Detailed Action
The communications received 01/30/2026 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-18 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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meinander (WO92/01113) hereinafter MEI.
As for claim 1, MEI teaches an inclined-wire former for producing a fibrous web from at least one fibrous suspension, the inclined-wire former [Abstract] comprising:
a wire [Fig. 1 #4] disposed to run over a breast roll [Fig. 1 #6] and, subsequently in a wire running direction, to run in an inclined section of said wire that is inclined relative to a horizontal before said wire is deflected at a deflection point into a substantially horizontally extending section of said wire [pg. 4 l. 5-14];
at least one headbox [Fig. 1 #14; pg. 4 l. 11-14] disposed at the inclined section of said wire and configured to apply at least one portion of the at least one fibrous suspension to a top side of said wire;
said headbox having a front wall [Fig. 1 #18n] which, together with said wire, defines an outlet gap for the at least one fibrous suspension, said front wall extending in the wire running direction beyond said deflection point of said wire and forming said outlet gap above said substantially horizontally extending section of said wire (as the last wall i.e. the front wall ends at the horizontal section) [Fig. 1 #188n onto #12];
and at least one dewatering element [Fig. 1 #26] disposed at a bottom side of said wire for dewatering the at least one portion of the at least one fibrous suspension applied to said wire [pg. 5 l. 4-7].
As for claim 2, MEI teaches claim 1 and wherein said at least one dewatering element is arranged on the bottom side of said inclined section of said wire, extends in the wire running direction beyond said deflection point of said wire, and ends below said substantially horizontally extending section of said wire [Fig. 1 #26].
As for claim 3, MEI teaches claim 1 and wherein said front wall of said headbox has, in the region of the deflection point of said wire, a curvature or a bend, which causes a spacing between said front wall and said wire to narrow in the wire running direction (as there is a bend in the front wall which narrows the outlet) [Fig. 1 #18n].
As for claim 4, MEI teaches claim 3, and wherein said spacing between said front wall and said wire tapers continuously in the wire running direction (as the slope on the end of the wall appears to be at an angle therefore tapers continuously) [Fig. 1 #18n+1].
As for claim 5, MEI teaches claim 1, further comprising a fixing suction device (drainage boxes arrangement at the beginning of the horizontal section) underneath said substantially horizontally extending section of said wire, said fixing suction device being usable for determining a position of a water line of the at least one fibrous suspension on said substantially horizontally extending section of said wire [Fig. 1 #26; pg. 5 l. 4-9].
As for claim 6, MEI teaches claim 5, further comprising at least one further dewatering element disposed downstream of said fixing suction device, underneath said substantially horizontally extending section of said wire, and configured to further dewater the fibrous web (one of the drainage boxes at the end of the horizontal wire section) [Fig. 1 #26; pg. 5 l. 4-9].
As for claim 7, MEI teaches claim 6 and wherein at least one further dewatering element is a suction box (the drainage boxes can be vacuum boxes) [Fig. 1 #26; pg. 5 l. 4-9].
As for claim 12, MEI teaches claim 1 and it is understood that the wire is configured for producing a long-fibered paper web/wet-laid nonwoven web from a fibrous suspension [Abstract].
As for claim 13, MEI teaches the provision of the inclined wire-former of claim 1 and the step of producing a wet-laid fiber/long-fibered paper web on it [Abstract].
As for claim 14, MEI teaches claim 13 and as the paper product formed would be a filter, it can be utilized as a battery separator paper web [Abstract; Title].
As for claim 15, MEI teaches claim 13 and it is understood that in the progression of the application of the drainage boxes that a water line is going to be formed from the drying web in standard use [Fig. 1 #26; pg. 5 l. 4-9].
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEI as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Boissevain (US 4,977,687) hereinafter BOI.
As for claim 8, MEI teaches claim 1, but does not teach a steam blower.
BOI teaches that in the drying of sheet material of a papermaking machine that the blowing of steam onto the paper web via a blower (steam box) [Fig. 1 #10] immediately downstream of the headbox (which in MEI would be on the horizontal section) [Fig. 1 #8] improves drying, and in the context of BOI is done in a manner that does not damage equipment nor the web [Abstract; col. 1 l. 66 – col. 3 l. 3].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the steam blower of BOI onto the horizontal section of MEI in order to effect more efficient drying of the web in manner that does not damage the other equipment and the web.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEI as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hamar (US 2002/0029860) hereinafter HAM.
As for claim 9, MEI teaches claim 1 but fails to teach the top wire.
HAM teaches that when forming a paper sheet using a paper machine that one advantage achieved can be the addition of another layer to the paper utilizing a top wire that is placed after the headbox [Abstract; 0012; Fig. 1 #30 versus #12]. As MEI’s paper is used as a filter, it is understood that the capability of an additional layer would allow for more filtering properties.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the top wire of HAM to the papermaking machine of MEI in order to allow for more filtering properties to the final product of MEI. As both MEI and HAM pertain to papermaking machines they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEI as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Borel (US 4,415,625) hereinafter BOR.
As for claim 10, MEI teaches claim 1 but fails to teach the air permeability or a high retention value.
BOR teaches that papermaking wires require a careful balance of air permeability to avoid issues with paper retention and violent fluttering which can cause tears [col. 1 l. 5-40]. One listed acceptable CFM of the wire is one of 403 [col. 4 l. 45-54].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the CFM of the wire of BOR as the CFM of the wire of MEI in order to accomplishing the papermaking functions without issues such as paper retention and violent fluttering which can cause tears.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEI as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Resch (US 2009/0139673) hereinafter RES.
As for claim 11, MEI teaches claim 1 but does not teach the edge limiters.
RES teaches that in the formation of paper sheets that one manner of preventing pulp suspension from running off the sides is to include edge limiters after the headbox [Abstract; 0025; Fig. 1 and 4 #7] (which in MEI would be on the horizontally extending section).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the edge limiters of RES to the horizontally extending section of MEI in order to prevent the pulp suspension from running off the sides of the wire. As both MEI and RES pertain to papermaking on wires they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill expects success in the combination.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEI as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Witsch et al (US 2010/0319543) hereinafter WIT.
As for claims 16-17 MEI teaches claim 1 but fails to teach a consistency.
WIT teaches the production of a filter based on paper and which utilize an inclined wire [Abstract; 0053-54]. An acceptable consistency range for the filter is 0.01-6% (which overlaps the consistencies of claims 16-17) [0053].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use the consistency of WIT in order to produce a filter as required in MEI. As both MEI and WIT pertain to the creation of filters and use of inclined wire formers, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art.
In accordance with the MPEP, ‘ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)’ therefore the overlapping range is obvious [see e.g. MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEI as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bessonoff et al (US 2015/0068973) hereinafter BES.
As for claim 18, MEI teaches claim 13 but does not teach a grammage.
BES teaches the production of a paper on a wire to produce a filter (filter fabric) [Abstract; 0043] in which one acceptable grammage is 20 gram per square meter (which is within the claimed range) [0049].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the grammage of BES as the grammage of MEI in order to form a filter paper. As both BES and MEI pertain to the arts of forming a filter paper on a papermaking wire they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art Meinander fails to disclose the limitation “said front wall extending in the wire running direction beyond said deflection point of said wire and forming said outlet gap above said substantially horizontally extending section of said wire.” As Meinander’s front wall fails to end beyond the deflection point. This is particularly true because the Applicant views the front wall as “the wall shown on top in figure 4” instead of cited 18n.
Respectfully the Examiner disagrees. In accordance with the claim language the only requirement of the front wall is that it is a part of the headbox and part of the headbox’s outlet gap as shown by the citation of 18n. Therefore the front wall selected by the Examiner meets the criteria for the limitation front wall and by extension meets the limitation requiring it to extend beyond the deflection point of the wire. Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a “flow back on the inclined portion” is a requirement of the present claimed language.
Respectfully the Examiner disagrees, the claim language is silent to a flow back.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748