DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 2/3/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-13 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 § 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 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHERB (US 2008/0257514 A1).
For claim 1, SCHERB teaches an apparatus and method to produce a fibrous tissue web [abstract]. SCHERB further teaches the apparatus has a forming section that transports/dewaters the web [0042], a YANKEE drying cylinder [0044], and through-air-drying fabric or spiral linked fabric [0009]. This teaches the limitation of “A tissue machine for making tissue, the tissue machine comprising: a forming section with a fabric for dewatering and transporting a nascent tissue web; a Yankee section with a Yankee cylinder; and a through air drying section with at least one through air dryer, said through air drying section containing a through air drying (TAD) fabric for taking over the nascent tissue web from the fabric of said forming section, and for transporting the nascent tissue web through said at least one through air dryer towards said Yankee section, said TAD fabric being constructed as a spiral link fabric and said spiral link fabric is free of any coating”.
For claim 2, SCHERB teaches the tissue machine according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB teaches the use of a headbox/flowbox (element 11) [0045] with two converging fabrics (elements 7 and 8). This teaches the limitation of “further comprising a headbox, wherein said forming section has a twin-wire former with two converging fabrics forming a gap for receiving fiber suspension ejected from said headbox”.
For claim 13, SCHERB teaches an apparatus and method to produce a fibrous tissue web [abstract]. SCHERB further teaches the apparatus has a forming section that transports/dewaters the web [0042], a YANKEE drying cylinder [0044], and through-air-drying fabric or spiral linked fabric [0009]. This teaches the limitation of “A method of using a spiral link fabric as a through air drying (TAD) fabric in a TAD machine for making tissue, the spiral link fabric being free of any coating, which comprises the step of: providing the TAD machine, containing: a forming section with a fabric for dewatering and transporting a nascent tissue web; a Yankee section with a Yankee cylinder; and a through air drying section with at least one through air dryer, the through air drying section containing the TAD fabric for taking over the nascent tissue web from the fabric of the forming section, and for transporting the nascent tissue web through the at least one through air dryer towards the Yankee section”.
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(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHERB (US 2008/0257514 A1) in view of BOECHAT (US 2011/0303379 A1).
For claim 3, SCHERB teaches the tissue machine according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB does not teach the use of multiple TAD fabrics. BOECHAT teaches a similar production of tissue with TAD fabric. BOECHAT further teaches the use of multiple TAD fabrics to dry the web [0017 and 0018]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said at least one through air dryer of said through air drying section is one of two through air dryers”. BOECHAT also teaches the advantage of a second drying is the gentle and efficient dewatering of the web [0012]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the second TAD device of BOECHAT into the apparatus of SCHERB to make a better tissue apparatus. One skilled in the arts would be motivated to modify SCHERB based on the improved drying efficiency of a second drying as taught by BOECHAT.
For claim 4, SCHERB teaches the tissue machine according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB does not teach the contact area of the fabric. BOECHAT teaches a similar production of tissue with TAD fabric. BOECHAT further teaches the side of the fabric contacting the paper has a contact area of greater than 20% [0027]. This range overlaps the claimed range of “wherein said spiral link fabric provides a contact area of between 15% and 25% for the nascent tissue web”. BOECHAT also teaches the advantage of a second drying is the gentle and efficient dewatering of the web [0012]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the second TAD device of BOECHAT into the apparatus of SCHERB to make a better tissue apparatus. One skilled in the arts would be motivated to modify SCHERB based on the improved drying efficiency of a second drying as taught by BOECHAT.
For claim 5, SCHERB teaches the tissue machine according to claim 1, as above. SCHERB does not teach the use of staffer yarn to fill voids in the fabric. BOECHAT teaches a similar production of tissue with TAD fabric. BOECHAT further teaches the side of the fabric contacting the paper has coarse felt fibers applied to fabric creating uniform surface [0015 and 0016]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said spiral link fabric contains staffer yarns inserted into open spaces formed by links of spiral coils”. BOECHAT also teaches the advantage of a second drying is the gentle and efficient dewatering of the web [0012]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts to substitute the second TAD device of BOECHAT into the apparatus of SCHERB to make a better tissue apparatus. One skilled in the arts would be motivated to modify SCHERB based on the improved drying efficiency of a second drying as taught by BOECHAT.
Claim(s) 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHERB (US 2008/0257514 A1) and BOECHAT (US 2011/0303379 A1) in view of OTSTOT (US 4348458 A).
For claim 6, SCHERB and BOECHAT teach the tissue machine according to claim 5, as above. SCHERB does not teach the use of polyethyleneterephthalate as fiber. OTSTOT teaches a similar fiber made from polymer [column 2 line 42]. OTSTOT also teaches the fiber is made of polyethyleneterphthalate [column 7 line 38]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein said spiral coils of said spiral link fabric are made from polyphenylene sulfide or Polyethylenterephthalate”. OTSTOT also teaches the advantage of the coiled fiber is that the fiber is able to absorb large amounts of shock or stress [column 6 line 46]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber of OTSTOT into the fabric of SCHERB to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to modify the SCHERB fabric based on the improved shock and stress resistance of the polyethyleneterephthalate fiber as taught by OTSTOT.
