are attached by adhesive which may be heat activated (col. 5, lines 28-40). As Stigberg bonds the polymer matrix of the strips together and therefore Stigberg is teaching the claimed structure has strips joined directly.
Grondahl is directed to spiral base structures for long nip paper machine press belts (title). A belt for use on a long nip press for dewatering a fibrous web includes a base assembled by spirally winding a prepared structure strip in a plurality of non-overlapping turns. Successive turns are abutted against and joined to those previously wound by sewing or otherwise bonding along the continuous spiral seam thus formed. The prepared structure strip may be a fabric strip woven from lengthwise and crosswise yarns, which may be monofilament yarns of a synthetic polymeric resin. The fabric strip may be of either a single- or multi-layer weave (ABST).
Grondahl teaches the bonding methods may be mechanical in nature, for example, butt sewing or fiber entanglement. Such methods could be used where the prepared structure strip is either a woven or a non-woven fabric strip. Ultrasonic welding and heat fusion could be used with any of the varieties of prepared structure strip. Chemical bonding could also be used with any of the prepared structure strips (col. 3, lines 35-45). Ultrasonic welding or heat fusion is equated with self-joins the polymeric matrix of one strip to the adjacent strip.
As to claims 24 and 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to bond the strips of the spiral wound fabric via welding or heat fusion motivated to bond the layers together by known methods.
As to claim 30, Stigberg teaches papermaking wet press fabric (col. 5, lines 6-7) which is equated with a papermachine clothing.
As to claims 38 and 39, Stigberg does not teach a weld line.
Grondahl teaches the bonding methods may be mechanical in nature, for example, butt sewing or fiber entanglement. Such methods could be used where the prepared structure strip is either a woven or a non-woven fabric strip. Ultrasonic welding and heat fusion could be used with any of the varieties of prepared structure strip. Chemical bonding could also be used with any of the prepared structure strips (col. 3, lines 35-45). Ultrasonic welding or heat fusion is equated with self-joins the polymeric matrix of one strip to the adjacent strip and a weld line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to bond the strips of the spiral wound fabric via welding or heat fusion motivated to bond the layers together by known methods.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Grondahl (US 5792323 A) and in view of Hochstetter et al (EP 3418016).
As to claim 26, Stigberg teaches the elongated strip 36 may be manufactured by a process of composite extrusion, such as that used to manufacture some belting products. Elongated strip 36 may be from 1 inch to 6 inches wide, and 0.300 inch thick. Synthetic polymeric resins, such as 100% solid polyurethane resins, may be used in the composite extrusion process to provide the first coating 56 and the second coating 58 (col. 6, lines 53-60).
Stigberg is not specific with regard to a process a crosshead extrusion.
Hochstetter is directed to a method for manufacturing an impregnated fibrous material comprising continuous fibers and a thermoplastic matrix, said material being made of a single unidirectional ribbon or a plurality of unidirectional parallel ribbons (ABST).
The term "fibrous material" means an assembly of reinforcing fibers. Before it is shaped, it is in the form of wicks. After shaping, it comes in the form of strips (or tape), or tablecloths. When the reinforcing fibers are continuous, their assembly constitutes a unidirectional reinforcement or a fabric or a nonwoven (NCF).
Such impregnated fiber materials are also referred to as composite materials. They comprise the fibrous material, constituted by the reinforcing fibers, and a matrix constituted by the polymer impregnating the fibers. The primary role of this matrix is to maintain the reinforcing fibers in a compact form and to give the desired shape to the final product.
The fibers thus impregnated are then shaped. They may for example be cut into strips of different widths and then placed under a press, then heated to a temperature above the melting temperature of the polymer to ensure the cohesion of the material and in particular the adhesion of the polymer to the fibers. This method of impregnation and shaping makes it possible to produce structural parts with high mechanical strength.
The pre-impregnation stage is carried out in particular by extrusion at the angle head of the polymer matrix and passage of said wick or said wicks in this square head then passage in a heated die, the crosshead being optionally provided with fixed or rotary jams on which the wick scrolls thus causing a development of said wick permitting pre-impregnation of said wick.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to extrude the polymer matrix on the fibrous reinforcement via crosshead extrusion as a known method of providing a matrix to shape and compact the reinforcing fibers and produce parts with high mechanical strength.
Claim 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigberg (US5208087) in view of Grondahl (US 5792323 A) and in further view of Sayers et al (US 20050280184 A1).
Stigberg differs and does not teach a pattern, nor resin deposition, nor printing on the industrial fabric.
Sayers is directed to a three dimensional tomographic fabric assembly. Sayers teaches a fabric made by selective deposition modeling or fused deposition modeling, where the material is fed from at least one nozzle onto a moveable belt. The nozzle is moveable translationally and the spacing between the nozzle and the belt is adjustable. Flow through the nozzle and translational movement of the nozzle is controlled such that the nozzle dispenses the material in a controlled manner to form the fabric layer by layer (ABST).
Sayers teaches the use of Free Form Fabrication (FFF) technology in the manufacture of papermachine clothing and other industrial fabrics has not previously been contemplated in that the potential of applying that technology to flat, wide, long flexible structures has not hitherto been considered [0014].
The preferred material for making the fabric by selective deposition modelling would comprise a meltable polymer which solidifies on cooling. Such polymers are often referred to as "phase change materials". Suitable thermoplastic materials for the construction of the fabric by selective deposition modelling include, but are not limited to, any of the following either alone or in combination:--polyamides, co-polyamides, polyesters, co-polyesters, amide esters, olefin resins, urethanes, amide urethanes and sulphones [0025].
Sayers teaches a resin deposition via 3D printing.
Sayers teaches the benefit The fabric would preferably be built up in endless form to avoid seaming problems as are commonly encountered in the art when making seamed belts, particularly for use in papermaking. Such problems are more apparent for belts used at the wet end of the papermachine; i.e. forming fabrics [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a resin deposition by 3D printing motivated to build up a forming fabric for papermaking machine.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanski (US 7011731) in view of Li et al (US 20050208288 A1).
As to claim 9, Romanski differs and does not teach the matrix material comprises nanoparticles, nanomaterials, fiber, glass carbon or inorganic or polymer fillers.
Li is directed to urethane based coating having nanoparticles for improving characteristics of papermaking process belt, roll cover and belts used in textile applications. The use of the nanoparticles improves resistance to flex fatigue, crack propagation, groove closure and wear characteristics (ABST).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ nanoparticles in the matrix polymer coating motivated improve the wear resistance of the industrial fabric.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanski (US 7011731) in view of Eagles et al (US 20130081772 A1).
As to claim 12, Romanksi differs and does not teach the fibers are partially extend through the first or second side of the polymer.
Eagles is directed to an industrial fabric including spirally wound material strips with reinforcement (Title). The industrial fabric, belt or sleeve is produced by spirally winding strips of polymeric material, such as an industrial strapping or ribbon material, and joining the adjoining sides of the strips of material using ultrasonic welding or laser welding techniques (ABST).
Eagles teaches the strip of material or strapping may include reinforcing material to improve the mechanical strength of the overall structure. The reinforcing material can be fibers, yarns, monofilaments or multifilament yarns that can be oriented in the MD of the fabric, sleeve or belt along the length of the strapping material. The reinforcing materials improve the mechanical strength of the overall structure. The reinforcing material may be included through an extrusion or pultrusion process. The fibers or yarns may be fully embedded within the strapping or them may be partially embedded onto one or both surfaces of the strapping material [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to partially embed the reinforcing fibers in the strips of the spiral industrial belt motivated to reinforce the strips and improve the overall strength of the belt.
As to claim 20, Romanski differs and does not teach all linear components are disposed in the MD. Romanski teaches the linear components are in MD and CD.
Eagles teaches the reinforcement can be fibers, yarns, monofilaments or multifilament yarns that can be oriented in the MD of the fabric, sleeve or belt along the length of the strapping material. The reinforcing material improves the strength {0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate reinforcing yarns in the MD direction motivated to improve the strength of the belt.
Claims 13, 14 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanski (US 7011731) in view of Sayers et al (US 20050280184 A1).
As to claims 37, 13 and 14, Romanski differs and does not teach 3D or ink-jet printing by resin deposition. Romanski differs and does not teach additive element for imparting a texture on the product and does not teach a pattern on the belt.
Sayers is directed to a three dimensional tomographic fabric assembly. Sayers teaches a fabric made by selective deposition modeling or fused deposition modeling, where the material is fed from at least one nozzle onto a moveable belt. The nozzle is moveable translationally and the spacing between the nozzle and the belt is adjustable. Flow through the nozzle and translational movement of the nozzle is controlled such that the nozzle dispenses the material in a controlled manner to form the fabric layer by layer (ABST).
