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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/02/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wilkie et al, US Patent publication 2023/0272582.
Regarding claim 1, Wilkie teaches a papermaking felt base member (see abstract) comprising:
an ended woven fabric (figures 7 and 9 and [0034-0036]) comprising machine direction yarns reciprocating in a machine direction (See figures and [0039-0043]), and cross machine direction yarns arranged along a cross machine direction (item 116 in figure 8) and interwoven with the machine direction yarns [0039-0046]);
a plurality of pintle wire insertion loops (seam loops items 14 and 114) formed by folding back the machine direction yarns at both ends of the woven fabric in the machine direction (see figures 7 and 8), through which a pintle wire is able to be inserted (item 118 figure 8); and
a plurality of filling yarns (152 and 154 yarns in figure 8) arranged along the cross machine direction at at least one end of the woven fabric between the CD yarns arranged at the outermost end of the woven fabric (item 116 figure 8) and the pintle wire insertion loops,
wherein among the plurality of filling yarns, the fineness of the first filling yarn (item 154C or 156 in figures 7-8) that is arranged closest to the pintle wire insertion loops (see figures 7 and 8) is smaller [0058] than a second filling yarn (152B see figures 7-8) that is arranged on the CD yarn side of the first filling yarn (see figures 7-8).
Wilkie teaches that the monofilament filler yarns are around the same size of the CD yarns (but can be different [0054]) of 0.5 mm or more while the cabled monofilaments of item 154 have a smaller diameter of 0.15 mm or greater [0058].
Regarding claim 2, Wilkie further teaches that the first and second filling yarns are adjacent to each other (see figures 7 and 8)
Regarding claim 7, Wilkie further teaches that the at least one end of the woven fabric consists of the first and second filling yarns (See figures 7-8)
Regarding claims 8-9, Wilkie further teaches that the first or second filling yarns can be spun or multifilament [0058].
Regarding claim 10, Wilkie further teaches that the stuffer package (all of the filler yarns, item 150) includes a stitch (item 160) that ties back to be interwoven with the MD yarns (see figure 9 and [0048-0050] therefore reading on the double warp backed weave pattern)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wilkie et al, US Patent publication 2023/0272582 as referenced by Wetekam, http://wetekamgroupusa.com/umrechnungstabelle/
Regarding claims 3-6, Wilkie teaches a preferred material for the filler yarns are polyamide [0058]. The diameter of the yarns is provided by Wilkie, but the fineness is property that is simply not provided.
In order to show that the fineness of the yarns would fall into the expected range, a conversion chart for polyamide 6, 6.6, and 12 is provided.
In the chart provided by Wetekam, a diameter of 0.15 mm would have a dtex of 201 and a diameter of .17 mm would have a dtex of 259 with a 0.5mm having a dtex of 2237.
The teaching of Wilkie of at least 0.15 and at least .5 mm for the respective fabrics would implicitly fall within the claimed ranges.
In the alternative, an obviousness rejection is presented simply to address the obviousness of ranges that would occur from the overlapping values provided by the chart. Absent a way of the average artisan to calculate the exact dtex of the preferred fibers in Wilkie, a showing of the expected conversions discussed above would lead the average artisan to find the overlapping ranges obviously taught by the art.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkie et al, US Patent publication 2023/0272582 in view of Fry, USP 5,746,257.
Regarding claims 10-12, Wilkie teaches the claimed weave as discussed in claim 10 above with a zig zag stitch being part of the stuffer package, but does not teach the specific weave patterns as required in claims 10-12.
To show that this double weave pattern is conventional in the art, Fry is presented as a method for joining two ends of a belt with a seam with a double back weave pattern that includes the lacing of the upper and lower machine direction fibers with the stitching and filling fibers (see figures and columns 3 and 4). The above cited weave patterns are met by the teachings of the repeating unit with an over and under form the top and bottom portions of the machine fibers (see figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a known weave pattern (as taught by Fry) in the Wilkie method that accomplishes the same end result of having a felt/belt that can be joined through a seam section. The use of a conventional weave pattern to accomplish the same end result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 13 provides a specific weave patterns performed in a specific manner and while such a pattern would have been possible to the average artisan upon a review of the prior art, there is a lack of motivation to utilize this type of pattern in the claimed manner in a papermaking felt base at the seem loop location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 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 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights