Detailed Action
The communications received 07/09/2024 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-56 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As currently claimed, claim 1 requires a single fabric that is a structured fabric that wraps around the same two rolls that are used to form a nip while also being capable of forming a web from a headbox via said nip. As the single fabric on both rolls would render it impossible to form a web between the two cylinders it is engaging, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how this would be enabled. For purposes of examination, it is understood to mean that the same type of fabric is used on both cylinders as opposed to the same single fabric.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 17-21, 24-25, 27-28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 44-46, 49-54 and 56is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korhonen et al (US 2005/0011624) hereinafter KOR.
As for claim 1, KOR teaches a papermaking machine comprising [Fig. 1]:
A forming section configured to form a nascent fibrous web [Fig. 1 #200; 0056], the forming web comprising:
A nip formed between two rolls [Fig. 1 #203-204]; and
A single fabric that is a structured fabric (a wire, the wire understood to be structured fabric) [0048], two single fabrics wrap around the two rolls [Fig. 1 #201-202], the structured fabric configured to receive a fiber slurry deposited from a headbox so as to form the nascent web [Fig. 1 #100]; and
A pre-drying section into which the nascent web travels on the structured fabric after separation of the structured fabric from the forming roll [Fig. 1 #206-207 to 300; 0048].
As for claim 2, KOR teaches claim 1 and further a dry end section after the pre-drying section through which the nascent web travels after being transferred from the structured fabric [Fig. 3 #R7; 0055].
As for claim 3, KOR teaches claim 1 and further comprising a drying section to which the nascent web travels on the structured fabric prior to transferring of the nascent web to the dry end section [Fig. 2 #R1].
As for claim 6, KOR teaches that the headbox can be a multilayer or a dilution headbox understood to mean at least two layered head box which overlaps the double and triple layer headbox, the dilution headbox is understood to be a single headbox [0048; claim 78].
As for claim 7, KOR teaches that the headbox can be a dilution headbox which is understood to have the dilution water actuators for controlling the basis weight [0048].
As for claim 9, KOR teaches claim 1 and that the pre-drying section comprises one or more vacuum dewatering boxes [Fig. 1 #206-207; 0048].
As for claim 10, KOR teaches claim 1 and that the pre-drying section comprises scanners to measure cross direction web moisture and control profiling actuators of a steam box [0027; 0033-35].
As for claim 11, KOR teaches claim 1 and wherein the pre-drying section comprises a press element [Fig. 1 #305-306; 0049].
As for claim 12, KOR teaches claim 1 and further wherein the pre-drying section comprises a vacuum roll that conveys the web to the dry end section [Fig. 1 #205; 0048].
As for claim 17, KOR teaches claim 2 and wherein the dry end section comprises calendars [0006; 0047], a scanner [0033], and a reeling device [0006; 0032].
As for claim 18, KOR teaches 17 and wherein the scanner measures cross direction machine basis weight profile and controls dilution actuators of the headbox for an even basis weight profile [0007; 0017; 0024; 0029; 0035].
As for claim 19, this is understood to be the combination of claims 1 and 11 which are taught by KOR.
As for claim 20, KOR teaches claim 19 and see claim 2.
As for claim 21, KOR teaches claim 19 and see claim 3.
As for claim 24, KOR teaches claim 19 and see claim 6.
As for claim 25, KOR teaches claim 19 and see claim 10.
As for claim 27, KOR teaches claim 19 and see claim 9.
As for claim 28, KOR teaches claim 19 and wherein the press section comprises an extended nip press and a suction element forming a nip through which the nascent web being transferred on a structuring fabric is pressed between two dewatering fabrics [Fig. 1 #301-302; Abstract; 0049].
As for claim 30, KOR teaches 28 and wherein absorbent porous materials are incorporated into at least one of the dewatering fabrics (as a double felted extended-nip) [0026; 0049].
As for claim 32, KOR teaches 28 and wherein the extended nip press is a shoe press or belt [0028].
As for claim 34, KOR teaches 28 and wherein the suction element is a suction pressure roll [0049].
As for claim 36, KOR teaches claim 28 and wherein the suction element is a vacuum box or suction pickup shoe [0049].
As for claim 39, KOR teaches claim 38 and wherein the press element comprises a shoe press [Fig. 1 #305-306].
As for claim 44, KOR teaches claim 20 and see claim 17.
As for claim 45, KOR teaches claim 44 and see claim 18.
As for claim 46, KOR teaches claim 38 and see claim 18.
As for claim 49, this is understood to be a combination of claim 1 and 2 which are taught by KOR.
As for claim 50, this is understood to be a combination of claim 1 and 11 which are taught by KOR.
As for claim 51, KOR teaches claim 50 and KOR further teaches the vacuum elements [Fig. 1 #313; 0049].
As for claim 52, KOR teaches claim 50 and see claim 28.
As for claim 53, KOR teaches claim 50 and the TAD drying cylinders [Fig. 2 #420].
As for claim 54, KOR teaches claim 50 and see claim 3.
As for claim 56, KOR teaches claim 54 and see claim 17.
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) 4-5, 22-23, 39, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOR in view of Burazin et al (US 2018/0209096) hereinafter BUR.
As for claims 4-5, 22-23 KOR teaches claims 1 and 19 but fails to teach the laminated fabric and/or a 3D printed polymer, etc.
BUR teaches a structured laminated papermaking fabric that can be used in machinery employed in a typical papermaking operation (a belt with a support structure) [Abstract; 0036; 0006] in which there is a 3D printed material that is laminated onto a woven fabric [0007; 0010-11]. The usage of this belt aids in improving the uniform density of the web while also allowing for the formation of decorative features [0034].