Sayers teaches the use of Free Form Fabrication (FFF) technology in the manufacture of papermachine clothing and other industrial fabrics has not previously been contemplated in that the potential of applying that technology to flat, wide, long flexible structures has not hitherto been considered [0014].
The preferred material for making the fabric by selective deposition modelling would comprise a meltable polymer which solidifies on cooling. Such polymers are often referred to as "phase change materials". Suitable thermoplastic materials for the construction of the fabric by selective deposition modelling include, but are not limited to, any of the following either alone or in combination:--polyamides, co-polyamides, polyesters, co-polyesters, amide esters, olefin resins, urethanes, amide urethanes and sulphones [0025].
Sayers teaches a resin deposition via 3D printing.
Sayers teaches the benefit is the fabric would preferably be built up in endless form to avoid seaming problems as are commonly encountered in the art when making seamed belts, particularly for use in papermaking. Such problems are more apparent for belts used at the wet end of the papermachine; i.e. forming fabrics [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a resin deposition by 3D printing motivated to build up a forming fabric for papermaking machine.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanski (US 7011731) in view of Davenport (US 7147756 B2).
As to claims 17 and 18, Romanski differs and does not teach the linear components differ in one of number, material composition or size.
Davenport is directed to an industrial process fabric that is made via spirally wound strip made of material. For a fabric of multilayer type, it is further possible in known manner to use different thread spacings/structures for the different layers in order to obtain, for example, special dewatering-enhancing properties (col. 5, lines 22-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ different thread spacing/structure for the differing layer motivated to provide for dewatering enhancing properties.
Claims 21 , 22, 24, 25, 30 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanski (US 7011731) in view of Stigberg (US5208087).
As to claims 21 and 22, Romanski does not teach yarns. Romaski teaches prior art uses yarn and prefers filament for a lower caliper. Stigberg teaches monofilament yarns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ yarns motivated to produce a papermaking belt.
As to claim 24, Romanski teaches the method of making the belt wherein the continuous filament elements are in the MD and encapsulated with thermoplastic resin and then wound around a mandrel via a spiral pattern (col. 3, lines 57-67). Romanski teaches the bonding is via melting the thermoplastic polymer of the strip.
Romanski differs and does not teach extruding the polymer matrix material in the form of a strip. Romanski teaches the form of a strip but not extrusion.
Stigberg is directed to a belt for use on a long nip press for dewatering a fibrous web may be manufactured by winding an elongated strip onto a pair of process rolls to form a closed helix. Adjacent coils of the closed helix are bound to one another with an adhesive. The elongated strip includes a reinforcing web coated on one side with a uniformly smooth coating of a polymeric resin. The other side of the reinforcing web is coated with another polymeric resin of higher hardness value, and is provided with grooves (ABST).
Stigberg teaches the press belt is constructed by winding an elongated strip around and between a pair of process rolls to produce a closed helix having a desired length, as measured longitudinally around the closed helix, and a desired width, as measured transversely across the closed helix (col. 3, lines 44-54).
Stigberg teaches the elongated strip includes a reinforcing web, which may be a narrow strip of woven fabric, having a first side and a second side. The first side is coated with a first coating of a first polymeric resin, this first coating being uniformly smooth (col. 3, lines 50-55).
Stigberg teaches the construction of the elongated strip 36, FIG. 5 wherein the elongated strip first comprises a reinforcing web 50, which may be a narrow strip of woven fabric. The woven fabric is made from monofilament yarns extruded from any of the synthetic polymeric resins commonly used to manufacture yarns for papermachine fabrics. The monofilament yarns are equated with linear components and as shown in Fig. 5, the linear components are the reinforcing web 50 (col 6, lines 9-21).
While Stigberg teaches coating the polymer on the first side and second side which produces the same structure as the claimed extruded polymer matrix, Stigberg also teaches the polymer can be formed via a composite extrusion process instead of coating as noted in (col. 6, lines 53-60) cited below. Stigberg anticipates the claimed extruded polymer matrix in the form of a strip.
Stigberg teaches the elongated strip 36 may be manufactured by a process of composite extrusion, such as that used to manufacture some belting products. Elongated strip 36 may be from 1 inch to 6 inches wide, and 0.300 inch thick. Synthetic polymeric resins, such as 100% solid polyurethane resins, may be used in the composite extrusion process to provide the first coating 56 and the second coating 58 (col. 6, lines 53-60).
Stigberg teaches the papermaking belt is made by a process of spirally winding the strips across a first a second roller as shown in Fig. 3.
Stigberg the belt is manufactured on apparatus 30 from an elongated strip 36, the details of which will be provided below during the discussion regarding FIGS. 5 through 7. To begin the manufacture of the belt, the beginning of the elongated strip 36 is extended in a taut condition from the first process roll 32 toward the second process roll 34, around the second process roll 34, and back to the first process roll 32 forming a first coil of a closed helix 38. To close the first coil of the closed helix 38, the beginning of the elongated strip 36 is joined to the elongated strip 36 just being wound onto the first process roll 32 by a suitable adhesive at point 40. This adhesive may be heat-activated (col. 5, lines 28-40).
As to claims 24 and 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to bond the strips of the spiral wound fabric via extrusion and welding or heat fusion motivated to bond the layers together by known methods.
As to claim 30, Romanski teaches a papermaking belt (ABST).
As to claim 39, Romanski does not teach a weld line however Romanski teaches heat bonding to melt the thermoplastic polymer in each strip to bond the strips together which would inherently produce a weld line (col. 4, lines 16-28).
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanski (US 7011731) in view of Stigberg (US5208087) and in view of Hochstetter et al (EP 3418016).
As to claim 26, Romanski in view of Stigberg teaches the elongated strip 36 may be manufactured by a process of composite extrusion, such as that used to manufacture some belting products. Elongated strip 36 may be from 1 inch to 6 inches wide, and 0.300 inch thick. Synthetic polymeric resins, such as 100% solid polyurethane resins, may be used in the composite extrusion process to provide the first coating 56 and the second coating 58 (col. 6, lines 53-60).
Romanksi in view of Stigberg is not specific with regard to a process a crosshead extrusion.
Hochstetter is directed to a method for manufacturing an impregnated fibrous material comprising continuous fibers and a thermoplastic matrix, said material being made of a single unidirectional ribbon or a plurality of unidirectional parallel ribbons (ABST).
The term "fibrous material" means an assembly of reinforcing fibers. Before it is shaped, it is in the form of wicks. After shaping, it comes in the form of strips (or tape), or tablecloths. When the reinforcing fibers are continuous, their assembly constitutes a unidirectional reinforcement or a fabric or a nonwoven (NCF).
Such impregnated fiber materials are also referred to as composite materials. They comprise the fibrous material, constituted by the reinforcing fibers, and a matrix constituted by the polymer impregnating the fibers. The primary role of this matrix is to maintain the reinforcing fibers in a compact form and to give the desired shape to the final product.
The fibers thus impregnated are then shaped. They may for example be cut into strips of different widths and then placed under a press, then heated to a temperature above the melting temperature of the polymer to ensure the cohesion of the material and in particular the adhesion of the polymer to the fibers. This method of impregnation and shaping makes it possible to produce structural parts with high mechanical strength.
The pre-impregnation stage is carried out in particular by extrusion at the angle head of the polymer matrix and passage of said wick or said wicks in this square head then passage in a heated die, the crosshead being optionally provided with fixed or rotary jams on which the wick scrolls thus causing a development of said wick permitting pre-impregnation of said wick.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to extrude the polymer matrix on the fibrous reinforcement via crosshead extrusion as a known method of providing a matrix to shape and compact the reinforcing fibers and produce parts with high mechanical strength.
Claim 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanski (US 7011731) in view of Stigberg (US5208087) and in further view of Sayers et al (US 20050280184 A1).
Romanski in view of Stilberg differs and does not teach a pattern, nor resin deposition, nor printing on the industrial fabric.
Sayers is directed to a three dimensional tomographic fabric assembly. Sayers teaches a fabric made by selective deposition modeling or fused deposition modeling, where the material is fed from at least one nozzle onto a moveable belt. The nozzle is moveable translationally and the spacing between the nozzle and the belt is adjustable. Flow through the nozzle and translational movement of the nozzle is controlled such that the nozzle dispenses the material in a controlled manner to form the fabric layer by layer (ABST).
Sayers teaches the use of Free Form Fabrication (FFF) technology in the manufacture of papermachine clothing and other industrial fabrics has not previously been contemplated in that the potential of applying that technology to flat, wide, long flexible structures has not hitherto been considered [0014].
