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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Applicant’s new claim 40 recites that the “extruded polymeric matrix material comprises sufficient green bonding to turn the two or more spirally wound strips into one band.” It is not clear what “green bonding” is compared to bonding or weld line bonding. For purposes of examination, the term will be equated with bonding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 23 and 40 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 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).
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_image1.png
516
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
578
732
media_image2.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, 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 claim 40, Romanski teaches heat bonding to melt the thermoplastic polymer in each strip to bond the strips together and this bonding is equated with green bonding.
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 and 30 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).
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 paper machine 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 filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants amendments and arguments with respect to the 35 USC 102/103 over Stigberg are persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn. Applicant indicates that “joins directly” excludes the use of intervening bonding agents and Stigberg requires adhesives.
Applicants amendments and arguments with respect to Romanski are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Romanski’s teaching of “heat bonding to melt the thermoplastic polymer in each strip to bond the strips together would inherently produce a weld line (col. 4, lines 16-28). Applicant states that Romanski’s teaching of “heat bonding to melt the thermoplastic polymer in each strip” would not inherently produce a weld line as asserted by the Office Action because Romanski’s heating of the tape layers requires that the thermoplastic polymer of the tapes in each layer is heated such that the distinct tapes dissolve into one another to create one “homogeneous resin encapsulation of all the MD and CD yarns.” Applicant requires reliquefying (e.g. via heat treatment in an autoclave) all the thermoplastic resin of the different tape layers, thereby creating a “homogeneous resin encapsulation”.
Applicants arguments are not persuasive. The scope of weld line does not distinguish from a thermoplastic that is reliquefied to bond the layers together. If the weld line is produced in a manner that it is a line or portion that has a different structure that a melted thermoplastic layer, clarification is required. Applicant’s specification discloses weld line in [0070] as shown in Figs. 3-9 and 12 and mentions weld line again in [0077]. The cited portions of the specification do not describe or define a specific method or structure of the weld line that would differentiate from a melt bonded thermoplastic matrix of Romanski. Nor do the claims differentiate from Romanski. A weld line is equated with a portion that is melt bonded and Romanski teaches such a structure.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the secondary rejections of Romanski in view of Stigberg, Hochstetter, Baker, Li, Eagles, Sayers, Davenport, Hansen, Grondahl do not cure the deficiencies of Romanski alone. As the rejection over Romanski alone is maintained, the additional features taught by the additional references teach the independent claims and are maintained.
Conclusion
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