DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Office has carefully considered Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks dated 10/08/2025. The pending claims at this time are 7, 12-14, 18-21 and 23-27 all of which stand rejected.
Applicant has amended claims 7, 12, 18, 20 and 23, cancelled claims 1, 3 and 22 and added new claim 27. These amendments have been entered and are made of record.
Two IDS’s dated 02/06/26 and 09/25/25 have been reviewed and are being remitted with this office action.
The objections made to the specification are withdrawn as Applicant’s has rectified the same and submitted a new sub specification.
All of the 112-2nd issues have not been addressed and are repeated for convenience. The rejection is modified to address the current claims.
The previously made art rejection over USPUB 2019024270A1 issued to Monnerie et al. further evidenced by https://ceetak.com/materials/epdm/#:~:text=What%20is%20EPDM?,such%20as%20gaiters%20and%20boots. is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 20 are 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.
Claim 20 In the context of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, "type" refers to the specific and definite terms used in the claims to describe the invention. It's about ensuring the claims clearly define the metes and bounds of the invention, leaving no room for ambiguity. Terms like “type or based,” render the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
USPUB 2004126544 A1 issued to Jaglowski et al.
Regarding modified Claim 7, where Applicant now seeks a textile, wherein for non-woven fabric production, the top surface of the textile conveyor is coated with a resin different from the material of yarns that constitute the textile, the static friction coefficient on the top surface of the textile conveyor is in the range of 0.25 to 0.90, and the difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more; Applicant is directed to the teachings of Jaglowski et al. who disclose making industrial fabric having improved sheet restraint and wear resistance along with acceptable permeability. The improvement is affected by coating only the high spots of the fabric with silicone material. The coating methods used in this invention may include kiss roll coating, gravure roll coating, rotogravure printing, rotary screen coating, screen-printing and/or flexography. The improvement is also applicable to corrugator fabrics [¶¶ abstract, 0033, 0045]. The industrial fabric serves as Applicant’s textile for nonwoven production and the high point serve as the knuckles.
The industrial fabrics are used in the production of a plethora of fabric constructions include woven, spiral wound, knitted, extruded mesh, spiral-link, spiral coil and other nonwoven fabrics. These fabrics may comprise monofilament, plied monofilament, multifilament or plied multifilament yarns, and may be single-layered, multi-layered or laminated. The yarns are typically extruded from any one of the synthetic polymeric resins, such as polyamide and polyester resins [¶ 0039]. The fabric is paper i.e., cellulose based and as such different in composition that the polymeric fibers used within the industrial fabric.
The industrial fabric can be a single endless belt or be multilayered [¶¶ 0017, 0039].
At ¶ 0043, the instant reference teaches that the coefficient of friction, is in a range from 0.4 to 0.8.
At ¶ 0041, the instant reference teaches that the knuckles of both the warp and weft are coated with silicone and are typically formed to be no wider than the diameter of warp and weft yarns 2 and 4 thereby not altering the desired air permeability of the fabric. However, the silicone coating may also be adhered so to cover greater surface areas of the yarns 2, 4 around the knuckles 8, thereby providing increased adhesion of the support surface 12 to a paper sheet, still without altering the desired air permeability of the fabric.
Jaglowski et al. do not specifically disclose the difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed the textile having a difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more; since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2004126544 A1 issued to Jaglowski et al. further evidenced by “Understanding Silicone Durometer Understanding Silicone Durometer: How Hardness Impacts Performance in Silicone Parts”
Jaglowski et al teach what is set forth above but do not disclose that the silicone resin that is applied has a durometer harness of 10 to 80 [for claim 12, 50 to 80 for claim 13, and 10 to 20 for claim 14 after curing. The reference provided as evidence shows a cured silicone has a durometer hardness ranging from 10 to 90 [0 to 90 The durometer hardness of cured silicone is typically measured on the Shore A scale, which ranges from 10 to 90. Higher numbers indicate harder materials, while lower numbers indicate softer materials. For example, a standard durometer hardness of 60 Shore A is common for silicone used in various applications, offering a balance of tactile response and mechanical strength. sitech-corp.com ].
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2004126544 A1 issued to Jaglowski et al. further in view of CN 101468753 issued to Xiao et al.
Jaglowski et al teach what is set forth above but do not disclose is coated with a rubber resin classified into the R group of JISK6397 rubber having an unsaturated carbon bond on the main chain [claim 18]; wherein the resin is styrene butadiene rubber [claim 19]; wherein the resin is acrylic rubber [Claim 21]. These are all remedied by the teachings of Xiao et al, who also are from the same art of endeavor as they too create conveyor belts made from textiles which have a top coating layer including, but not limited to, natural rubber (NR), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR)..., acrylate rubber (ACM), and the like (the resin is an acrylate rubber). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used any of the aforesaid resins in the process of a nonwoven manufacturing it would help with the changing of the relative positions of fibers or web as it moves through the web handling rollers and other systems to adjust how fibers are aligned, compacted, or transferred between processing stages.
Regarding modified Claim 23, where Applicant now seeks that the textile for a non-woven fabric according to claim 12, wherein the static friction coefficient on the obverse surface side is in the range of 0.25 to 0.90, the difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the obverse surface side on which the non-woven fabric is conveyed is 100 µm or more; Applicant is directed to Jaglowski et al. further in view of Xiao et al. Jaglowski et al. teach what is set forth above but do not specifically disclose the difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed the textile having a difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more; since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding Claim 25, where Applicant seeks that the textile for a non-woven fabric according to claim 12, wherein the difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the obverse surface side on which the non-woven fabric is conveyed is 100 µm or more; Applicant is directed to rationale provided above for claim 7 in view of the teachings of Xiao et al for claim 12.
Regarding New Claim 27, where Applicant seeks a textile, wherein for non-woven fabric production, the top surface of the textile conveyor is coated with a resin different from the material of yarns that constitute the textile, and the difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more; Applicant is directed to Jaglowski et al. further in view of Xiao et al. Jaglowski et al. teach what is set forth above but do not specifically disclose the difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have constructed the textile having a difference between the height of a warp knuckle formed by a warp and the height of a weft knuckle formed by a weft on the top surface of the textile conveyor is 100 µm or more; since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges that would be discovered through routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, would be deemed through routine experimentation and as such is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. See also KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 24 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp