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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the seam (10) on figures 18A and 18B as described on page 49, line 9 of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 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 Ercken, United State Patent No. 6,440,881 B1.
With regard to claims 1-3, 14-15, Ercken teaches paper machine felt, i.e., a belt, including a layer (10) the structuring layer and a support layer (2) associated to each other; see figures 1 and 2, which show a seam formed by complementing surfaces (11) and (12) forming two bridges (17) and (18). As it can be seen the seam extend into the support layer (2); see figures and column 2, line 30 through column 3, line 10. Note that the figures shows that two seam portions are associated with the support structure bridges (17) and (18) and thus reading on claims 14-15.
Regarding to claims 4-6 and 16-20, Ercken shows that the seem extend entirely on the top fabric (3) and in the bottom support fabric (4), but in separate place and therefore, it can be said that it meets both the partial extension, since it does not go through in both sides, but since it reaches the bottom fabric at a different position then it can be considered a full extension. Moreover, if applicants disagrees that it cannot be considered a full extension, extending the seam to go entirely through the support would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the reference shows that the seam can go through the support layer. Ercken teaches the bonding of the layers; see paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3.
Regarding to claims 7-10, Ercken teaches the bonding of the layers with hot melt adhesive; see paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3, which read in chemical, adhesive and thermal bonding, since as indicated in the paragraph the adhesive is activated by applying heat and adhesive bonding is considered a chemical bonding1. Note as indicated above the layers bond at two sites (top and bottom bridges), thus reading on claims 7 and 10.
Regarding to claims 11-13, Ercken teaches that the felt is mechanically entangled with the support layer by needling; see column 2, lines 42-45, which is mechanical and interwoven. As to claim 13 figures show that the felt layer is interlocked with the support layer by the seam.
The felt layer has been considered as the structuring layer since it would modify the surface of the paper (Broadest reasonable Interpretation BRI), but if the felt layer cannot be considered a structuring layer, using a structuring layer, which are well-known in the art, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since he/she would have reasonable expectation of success if a structuring layer were used instead of a felt layer using the concept taught by Ercken.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Web Material Structuring Belt Comprising a Seam And Method for Making and Using.”
The claims are at least obvious over JPS-54158080 U, which teaches similar belt as Ercken; see figures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A FORTUNA whose telephone number is (571)272-1188. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY- FRIDAY 11:30 PM- 9:00 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 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.
/JOSE A FORTUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
JAF
1 See for example ¶-[0029] of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0221739 A1 or ¶-[0039] of US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0109960 A1.