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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires winding and stretching only a single web contacting layer monofilament formed of laser energy transparent material. It is unclear what is being claimed. It is unclear how “only” is intended to limit the claim and it is unclear what is meant by a single web contacting layer monofilament. It is unclear if only a single web contacting layer is being claimed, or only a single monofilament is being claimed, or only a single monofilament formed of laser energy transparent material is being claimed. Further, is the clamed process excluding additional winding, stretching, webs, and/or monofilaments? Also, what constitutes a single web contacting layer? May it comprise a woven or nonwoven material that comprises more than just the claimed monofilament? It is unclear what is required and/or excluded.
Claim 1 requires at least one of a) or b) but the limitation of “being formed at least in part of a laser energy absorbent material” only follows b). It is not clear if said limitation is also required for a).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2004/0126546 to Davenport in view of USPAP 2009/0139599 to Eagles and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2006/0249220 to Barrett and/or UPSN 4,333,502 to Karm.
Claim 1, Davenport discloses a method of making a structured tissue belt assembly comprising: providing a supporting layer comprising warp monofilaments and weft monofilaments interwoven in a repeating pattern, the supporting layer having a top surface; spirally winding and stretching only a single web contacting layer monofilament onto the top surface of the supporting layer; impinging the web contacting layer monofilament onto the top surface of the supporting layer with downward force; and radiating the web contacting layer with a laser to form one or more first laser welds between a bottom surface of the web contacting layer and the top surface of the supporting layer at points where the web contacting layer contacts the at least one of: a) the at least some of the warp monofilaments or; b) the at least some of the weft monofilaments (see entire document including Figures 7 and 8, [0002], [0018], [0030]-[0032], [0035], [0061], [0062], [0076] and [0077]).
Davenport does not appear to mention at least some of the warp or weft monofilaments being formed at least in part of a laser energy absorbent material and the web contacting layer monofilament being formed of energy transparent material but Eagles discloses the use of a laser energy absorbing material and laser energy transparent material to provide a means for a laser source to heat the surfaces of monofilaments in desired locations (see entire document including claim 4, [0002], [0004], [0008], [0056], [0060] and [0070]). Davenport and Eagles both address the same underlying problem of confining a thermal bond to selected locations rather than letting it spread indiscriminately across a fabric. Davenport's own selective-coating step [0076] shows Davenport is concerned with confining bonding to chosen locations and Davenport already lists a laser as one acceptable way to activate that bond [0061]. Eagles discloses a mechanically simpler process of achieving the same selective, localized result without a separate resin-deposition/imaging apparatus by building the absorbent material directly into the monofilament during manufacture so that when the monofilament is later brought into contact with an undoped, transparent monofilament and irradiated, the weld simply happens, with no imaging step required. A person of ordinary skill implementing Davenport's laser setting option and wishing to avoid Davenport's separate imaging/deposition apparatus would have looked to Eagles and had every reason to expect success since Eagles' own examples ([0112]–[0114]) confirm the technique reliably produces controlled, localized, mechanically strong welds in papermaking fabrics of the same general type as Davenport's fabric. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the laser energy absorbent/transparent monofilaments mechanism of Eagles for Davenport's separately applied resin coating, to simplify the monofilament bonding process and/or because a substitution of one known selective bonding mechanism for another is obvious as it yields a predictable result of localized welding.
Regarding the claimed single web contacting layer monofilament limitation, either Davenport sufficiently teaches the limitation ([0031] and [0077]) or reducing the disclosed strip/yarn array to the simplest single-strand case (one continuous monofilament wound in a closed helix directly from the stock roll) is nothing more than routine selection among the forms Davenport lists. Davenport expresses no criticality to using more than one monofilament.
Regarding the claimed stretching, Davenport confirms that webs processed on the apparatus are preferably placed under an appropriate degree of tension to prevent sagging and unwound from a stock roll ([0035] and [0077]). Therefore, the limitation is either sufficiently taught or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to stretch the web contacting monofilament to prevent sagging and/or provide precise control over the desired/required monofilament location.
Regarding the claimed downward force of at least 0.1 PLI, the magnitude of nip force needed to seat a wound monofilament against a woven base fabric for adequate contact prior to/during welding is a result-effective variable a person of ordinary skill would routinely optimize through ordinary experimentation. The application does not identify any criticality or unexpected result specific to the at least 0.1 PLI threshold.
Regarding the claimed embedment distance, neither reference explicitly discloses embedment distance but the references disclose the operative variables that produces an embedment distance (e.g. contact/impingement force, Davenport [0077]; laser dwell/energy, Davenport [0061]; choice and loading of absorbing material, Eagles [0072]-[0075]) and both are directed to the same underlying concern which is adequate, durable bond strength for a fabric that must survive papermachine operating tensions. Eagles own working examples ([0112]–[0114]) report bond-strength testing obtained simply by tuning these same variables. Embedment depth and peel/bond strength are thus result-effective variables inherent in the disclosed process, routinely optimizable by a person of ordinary skill without undue experimentation, absent any showing in the application that the specific claimed boundaries (as opposed to the underlying process) produce unexpected results.
Claims 2 and 3, Davenport does not appear to specifically mention the claimed woven fabric construction but Barrett discloses that it is known in the art to vary the weave construction of papermaking fabrics based on the intended end use and specifically mentions the claimed 5-shed (one weft over four warp and then under one warp) design (see entire document including [0021]-[0026]). Plus, Karm discloses that it is known in the papermaking fabric art to vary the float number of woven papermaking fabrics based on the desired papermaking belt properties (see entire document including column 1, line 14 through column 4, line 64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the woven supporting layer fabric with any desired number of layers and floats, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired belt properties.
Claim 3, Davenport does not appear to mention constructing the woven fabric with larger weft in one layer than another layer as claimed but Karm discloses that it is known in the papermaking fabric art to construct a double-layer weave with larger weft in one layer and smaller weft in another layer to provide the desired belt properties such as abrasion resistance (column 3, lines 27-37). Plus, Barrett discloses that it is known in the art to vary yarn diameter as claimed to improve properties such as abrasion resistance ([0005]-[0012] and [0084]-[0096]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the papermaking belt with a supporting layer and/or web contacting layer as claimed, motivated by a desire to improve properties such as abrasion resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights