DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-18 and 20 in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 26, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The terms High and Low pressure are relative terms, but as the high-pressure has been defined in the specification and claim 1, as pressure of more than 10 MPa, then Low Pressure has been interpreted as pressure lower than 10 MPa.
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 3, 7 and 10 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.
Claims 3 and 10 are vague and indefinite, because alternative ranges, i.e., ranges separated by the linking term/word “or,” the narrow range(s) is/are interpreted as “preferred” and it has been held that a broad range or limitation followed by linking terms (e.g., preferably, maybe, for instance, especially) and a narrow range or limitation within the broad range or limitation is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. It can also be interpreted as “for example” and it has also been held that the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maksimow, United State Patent No. 6,675,702 B1.
With regard to claims 1, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20, Maksimow discloses a method of making a web fibrous material, a non-woven or paper products (reading on claim 17); see column 6, lines 56-67, by the dry-laying process (column 2, lines 46-48 and column 7, lines 55-59), where the dry web, non-woven, is pressed between two rolls, (reading on clam 14); see figures 1, 2, and 5-7 and column 2, lines 21-25, the rolls including a plurality of protrusion (reading on claim 15); see Figures 1, 2 and 5-7 and paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3, where a low and high pressure zones are formed on the web, the non-woven web; see column 2, line 12 through column 3, line 10. The high pressure zone(s) is/are created on the web by the pressure exerted by the protrusions on the web (reading on claim 9), said pressure being more than 10 MPa, since Maksimow teaches pressure between 250-600 MPa (reading on claims 1, 18 and 20); see column 2, lines 28-32 and a low-pressure zone is created between the high-pressure zone, the space between two protrusions; the zones are shown on figure 2, numeral (17) represents the high pressure zone and numeral (19) the low-pressure zone; see also column 6, lines 34-55. Note claim 20 is a product by process claims and Maksimow teaches the formation of product made using the same cellulosic fibers and the same process and thus the reference anticipates the claim. Maksimow also teaches that the high pressure zones are created with area between 0.05 mm2 to 10 mm2, which falls within the range of claims 2 and 3; see column 3, lines 13-15. Maksimow teaches also the height of the protrusions between 0.5 mm to 15 mm, which falls within the range of claim 10; see column 10, lines 9-10. Maksimow also teaches that the rolls can have high pressure zones, such that an embossed pattern is formed (reading on claim 12), see column 5, lines 29-37. Maksimow teaches that strength agents can be added to the web; see column 6, lines 8-33, which teaches that additives can be added and dimensioned to desire tear strength and thus reading on claim 16.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-8, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maksimow, cited above.
Maksimow teachings have been discussed above. Maksimow is silent with regard to the different variables of the method, i.e., the distance of the between the adjacent high pressure zones of claim 4, the more than one high pressure zones of claim 5, the area share of claims 6 and 7, nor the pressure exerted by the low-pressure zone of claim 8, the use of membrane as part of the support element of claim 11, nor the second support element is flexible of claim 13.
With regard to claims 4-7, these claims recite variables of the process that can be optimized to obtain desired property/properties of the formed product, e.g., the number of the pressure zone can be adjusted to increase the strength or soften the web. The same can be said for the other recited limitation, e.g., the area of the web that are compressed is within the levels of ordinary skill in the art for the same reason(s) indicated above and thus considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding to claim 8, while Maksimow teaches that there are area that are not compressed as high as the high-compressed zones, the fluffy zones (19); see column 8, lines 53-57, Maksimow, however, does not teach the pressure at those points/zones, but choosing the pressure at the non-compressed zones is within eth level of ordinary skill in the art and considered obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
With regard to claims 11 and 13, the use of membrane calender1 rolls with a flexible support roll is known in art2 and its use would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Method and Machine for Producing a Fibrous Web.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 PM.
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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 Membrane or belt calenders in papermaking patents typically feature a flexible, endless belt (membrane) that forms a long, extended nip with a heatable roll, replacing traditional hard-roll nips to improve bulk and surface smoothness. Key patent developments focus on using these, particularly for soft tissue paper, to apply long-nip, low-pressure calendering for increased softness.
2 See for example United State Patent Nos. 6,397,739 B1; 6,712,930 B2, just to mention a couple.