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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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, 4-5, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Inoue et al, USP 9,157,185.
Regarding claim 1, Inoue teaches a papermaking belt (see abstract) that is used in a papermaking machine and that comprises a first plane on which a wet paper web is placed and a second plane on the opposite side to the first plane (see abstract and figures), wherein:
the papermaking belt comprises a reinforcing fibrous substrate layer (item 21 column 5 line 17) comprising at least one layer of a woven fabric (column 5 line 32) and a resin (item 212 column 5 line 26) and a resin layer placed on the first plane-side of the reinforcing fibrous substrate layer (column 6 lines 12-21),
the at least one layer of woven fabric is embedded in a resin (column 5 lines 25-29),
the resin layer is water-impermeable (column 9 line 36),
the at least one layer of woven fabric comprises a double or more combination weave pattern (double warp weave pattern see Examples on column 16),
said combination weave pattern comprises first yarns and second yarns that are placed in parallel (upper and lower warp yarns, see examples column 16);
said first yarns are placed closer to the first plane-side than said second yarns and said second yarns are placed closer to the second plane-side than said first yarns; and said second yarns comprise a polyester yarn (upper and lower base fabrics in example on column 16 with a double weave pattern with a polyamide yarn).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue further teaches that the first and second yarns are warp that in the machine direction (see example)
Regarding claim 5, Inoue further teaches that the belt does not include a batt fiber layer (see column 16). While Inoue teaches a batt fiber layer in the felt, this is not present in the belt layer.
Regarding claim 7, Inoue further teaches a third yarn that is woven into the first and second yarn (weft yarn which is a twisted monofilament of polyamide 6, see column 16)
Regarding claim 8, Inoue teaches a standard double warp weave of 5 cm and 5 cm (column 16 lines 48-49). Since the weave is equal for both sections of the double weave pattern, the formula of K/L is greater than or equal to N/M has to be met as each side has the same woven pattern making the ratio equal to each other.
Regarding claims 10-11, Inoue teaches that the belt is a shoe press (column 13 lines 49-67) and a transfer belt (column 15 lines 15-25).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al, USP 9,157,185 in view of Quigley, USP 7,866,350.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue teaches a textured and twisted yarn but is simply silent on if it is crimped or not.
In the same field of endeavor of weaving belts for papermaking, Quigly teaches that crimping the bottom yarn in the Weave matrix has the benefit of allows for deeper yarn burial into the weave living a greater life potential of the product (see column 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the advantages taught by Quigly as to crimping the yarns in the Inoue belt for the benefit of allowing for a more cohesive weave that leads to a greater life potential of the product.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al, USP 9,157,185 in view of Watanabe et al, US Patent Publication 2005/0139341.
Regarding claim 3, Inoue further teaches that the second yarn is a twisted monofilament and does not address multifilament yarns.
Watanabe teaches that the yarns can be either monofilament or multifilament and twisted based on the desired strength of the product [0054 and 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize either monofilaments or multifilament’s as they have been shown to be functional equivalents based on the operators desired physical properties by Watanabe. Selecting one over the other is a simple substitution of one known element for another and would have been obvious to the average artisan.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue teaches that the top and bottom warp yarns are of the same size and make up (see column 16) and does not address the fineness of the different yarns.
In the same field of endeavor of making a press belt for papermaking including resin, Watanabe teaches that it is preferred to have the intermediate yarns in a multi warp pattern of the belt to have a larger thickness [0053] than the outer warp yarns [0052-0053] for the benefit of providing a higher internal strength of the belt [0053] as well as an improves workability of the resin infused yarns [0053] so the resin can work its way through the top layer of yarns but be stopped by the larger intermediate yarns to improve workability of the belt [0052]. It is this teaching of a higher thickness in the intermediate yarns (items 42, 63 and 73 in figures) over the edge yarns (71 or 74 in figures 7 for example) that reads on the first yarns having a higher fineness (smaller diameter) that would be obvious to the average artisan.
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the different sizing of the multiple warp yarns to have a higher fineness in the first side yarn and the intermediate yarn to have a lower fineness as taught by Watanabe for the benefit of improving the flexibility and workability of the resin infused papermaking belt.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al, USP 9,157,185 in view of Stelljes Jr et al, USP 6,103,067.
Regarding claims 8-9, in order to show other continental weave patterns in a papermaking ablet, Stelljes Jr is presented.
Stelljes Jr teaches that the weave pattern of the belt will directly affect the surface properties of the paper being formed (see columns 5 and 6), and provides a weave pattern that includes two parallel warp yarns (items 120 and 220, figure 4) with a weft yarn acting as a “warp runner” that crosses over more of the top yarn set than the bottom (see figure 3 item 48) for the benefit of controlling the contact surface that the resin is applied to for controlling the properties of the paper being produced (see columns 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the alternative weave pattern as taught by Stelljes Jr in the Inoue belt for the benefit of controlling paper quality in a known and predictable manner.
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