DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/18/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 2, 9, and 21-23 have been canceled. Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 16-18 are amended. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues amendments overcome 112 rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of 9/25/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 overcomes prior art, SCHERB.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10-12, 14, 16, 17 and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that SCHERB does not teach an endless belt.
The examiner notes the belts of SCHERB are looped and thus endless.
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(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHERB (US 7510631 B2) in view of LEHTINEN (US 4461095 A).
For claim 1, SCHERB teaches a system for drying (reducing moisture) a tissue or hygiene web (fiber-containing material) made from a fibrous slurry [column 40 line 2]. SCHERB teaches that the system uses multiple fabric belts (elements 3 and 4) made into a nip to press out moisture [column 40 line 12]. This teaches the limitation of “A device (1) for reducing a moisture content of a moist, fiber-containing material (2), characterized in that wherein the device has a double-belt press with a first endless belt (3) and a second endless belt (4), wherein a pressing zone (5) for pressing liquid out of the fiber-containing material (2) is configured between the first endless belt (3) and the of the second endless belt (4)”. SCHERB teaches the use of a structure fabric (4) [column 23 line 27], a dewatering fabric (7) [column 24 line 5], and a single permeable fabric (32) [column 23 line 31] together in combination [Fig 1]. SCHERB teaches the structure fabric (4) moves with the fibrous sheet (W) between the single permeable fabric (32) and dewatering fabric (7) [Fig 1]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein, further, a belt (6) of a liquid-absorbing material that is guided be-tween the two endless belts (3, 4) and through the pressing zone (5) is arranged, wherein a surface of the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material that faces the first endless belt (3) forms a contact surface for the fiber-containing material (2)”. SCHERB teaches the permeable belt (32) has a plurality of grooves [column 9 line 12] that face the web [column 9 line 16]. These grooves allow fluid to move through and along the belt [column 12 line 4] and [Fig 11]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein an outer side of the belt (13) of the second endless belt (3) that faces the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material has channels (14) for discharging the liquid that run in a circumferential direction of the second endless belt (3), or diagonally to the circumferential direction of the second endless belt (3)”.
Regarding the material of the first and second endless belts, SCHERB teaches the permeable belt is metal [column 20 line 50] and the structured fabric can be plastic [column 40 line 32]. SCHERB does not specify that all two are metal. LEHTINEN teaches a similar device to dry (dewater) a paper/porous web by passing the web through a two wire system and a surface element to absorb moisture during drying [abstract]. LEHTINEN further teaches two metal belts (elements 20 and 30) that surround the sheet (element 21) and fabric (element 22) when nipped between rollers [Fig 3 and column 5 line 25]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first endless belt and second endless belt are manufactured of metal.” LEHTINEN teaches the drying device and method improve the tensile/wet strength of the resultant paper [column 4 line 48]. It would be obvious to one killed in the arts to substitute metal, taught by LEHTINEN, as the material for the structured fabric taught in SCHERB. One skilled in the arts would be motivated to substitute the art based on the successful use of metal fabric and the added benefit of improved strength properties as taught by LEHTINEN.
For claim 3, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches that the dewatering fabric is an endless belt [column 28 line 23]. This teaches the limitation of “characterized in that wherein the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material is configured as an endless belt”.
For claim 4, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to any one of the claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches the belts (4, 7, and 32) are drawn around and driven by multiple rollers [Fig 9]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the first endless belt (3) and the second endless belt (4) and the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material are driven and are each arranged circumferentially between at least two rollers (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)”.
For claim 6, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to any one of the claims 1, as above. SCHERB also teaches the length of belt 32 is approximately 8000 mm (equivalently to approximately 8 m) [column 30 line 36]. This length is within the range of the instant claim of “the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material has a circumferential length selected from the range from 5 m to 250 m.” SCHERB teaches the pressing length of the belts (32 and 4) can be at least as long as or longer than the circumferential length of the other suction zone Z [column 29 line 46]. SCHERB further teaches this suction zone has a circumferential length of approximately 200 mm to 2500 mm (equivalently to approximately 0.2 m to 2.5 m) [column 9 line 27]. This range encompasses the range of the instant claim with an overlapping start point of approximately 2.5 m. See MPEP 2144.05(I). This teaches the limitation of “wherein the first endless belt (3) has a circumferential length selected from the range from 3 m to 200 m, the second endless belt (4) has a circumferential length selected from the range from 3 m to 200 m”.
For claim 7, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches the dewatering fabric has a thickness of less than approximately 1.0 mm [column 3 line 67]. This range overlaps that of the instant claim of “wherein the first endless belt (3) and the second endless belt (4) each have a thickness selected from the range from 0.1 mm to 3.5 mm”. SCHERB further teaches the permeable membrane is approximately 1.05 mm thick [column 4 line 40]. This value is within the range of the instant claim of “wherein the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material has a thickness selected from the range from 1 mm to 10 mm”.
For claim 8, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches the belt 32 width can be approximately 1050 mm (equivalent to approximately 1.05 m) [column 30 line 35]. The examiner understands that the mated belt must be the same size to allow even pressing at the nip otherwise seepage may occur. It would be obvious to make the supporting belt a duplicate. This value is within the instant claim range and teaches the limitation of “wherein a width of the first endless belt (3) and a width of the second endless belt (4) and a width of the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material, in each case, is greater than 0.5 m”. See 2144.04(VI)(B).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
For claim 10, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches that the web has holes [column 36 line 11] and save-alls (element 10) beneath to collect liquid [column 29 line 15]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the bottom endless belt (3) has cups (15) on the outer side of the belt for receiving the liquid”.
For claim 11, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 10, as above. SCHERB teaches the holes are arranged along and intersecting the grooves [column 10 line 30]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cups (15) are arranged next to and/or between the channels (14) and end in the channels (14) and/or are connected with the channels (14) via conduits”.
For claim 12, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches the permeable belt is a felt [column 6 line 12]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material is configured as a belt of a textile fabric”.
For claim 13, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB is silent to the weight of the fabric used. INOUE teaches a similar felt fabric used in papermaking [0050]. INOUE teaches an embodiment where the fabric has a combined weight (front, center, and rear) of 1000 g/m2 [0142]. INOUE teaches the fabric has excellent transfer properties [0021]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the fabric weight of INOUE in for the fabric of SCHERB. One would be motivated to substitute the fabric based on the added benefit of excellent transfer properties as taught by INOUE. This value is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material has a weight per unit area selected from the range from 500 g/m2 to 2500 g/m2 and/or a tensile strength selected from the range from 30 N/mm to 90 N/mm”. The examiner understands the use of “or” to show a choice of option between parameters. The examiner notes that the teaching of one option satisfies the choice.
For claim 14, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches that the permeable belt is permeable [column 41 line 37-39]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material is also configured as permeable to liquid”.
For claim 15, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to the claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches that the pressing section of the permeable belt assembly is between approximately 30 Kpa and approximately 150 Kpa (equivalent to between approximately 0.03 MPa to approximately 0.15 MPa) [column 11 line 37]. This range overlaps the range of the instant claim of “wherein, in the in the pressing zone (5), a pressure between 0.1 to 20 MPa is ensured between the first endless belt (3) and the second endless belt (4)”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
For claim 16, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches the belt (7) is guided downward by a roll away from permeable felt (4) downstream of the pressing nip/ liquid (saveall 10) (zone) [Fig 9]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the second endless belt (4) is guided downwards, away from the belt (6), by means of at least one deflection device (17in at least one liquid suction zone(16) arranged upstream and/or downstream of the pressing zone (5) in a transport direction of the material (2)”. SCHERB teaches the vacuum roll (9) at the nip point between the belts and felts (4, 7, and 32) [Fig 9]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the liquid suction zone (16) serves to suck off the liquid pressed out of the fiber-containing material (2) in the pressing zone (5), so that the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material does not rest against the second endless belt (4) in the liquid suction zone (16) and a free space (18) between the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material and the second endless belt (4) is formed in the liquid suction zone (16)”. SCHERB teaches a suction roll (9) in one embodiment and a vacuum box (5) in a second embodiment where both are used in the respective embodiments to draw moisture from the web and the support [column 20 line 33] and [column 28 line 14]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the device (1) has a device (19) for sucking the liquid in the region of the free space (18) off the second endless belt (4), wherein the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material rests against the second endless belt (4) in the pressing zone (5)”.
For claim 17, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to any one of the claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches the web is separated from the felt downstream from the press section (left side after roll 9) [Fig 9]. The web separated in the section in the same direction as the web (left to right downstream) [Fig 9]. The web and the structured fabric are carried away after being deflected by smaller rolls. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a separation zone (20) is arranged downstream of the pressing zone (5) in a transport direction of the fiber-containing material (2), wherein the second endless belt (4) is guided away from the first endless belt (3) together with the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material by means of at least one deflection device (21), wherein a gap (22) is formed between the belt (6) of liquid- absorbing material and the first endless belt (3) in the separation zone (20)”.
For claim 20, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to any one of the claims 1, as above. SCHERB teaches an extension where the first endless belt (7) extends beyond the second endless belt (32) and away from the nip [Fig 9]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein, to extend the process line, the fiber- containing material (2) is guided further, from a side (3a) of the first endless belt that faces the second endless belt (4) to a side of the first endless belt (3) that faces away from the second endless belt (4)”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHERB (US 7510631 B2) and LEHTINEN (US 4461095 A) in view of HIGUCHI (US 20180347086 A1).
For claim 5, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 4, as above. SCHERB teaches the web is heated by heaters. SCHERB does not teach the heated rollers. HIGUCHI teaches a similar sheet forming device [abstract] with multiple belts and rollers [Fig 1]. HIGUCHI also teaches that that the rollers can be heated to the web [0131]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the heated roll of HIGUCHI in for the roller of SCHERB to heat the web directly. One would be motivated to substitute the rollers based on the similar use case of heating the web. This teaches the limitation of “wherein at least one of the rollers (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) is heated”.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHERB (US 7510631 B2) and LEHTINEN (US 4461095 A) in view of PILSBURY (US 20090194245 A1).
For claim 18, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 17, as above. SCHERB teaches the use of a vacuum box to create a vacuum transfer [column 27 line 45]. SCHERB does not specify the use of a nozzle or air knife in the vacuum box. PILSBURY teaches a similar paper making fabric with a dewatering section [abstract]. PILSBURY also teaches the use of an air knife to separate the fabric and direct cool air to the gap of the fabric [0010]. PILSBURY further teaches the use of an air knife helps minimize fabric degradation [0010]. This teaches the limitation of “characterized in that wherein at least one nozzle for generating a gas flow is arranged in the gap (22) in the separation zone (20) and is directed opposite the transport direction of the material (2) and between the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material and the first endless belt (3)”. It would be obvious to one killed in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the air knife, taught by PILSBURY, as the pressure device for the separation zone taught in SCHERB. One skilled in the arts at the time of invention would be motivated to substitute the air knife based on the added benefit of reducing the fabric wear as taught by PILSBURY.
For claim 19, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 17. SCHERB does not specify the use of a nozzle or air knife in the vacuum box to direct air to the gap. PILSBURY teaches a similar paper making fabric with a dewatering section [abstract]. PILSBURY also teaches the use of an air knife to separate the fabric and direct cool air to the gap of the fabric [0010]. PILSBURY further teaches the use of an air knife helps minimize fabric degradation [0010]. This teaches the limitation of “ wherein an impingement drying device (24) with at least one air outlet directed against a side of the fiber-containing material (2) that faces the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material is arranged in the gap (22) in the separation zone (20)”. It would be obvious to one killed in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the air knife, taught by PILSBURY, as the pressure device for the separation zone taught in SCHERB. One skilled in the arts at the time of invention would be motivated to substitute the air knife based on the added benefit of reducing the fabric wear as taught by PILSBURY.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHERB (US 7510631 B2) and LEHTINEN (US 4461095 A) in view of INOUE (US 20140076511 A1).
For claim 13, SCHERB and LEHTINEN teach the device according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB is silent to the weight of the fabric used. INOUE teaches a similar felt fabric used in papermaking [0050]. INOUE teaches an embodiment where the fabric has a combined weight (front, center, and rear) of 1000 g/m2 [0142]. INOUE teaches the fabric has excellent transfer properties [0021]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the fabric weight of INOUE in for the fabric of SCHERB. One would be motivated to substitute the fabric based on the added benefit of excellent transfer properties as taught by INOUE. This value is within range of the instant claim of “wherein the belt (6) of liquid-absorbing material has a weight per unit area selected from the range from 500 g/m2 to 2500 g/m2 and/or a tensile strength selected from the range from 30 N/mm to 90 N/mm”. The examiner understands the use of “or” to show a choice of option between parameters. The examiner notes that the teaching of one option satisfies the choice.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748