DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 1/28/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-13 are elected.
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
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HAY (US 20040118473 A1).
For claim 1, HAY teaches a composite web forming fabric [0001]. This teaches the limitation of “A base fabric for a papermaking felt”. HAY teaches the uses a warp (machine direction)-weft (cross-direction) woven structure [abstract] to form a paper (water) and machine (roll) side [0010]. This teaches the limitation of “forming a warp-weft double woven structure and having a wet paper side surface and a roll side surface, wherein the base fabric is made of an MD yarn in a felt running direction (MD direction) and a CD yarn in a felt cross direction (CD direction)”. HAY teaches the use of a weave pattern that repeats [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “and the base fabric comprises a weave repeat, and in the weave repeat”. HAY teaches the weft yarn touches the upper and lower surface when woven around warp yarn to make a knuckle [0017]. This teaches the limitation of “the CD yarn includes an upper CD yarn located on the wet paper side surface and a lower CD yarn located on the roll side surface, the MD yarn is woven into both of the upper CD yarn and the lower CD yarn”. HAY teaches a pattern with two adjacent MD yarn (dotted and solid lines) in the cross direction [Fig 8]. This teaches the limitation of “the MD yarn includes at least one combination of a first MD yarn and a second MD yarn adjacent to the first MD yarn in the CD direction”. HAY teaches a plain weave structure by overlapping MD and CD yarn [0017] and vice versa [0022]. This teaches the limitation of “the first structural unit represents a 1/1 plain weave structure formed by the upper CD yarn and the first MD yarn, the second structural unit represents a 1/1 plain weave structure formed by the lower CD yarn and the second MD yarn”. HAY also teaches a pattern that contains a weft weave (numbered yarn) contacting the top (wet paper) surface in an alternating order [Fig 8]. This teaches the limitation of “the third structural unit represents a structural unit in which the first MD yarn alternately comes into contact with a wet paper side surface of the upper CD yarn, a roll side surface of the lower CD yarn, and a wet paper side surface of the upper CD yarn”. HAY also teaches a pattern that contains a warp weave (dotted and solid lines) contacting the machine (roll side) surface in an alternating order [Fig 8] and the pattern includes a simple alternating weave between the alternating straight line pattern [Fig 8]. This teaches the limitation of “the fourth structural unit represents a structural unit in which the second MD yarn alternately comes into contact with a roll side surface of the lower CD yarn, a wet paper side surface of the upper CD yarn, and a roll side surface of the lower CD yarn, and the weave repeat includes a location at which the first structural unit and the second structural unit are formed in pairs on both surfaces of the base fabric”. These four patterns together make a repeating structure [Fig 8]. This teaches the limitation of “, the weave repeat includes a first structural unit, a second structural unit, a third structural unit, and a fourth structural unit,”.
For claim 2, HAY teaches the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 1, as above. HAY teaches the lower CD yarn in the third pattern are not adjacent but have a pattern between the repeating unit [Fig 8]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the lower CD yarn included in the third structural unit and the upper CD yarn included in the fourth structural unit are not adjacent in the MD direction”.
For claim 3, HAY teaches the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 1, as above. HAY teaches the patterns occur (flipped) on the top (yarns 1, 3, 5) and bottom (14, 16, 18) of the fabric [Fig 8]. “wherein the third structural unit and the fourth structural unit are formed in pairs on both surfaces of the base fabric”.
For claim 4, HAY teaches the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 1, as above. HAY does not teach a twill a twill weaving pattern (over two yarn and under two adjacent yarn). This teaches the limitation of “wherein each of the third structural unit and the fourth structural unit is not a twill weaving pattern”.
For claim 9, HAY teaches a papermaking fabric of claim 1 and the formation of a fabric [abstract]. This teaches the limitation of “A papermaking felt comprising: the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 1”.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAY (US 20040118473 A1).
For claim 6, HAY teaches the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 1, HAY teaches the weft (cross direction) yarn count ranges from 19.5 to 39.0 per cm [TABLE 1]. This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein the number of the CD yarns is 140 Numbers/5 cm or less”. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAY (US 20040118473 A1) in view of SAWADA (US 20100101744 A1).
For claim 5, HAY teaches the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 1, as above. HAY does not teach a basis weight of the base fabric. SAWADA teaches a similar base fabric for papermaking with multiple weave patterns and layers [abstract]. SAWADA further teaches an example of the base fabric with a basis weight of 400 g/m2 [0132]. This value is within the instant claim range of “which has a basis weight of 850 g/m2 or less”. SAWADA teaches that the overall difference of basis weights and patterns between layers improve the wet paper stick/transfer with the web [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of the HAY web with the basis weight of the SAWADA web base to improve the overall web performance. One would be motivated to modify the HAY base web based on the improved wet paper stick/transfer as taught by SAWADA.
