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 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cabell et al, WO 02/061191 (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Cabell teaches a structuring fabric for use in a machine for producing a structured fiber web (see abstract), the structuring fabric comprising:
a woven base fabric (first paragraph of detailed description and woven elements listed in claim 14) having a web facing side and a machine side (figures 2 and 19), and said woven base fabric defining a machine direction (Y direction figure 1), a cross machine direction (x direction in figure 1), and a thickness direction (z direction figure 2);
a plurality of sublayer beads of polymeric material disposed in said woven base fabric (item 30 figure 4);
a plurality of structuring beads of polymeric material disposed on the web facing side of said woven base fabric (item 40 figures 3-4 and pages 48-50), said structuring beads being configured to provide a visible structure to the fiber web produced on the structuring fabric (see figures); and
said structuring beads resting on an upper foundation surface of respectively corresponding said sublayer beads (see figure 4 and page 49), with said sublayer beads providing a foundation for said structuring beads (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that a shape of the upper foundation surface of said sublayer beads substantially corresponds to a shape of a lower surface of the corresponding said structuring beads resting thereon (see figures, there is substantial overlap between the sublayer weave and the structure layer patterns).
Regarding claim 3, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that the upper foundation surface of said sublayer beads is substantially flat (see figures).
Regarding claim 4, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that in the thickness direction of the structuring fabric, said sublayer beads are disposed substantially within a volume of said woven base fabric (see figure 4 for a visual example).
5. The structuring fabric according to claim 1, wherein said woven base fabric comprises an upper layer defining the web facing side of said woven base fabric, said upper layer being formed from upper cross-machine direction yarns that are interwoven with upper machine direction yarns, and said sublayer beads extending so deeply into said woven base fabric to create a form-fit connection with at least some of said upper cross-machine direction yarns at deepest points thereof (see two examples at figure 14 and 16).
Regarding claims 6-7, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that said structuring beads are substantially square in cross-section (see figure 10).
Regarding claim 8, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that said structuring beads form continuous lines on a web-facing surface of said woven fabric (see figure 9).
Regarding claim 9, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that the continuous lines substantially extend in the machine direction of the structuring fabric (see figure 15).
Regarding claim 10, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that said structuring beads form straight lines on a web-facing surface of said woven fabric or said structuring beads have a wavy configuration (see figures 1, 3, and 9) .
Regarding claim 11, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that a polymeric material of said structuring beads is the same as a polymeric material of said sublayer beads (see page 49 line 20 and page 62 line 5).
Regarding claim 13, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that at least one of a polymeric material of said structuring beads or a polymeric material of said sublayer beads is an acrylic material (page 64).
Regarding claim 14, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches that the acrylic material is a UV-curable acrylic material (page 49 line 23).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabell et al, WO 02/061191 (already of record) in view of Chou, US Patent Publication 2021/0115269.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Cabell remains as applied above and further teaches the use of any known UV curable resin and lists a series of published journals to select from to pick the resin.
Without having access to the journals in question, the average artisan would have looked into the prior art as a whole to see what kind of conventional UV curable resins are utilized.
In the same field of endeavor of embossing a fabric [0022] with a UV curable resin, Chou teaches that the polymeric material would include a polyurethane [0035-0042] and that the acrylic materials [0041-0042] would have a compound of N,N-dimethylacrylamide [0042] for the benefit of acting a crosslinking monomer to aid in strength of the resin; wherein none of said components contributes more than 50 wt-% to the composition of the acrylic material ([0057] give an example of less than 50 % filler to the resin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the conventionally known UV curable resins as taught by Chou in the Cabell reference as Cabell is simply silent on which material to utilize leaving it up to the ability of the average artisan to pick a suitable resin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748