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 structured fabric of BUR as the one of KOR in order to improve the uniformity of the density of the web while also allowing for decorative effects. As BUR teaches typical papermaking machinery and KOR is papermaking machinery, they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 29, KOR teaches claim 28 and KOR/BUR as applied to claim 4 teaches wherein at least one of the dewatering fabrics comprises polymer monofilaments (from the 3D additive manufacturing layer) [0033].
As for claim 31, KOR teaches 28 and in the combination of KOR/BUR as applied to claim 4 it is understood that a polymer netting would be applied via 3D extruded filaments and thereby improve compression resistance.
Claim(s) 13-14, 33, 35 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOR in view of Petschauner (US 2013/0213879) hereinafter PET and Ruotsi et al (US 2010/0204364) hereinafter RUO.
As for claims 8 and 26 KOR teaches claims 1 and 19 and that the two rolls comprise a forming and breast roll [Fig. 1 #203-204; 0048], the forming roll as a suction roll is permeable and applies vacuum [0048], however, KOR fails to teach the rest of the suction roll’s structure.
PET teaches a roll that is used to apply suction, wherein the roll cover (jacket) is perforated and includes an internal suction box [0001; 0005].
The roll of PET is optimal as it allows for ease of filtrate extraction [0004].
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 roll of PET as the roll of KOR in order to allow for effective filtrate extraction. As both PET and KOR pertain to papermaking rolls they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
PET fails to teach the material.
RUO teaches that is it known to use elastomeric material such as rubber as the roll cover [Abstract; 0033] and that this provides improve strength, abrasion resistance, hardness, toughness [0003].
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 material of the roll cover of RUO as the material of the roll cover of KOR/PET as this would improve strength, abrasion resistance, hardness, toughness of the suction rolls. As both KOR/PET and RUO pertain to papermaking rolls they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 13, KOR teaches claim 1 but fails to teach the roll cover, and that it is grooved, drilled, etc., and the material of it.
PET teaches a roll that is used to apply suction, wherein the roll cover (jacket) is grooved (perforated/drilled, it is understood that to have a hole in the jacket that it must have been drilled) and includes an internal suction box [0001; 0005].
The roll of PET is optimal as it allows for ease of filtrate extraction [0004].
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 roll of PET as the roll of KOR in order to allow for effective filtrate extraction. As both PET and KOR pertain to papermaking rolls they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
PET fails to teach the material.
RUO teaches that is it known to use elastomeric material such as rubber as the roll cover [Abstract; 0033] and that this provides improve strength, abrasion resistance, hardness, toughness [0003].
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 material of the roll cover of RUO as the material of the roll cover of KOR/PET as this would improve strength, abrasion resistance, hardness, toughness of the suction rolls. As both KOR/PET and RUO pertain to papermaking rolls they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in the combination.
As for claim 14, KOR teaches claim 1 and KOR/PET/RUO as applied to claim 13 teach the drilled and polymeric features.
As for claim 33, 35 and 40-41, KOR teaches claims 32, 34, and 39 and it is understood that in KOR/PET/RUE as applied to claim 13 teach that it is beneficial to provide through drilled sections to the roll covers to provide ideal suction as well as a polymeric material as the cover.
Claim(s) 15 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOR in view of Pikulik et al (US 5,725,737) hereinafter PIK.
As for claims 15, and 42 KOR teaches claims 1 and 38 and but does not teach the chemical shower.
PIK teaches that high pressure showers/chemical delivery systems can be utilized to clean specific segments of the papermaking fabrics and thereby extend the life of the fabric while also maintaining the quality of the paper [col. 4 l. 64-col. 3 l. 7] with the chemicals understood to be utilized in removal of stickies [col. 2 l. 3-14].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have introduced a high pressure shower chemical system in order to remove stickies and to extend the life of the fabric while also maintaining the quality of the paper. As both PIK and KOR pertain to papermaking using papermaking fabrics they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination. It is understood that the chemical shower by cleaning aids in paper web transfer.
Claim(s) 16, 38, 43, and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOR in view of Kierelid (US 6,398,916) hereinafter KIE.
As for claims 16, 43, and 55 KOR teaches claims 3, 21, and 54 but does not teach the drying section comprises a steam heated cylinder and creping doctor.
KIE teaches that one manner of imparting a complete drying of the web is by utilizing a thorough air drying series of cylinders and fabric and then to a steam heated Yankee dryer which can advantageously be combined with a creping doctor in order [Abstract; col. 7 l. 41-col.8 l. 7]. One of ordinary skill in the art understands creping to impart beneficial properties to paper such as stretching and shaping.
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 air drying system, the steam heated Yankee cylinder and the creping doctor of KIE in order to impart to KOR a complete drying of the paper web and to impart in the paper advantageous properties such as stretching and shaping. As both KIE and KOR pertain to paper making they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination.
As for claim 38, KOR teaches claim 28 and the second press nip with corresponding dewatering fabrics [Fig. 1 #305-306] and in the combination of KOR/KIE, the press section would feed into a steam heated Yankee dryer.
Claim(s) 37, 47-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOR in view of Rulis et all (US 2002/0060040) hereinafter RUL.
As for claims 37, 47, and 48 KOR teaches claims 28, 19, and 20 but fail to teach the shower and/or the uhle box.
RUL teaches that uhle boxes are advantageous as they can control the water removal rate of the paper sheet [Abstract; 0030].
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 multiple dewatering uhle boxes in order to allow for more precise dewatering of the web. As both RUL and KOR pertain to papermaking they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art expects success in their combination. It is understood that by default contaminants would also be dewatered, therefore the uhle box would be part of a cleaning module.
Conclusion
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.
/ELISA H VERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1748