For claim 7, HAY teaches the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 1, as above. HAY is silent to the yarn twist characteristics. SAWADA teaches a similar base fabric for papermaking with multiple weave patterns and layers [abstract]. SAWADA further teaches an example of the base fabric made from twisted yarn [0132]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the CD yarn is a twisted yarn”. SAWADA teaches that the overall difference of basis weights and patterns between layers improve the wet paper stick/transfer with the web [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of the HAY web with the yarn twist of the SAWADA web base to improve the overall web performance. One would be motivated to modify the HAY base web based on the improved wet paper stick/transfer as taught by SAWADA.
For claim 8, HAY teaches the base fabric for a papermaking felt according to claim 7, as above. HAY is silent to the yarn twist characteristics. SAWADA teaches a similar base fabric for papermaking with multiple weave patterns and layers [abstract]. SAWADA further teaches an example of the base fabric made from multifilament twisted yarn [0133]. The Examiner understands multifilament is more than one filament (equivalent to two or more). This teaches the limitation of “wherein the CD yarn is a twisted yarn formed by twisting two or more yarns”. SAWADA teaches that the overall difference of basis weights and patterns between layers improve the wet paper stick/transfer with the web [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of the HAY web with the yarn twist of the SAWADA web base to improve the overall web performance. One would be motivated to modify the HAY base web based on the improved wet paper stick/transfer as taught by SAWADA.
For claim 10, HAY teaches the papermaking felt according to claim 9, as above. HAY is silent to the use of non-woven features. SAWADA teaches a similar base fabric for papermaking with multiple weave patterns and layers [abstract]. SAWADA further teaches batt layers can be used on both the machine side and paper side [0033]. SAWADA teaches batt with different water wicking characteristic (hydrophilic) are used on different sides of the base fabric to direct water [0033]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a nonwoven fabric is entangled on both the wet paper side surface of the base fabric and the roll side surface of the base fabric”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of the HAY web with the batt material of the SAWADA web base to improve the overall web performance. One would be motivated to modify the HAY base web based on the improved water transfer direction control as taught by SAWADA.
For claim 11, HAY teaches the papermaking felt according to claim 9, as above. HAY does not teach a basis weight of the base fabric. SAWADA teaches a similar base fabric for papermaking with multiple weave patterns and layers [abstract]. SAWADA teaches the batt of the entire web has a basis weight of from 50 to 1200 g/m2 [0039] and the double weave structure has a basis weight of between 400 to 700 g/m2 [0117] (equivalent to total weight ranging from 450 to 1900 g/m2). This range overlaps the instant claim range of “which has a basis weight of 1700 g/m2 or less”. See MPEP 2144.05(I). SAWADA teaches that the overall difference of basis weights and patterns between layers improve the wet paper stick/transfer with the web [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of the HAY web with the basis weight of the SAWADA web base to improve the overall web performance. One would be motivated to modify the HAY base web based on the improved wet paper stick/transfer as taught by SAWADA.
For claim 12, HAY teaches the papermaking felt according to claim 9, as above. HAY does not teach a basis weight of the base fabric. SAWADA teaches a similar base fabric for papermaking with multiple weave patterns and layers [abstract]. SAWADA teaches the batt of the entire web has a basis weight of from 50 to 1200 g/m2 [0039] and the double weave structure has a basis weight of between 400 to 700 g/m2 [0117] (equivalent to total weight ranging from 450 to 1900 g/m2). The ratio of the basis weight of the base fabric to overall basis weight is 700:450 to 400:1900 (equivalent to 1:0.642 to 1:4.75). This range overlaps the instant claim range of “wherein a weight of the base fabric with respect to a weight of the entire papermaking felt is 11/20 or less” (equivalent to 1:1.81). SAWADA teaches that the overall difference of basis weights and patterns between layers improve the wet paper stick/transfer with the web [abstract]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of the HAY web with the basis weight of the SAWADA web base to improve the overall web performance. One would be motivated to modify the HAY base web based on the improved wet paper stick/transfer as taught by SAWADA.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAY (US 20040118473 A1) in view of ALDRICH (US 7118651 B2).
For claim 13, HAY teaches the papermaking felt according to claim 9, as above. HAY is silent to the fabric ends. ALDRICH teaches a similar press felt with optional batt material, multiple layers and patterns [abstract]. ALDRICH further teaches fabric is made into an endless belt with a seam at the pattern end (where the two ends meet) [column 3 line 22]. This teaches the limitation of “comprising seam loop portions at both ends”. ALDRICH teaches the invention advantageously provides uniformity to the structure and the upthrust of the web [column 3 line 4]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to modify the structure of the HAY web with the seam design of the ALDRICH web base to improve the overall web performance. One would be motivated to modify the HAY base web based on the improved uniformity and upthrust as taught by ALDRICH.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 EST.
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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748