The preferred material for making the fabric by selective deposition modelling would comprise a meltable polymer which solidifies on cooling. Such polymers are often referred to as "phase change materials". Suitable thermoplastic materials for the construction of the fabric by selective deposition modelling include, but are not limited to, any of the following either alone or in combination:--polyamides, co-polyamides, polyesters, co-polyesters, amide esters, olefin resins, urethanes, amide urethanes and sulphones [0025].
Sayers teaches a resin deposition via 3D printing.
Sayers teaches the benefit The fabric would preferably be built up in endless form to avoid seaming problems as are commonly encountered in the art when making seamed belts, particularly for use in papermaking. Such problems are more apparent for belts used at the wet end of the papermachine; i.e. forming fabrics [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a resin deposition by 3D printing motivated to build up a forming fabric for papermaking machine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the objection to the specification and 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Specification and 35 USC 112(b) rejection for the term “self-joins” of claims 1 and dependent claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Stigberg teaches strips that are attached to one another with an adhesive and Claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the recited polymer strips are attached directly to one another. Applicant states that as claimed as one strip joins directly to the polymer matrix of an adjacent strip there are no intervening bonding agents.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant’s claims do not exclude an adhesive as taught by Stilberg and the rejection is maintained. The phrase “joins directly” does not exclude intervening components. The specification [0070] (below) refers to a weld line and the weld line 15 is shown in the Figures and “certain embodiments use materials with sufficient green bonding to survive consolidation to turn the strips into one band. Other options to form the bonding between strips are hot gas, infra-red and laser bonding.” The claims are not specific to these methods of “self-joining” or “joins directly”.
[00070] When industrial fabric or belt 10 is produced by methods similar to that illustrated in Figure 13, sequential extrusion passes, e.g., by means of crosshead extrusion, of linear components 12 and resin matrix 14 may be joined by weld line 15 as illustrated in Figures 3-9 and 12. This weld line 15 may be the result of self-joining of the resin as it is placed next to the previous pass of resin. Certain embodiments use materials with sufficient green bonding to survive consolidation to turn the many strips into one band. Other options to form the bonding between strips are hot gas, infra-red, and laser bonding.
Applicant states that the Office Action equates the monofilament yarns of Stigberg “with linear components and as shown in Fig. 5, the linear components are the reinforcing web 50 (col. 6, lines 9-21).” Applicant states that the specification [0048] teaches “linear components” are “continuous systems such as yarns, cords, tapes or similar spoolable material.” And then Applicant cites the specification for “the polymeric matrix material of an industrial fabric of the instant invention provides sufficient CD reinforcement such that a woven fabric layer having interwoven weft (CD) yarns...is not required." Specification, paragraph [00057].
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicants is narrowing the term “linear components” to exclude woven materials. Applicant’s specification has not defined or limited the term to exclude woven materials. Applicant’s specification has specifically defined “yarns” and “fibers” in [0045] as follows but does not specifically define woven materials.
[00045] The terms "yarns" and "fibers" are used interchangeably in the following disclosure and can refer to monofilaments, multifilament yarns, twisted yarns, textured yarns, coated yarns, otherwise spoolable material, as well as yarns made from stretch broken fiber known to those ordinarily skilled in the art. Yarns can be made of carbon, rayon, fiberglass, cotton, ceramic, aramid, polyester, polyolefins, metal, polyethylene, glass, polyamide, polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), and/or polyether ether ketone (PEEK) materials in the form of multifilaments, monofilaments, cords, spun yarns, tapes, twisted tow yarns, untwisted tow yarns, and/or other materials and forms that exhibit desired physical, thermal, chemical, or other properties.
Woven materials include yarns in the warp and weft and are therefore equated with linear components. A tape can be a woven fabric. Applicant’s specification also notes that woven fabrics can be used in [0056].
[0056] The polymeric matrix material can likewise be further reinforced by inclusion of fibers, which may be chopped, such as carbon, glass, spunbond polyethylene, polyamides, polyesters, or similar materials such as polymeric fibers, airlaid, fine woven fabrics, etc. The polymeric matrix material may further include spunbonded, spunlaced, meltblown, or needled fiber structures or fabrics, in order to increase the integrity and overall strength of the fabric.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Additional grounds of rejection are presented in view of the amendments and new reference Romanski.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rexfelt et al (US 5360656)
Nilsson et al (US6340413)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights