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. 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 20- 23, 26, 28- 38 and 43 - -48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Delmas et al., (hereinafter Delmas), US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0308044 A1 . With regard to claims 20 and 4 3 -48, Delmas discloses a press jacket for a press rolle r of a shoe press, for dewatering a web of fibrous paper, board, tissue or pulp material, or a transport band, i.e., a conveyor belt , of a machine for producing or treating a web of fibrous paper, board or tissue material, said press jacket or said conveyor belt , i.e., comprising: at least one polyurethane-containing layer, the at least one layer has a polyurethane matrix with a prepolymer, the polyurethane is formed by the reaction of a prepolymer that is a reaction product of 1, 4-phenylene diisocyanate (PPDI) and a polyol component comprising at least one polyether polyol and/or at least one polycarbonate polyol, with a crosslinker component selected from 1, 6-hexanediol, i.e., the crosslinker component is disclosed to comprise a C 6-14 diol ; see abstract, ¶-[0001], [0010]-[0012] (which teach the prepolymer and crosslinking and the pre-polymer being the reaction of PPDI and polyol(s) ) , [0017] (which teaches polycarbonate polyol of the formula of claims 43-46 ) and [0019] (which teaches crosslinking component containing C 6-14 diols) . With regard to claims 21-23, Delmas discloses that the crosslinker is selected from 1, 6-hexanediols, which is indicates that the crosslinker component comprises diols according to the general formula HO- (CH 2 ) x OH wherein X is an integer from 6 to 14, and is preferably 6 ; see ¶-[0017] . Regarding to claims 26 and 28-29, Delmas teaches the use a crosslinker , ethylenediamine , triisopropanolamine (TIPA) (belonging to alkanolamines) ; se e ¶-[0032] . With regard to claim 30, Delmas teaches the use of a catalyst; see ¶-[0030]. Regarding to claim 32-34, Delmas discloses that the crosslinking agent may further consist of parts of a polyol or comprise one or more polyols that have been used for the preparation of the prepolymer; polyols may be used as polyether polyols (e.g. Polytetramethylene ether glycol (PTMEG)) or polycarbonate polyols ; see ¶-[0017 ] and in the same paragraph teaches crosslinking agents not comprising any triol compound and therefore, using such crosslinking agents read on claim 33. Regarding to claims 35-38, Delmas teaches that eth crosslinking agents, which includes polytetramethylene have molecular weight falling within the claimed range; see ¶-[0031]. It seems that Delmas teaches all the limitations of the claims or at the very least the minor modification(s) to obtain the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim s 24-25, 27, 31 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delmas, cited above in view of any of Matuschczyk et al., (hereinafter Matuschczyk ), DE 102011079893 A1 and Delmas et al., (hereinafter Delmas’555), WO 2015/08655 A1 (machine translation used for the secondary references) . With regard to claims 24-25 and 39-42, Delmas does not explicitly teach the amount of crosslinking agent to be used with relation to the polyurethane, but it is well-known in the art that i ncreasing the degree of crosslinking in p-phenylene diisocyanate (PPDI)-based polyurethane elastomers significantly impacts both their morphology and friction properties . Higher crosslinking density inhibits crystallinity, decreases elastic modulus, and increases the friction coefficient of the material and therefore the crosslinking agent should not be high, i.e., should be optimized. The secondary references teach making of the same product as claimed and disclosed by Delmas using similar crosslinked polyurethane and teach that the crosslinking agent can be a mix of the same components of claims 39-42; see ¶-[0028]-[0029] of Matuschczyk ; abstract and ¶-[0012], [0051]-[0056] of Delmas’555 . Although the secondary references teach the components of the crosslinking mix in a mol % and not weight % as claimed, since the secondary references teach that the crosslinking mix can be changed and affect the properties of the polyurethane, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that changing the amounts of the mix can be optimize to desired degree, i.e., the proportion of the components is a result effective variable. Also it has been held that it is obvious to try, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See recent Board decision Ex parte Smith , --USPQ2d--, slip op. at 20, (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf . June 25, 2007) (Citing KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1396). Regarding to claim 27, Delmas discloses a crosslinker, optionally triisopropanolamine (TIPA) (belonging to alkanolamines) but does not teach the claimed alkanolamines. However, it would be obvious to one of person skilled in the art to choose equivalent compounds/alkanolamines, since it has been held that “[W]here two equivalents are interchangeable for their desired function, substitution would have been obvious and thus, express suggestion of desirability of the substitution of one for the other is unnecessary.” In re Fout 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt , 372 F.2d 566, 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967). With regard to claim 31, Delmas teaches the use of catalyst id , but Del mas is silent with the specific catalyst to be used. However, Matuschczyk teaches the same type of catalyst i.e., tertiary amine, e.g., triethylenediamine; see ¶-[0026] and thus using a catalyst suggested by Matuschczyk as the catalyst taught by Delmas 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 “ Press Cover f or a Shoe Press a nd Conveyor Belt Having Improved Properties .” /JOSE A FORTUNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748 JAF