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 II in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2 and 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
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) 3-9, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al, US Patent Publication 2004/0029474 in view of Nagashima et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0138284.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe teaches a papermaking belt (see abstract) configured for a papermaking machine [0005] comprising a resin layer comprising a resin (layer 7, see abstract), wherein the resin layer is formed using a resin composition comprising an aqueous dispersion (liquid polyurethan resin component) of a urethane resin [0085].
Watanabe teaches that the urethane prepolymer is mixed with a hardener in a liquid form [0051-0055] and that he hardener can be aromatic diamine hardener as shown in formula 1 [0054-0055].
Watanabe does not utilize the exact same claimed language as the claims in as far as stating that the resin composition comprises an organic solvent whose boiling point at 1 atm is equal or higher than 100 C.
While the Examiner would stand on the argument that the liquid form of the mixture would read on a solvent (or in the least be an obvious interpretation), a secondary reference is presented to directly address this.
In the same field of endeavor of making a liquid urethane mixture to apply as a film layer [0031], Nagashima teaches that urethane resin is make into liquid form by utilizing a water soluble organic solvent [0031] in an aqueous medium [0046] of urethan resin particles with a preferred organic solvent of 1-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone [0060] (which is the same as a preferred solvent of the instant specification and shown to have a boiling point of 218 C at 1 atm according to the instant specification [0059]).
It would have been obvious to utilize the preferred aqueous solution of urethane resin particles in an organic solvent as taught by Nagashima in the Watanabe product to utilize a conventionally known solution application of a liquid based resin to form a film. This would have directly applied to Watanabe’s goal of producing a papermaking belt made up of a urethane resin layer that is applied in a liquid form for the benefit of crack reduction and strength properties.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe remains as applied above and further teaches that the hardener makes up around 13% of the composition [0097] and Nagashima further teaches the solvent makes up as little as 20% [0079].
Regarding claims 5-9 and 13, Watanabe and Nagashima remain as applied above and teach the use of 1-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone [0060] (which is the same as a preferred solvent of the instant specification and shown to have a boiling point of 218 C at 1 atm according to the instant specification [0059]) and would inherently include the unlisted physical properties such as vapor pressure as it is the same material being utilized.
It is further noted that the claims are directed to a belt made up of a resin layer. The claims are directed to the composition of the layer when it is formed (aqueous layer applied with an organic solvent and then dried. The manner in which the resin layer is formed only holds patentable weight in as far as it van be shown that the method of making the resin layer has an identifiable physical difference in the resin layer. It is assumed that a resin layer with the same composition will have the same physical structure in the final product.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe remain as applied above and further teaches the goal of the invention is to produce a papermaking belt that produces less cracks and the cracks that do appear do not worsen over time [0076 and 0106-0107] and also teaches the formation of grooves of a depth of 0.8 mm [0099]. While these disclosers are not directly the same as the format of claim 16, it is teaching the same concept of controlling the cracking of the belt and the addition of swells or grooves for control. Additionally it is noted that the claim only states that the resin layer has a number of swellings and cracks but does not provide any guidance on what range that number can be. A discloser of zero would read on the claims under broadest reasonably interpretation.
Claim(s) 3-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al, US Patent Publication 2004/0029474 in view of Matsumura et al, US Patent Publication 2021/0102010.
Regarding claims 3-9 and 14-16, Watanabe remains as applied above and to address a different known solvent, the Matsumura reference is provided.
In the same field of endeavor of utilizing a urethane resin in an organic solvent to make a film layer, Matsumura teaches that the composition preferably includes as little as 10% [0320] of 3-butoxy-N,N-dimethylpropanamide [0315] (which is the same as a preferred solvent of the instant specification and shown to have a boiling point of 252 C at 1 atm according to the instant specification [0059]) or 3-methoxy-N,N-dimethylpropanamide (also given in instant specification [0059]) for the benefit of improving solubility [0315].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the preferred solvent for a liquid urethane resin composition for coating as taught by Matsumura in the Watanabe reference for coating the belt in a known manner.
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe remain as applied above and further teaches the goal of the invention is to produce a papermaking belt that produces less cracks and the cracks that do appear do not worsen over time [0076 and 0106-0107] and also teaches the formation of grooves of a depth of 0.8 mm [0099]. While these disclosers are not directly the same as the format of claim 16, it is teaching the same concept of controlling the cracking of the belt and the addition of swells or grooves for control. Additionally it is noted that the claim only states that the resin layer has a number of swellings and cracks but does not provide any guidance on what range that number can be. A discloser of zero would read on the claims under broadest reasonably interpretation.
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
Prosecution Insights