For claim 7, SCHERB and BOECHAT teach the tissue machine according to claim 5, as above. SCHERB does not teach the diameter of the spiral link fabric coils. OTSTOT teaches a similar fiber made from polymer [column 2 line 42]. OTSTOT also teaches the fiber has a diameter of about 100 microns to 10000 micrometers [column 4 line 20] (equivalent to about 0.1 to about 10 mm). This range encompasses the claimed range of “fibers of the dewatering fabric have a diameter of wherein said spiral coils of said spiral link fabric have a spiral coil diameter of between 0.50 mm and 0.60 mm”. OTSTOT also teaches the advantage of the coiled fiber is that the fiber is able to absorb large amounts of shock or stress [column 6 line 46]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber of OTSTOT into the fabric of SCHERB to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to modify the SCHERB fabric based on the improved shock and stress resistance of the polyethyleneterephthalate fiber as taught by OTSTOT.
For claim 8, SCHERB and BOECHAT teach the tissue machine according to claim 5, as above. SCHERB does not teach the diameter of the spiral link fabric coils. OTSTOT teaches a similar fiber made from polymer [column 2 line 42]. OTSTOT also teaches the fiber has a diameter of about 100 microns to 10000 micrometers [column 4 line 20] (equivalent to about 0.1 to about 10 mm). This range encompasses the claimed range of “wherein said spiral coils of said spiral link fabric have a spiral coil diameter of between 0.65 mm and 0.75 mm”. OTSTOT also teaches the advantage of the coiled fiber is that the fiber is able to absorb large amounts of shock or stress [column 6 line 46]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber of OTSTOT into the fabric of SCHERB to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to modify the SCHERB fabric based on the improved shock and stress resistance of the polyethyleneterephthalate fiber as taught by OTSTOT.
For claim 9, SCHERB and BOECHAT teach the tissue machine according to claim 5, as above. SCHERB does not teach the diameter of the spiral link fabric coils. OTSTOT teaches a similar fiber made from polymer [column 2 line 42]. OTSTOT also teaches the fiber has a diameter of about 100 microns to 10000 micrometers [column 4 line 20] (equivalent to about 0.1 to about 10 mm). This range encompasses the claimed range of “wherein said spiral coils of said spiral link fabric have a spiral coil diameter of between 0.85 mm and 0.95 mm”. OTSTOT also teaches the advantage of the coiled fiber is that the fiber is able to absorb large amounts of shock or stress [column 6 line 46]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber of OTSTOT into the fabric of SCHERB to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to modify the SCHERB fabric based on the improved shock and stress resistance of the polyethyleneterephthalate fiber as taught by OTSTOT.
For claim 10, SCHERB and BOECHAT teach the tissue machine according to claim 7, as above. SCHERB does not teach the diameter of the spiral link fabric coils. OTSTOT teaches a similar fiber made from polymer [column 2 line 42]. OTSTOT also teaches the fiber has a diameter of about 100 microns to 10000 micrometers [column 4 line 20] (equivalent to about 0.1 to about 10 mm). This range encompasses the claimed value of “wherein said spiral coil diameter is 0.55 mm”. OTSTOT also teaches the advantage of the coiled fiber is that the fiber is able to absorb large amounts of shock or stress [column 6 line 46]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber of OTSTOT into the fabric of SCHERB to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to modify the SCHERB fabric based on the improved shock and stress resistance of the polyethyleneterephthalate fiber as taught by OTSTOT.
For claim 11, SCHERB and BOECHAT teach the tissue machine according to claim 7, as above. SCHERB does not teach the diameter of the spiral link fabric coils. OTSTOT teaches a similar fiber made from polymer [column 2 line 42]. OTSTOT also teaches the fiber has a diameter of about 100 microns to 10000 micrometers [column 4 line 20] (equivalent to about 0.1 to about 10 mm). This range encompasses the claimed value of “wherein said spiral coil diameter is 0.70 mm”. OTSTOT also teaches the advantage of the coiled fiber is that the fiber is able to absorb large amounts of shock or stress [column 6 line 46]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber of OTSTOT into the fabric of SCHERB to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to modify the SCHERB fabric based on the improved shock and stress resistance of the polyethyleneterephthalate fiber as taught by OTSTOT.
For claim 12, SCHERB and BOECHAT teach the tissue machine according to claim 9, as above. SCHERB does not teach the diameter of the spiral link fabric coils. OTSTOT teaches a similar fiber made from polymer [column 2 line 42]. OTSTOT also teaches the fiber has a diameter of about 100 microns to 10000 micrometers [column 4 line 20] (equivalent to about 0.1 to about 10 mm). This range encompasses the claimed value of “wherein said spiral coil diameter is 0.90 mm”. OTSTOT also teaches the advantage of the coiled fiber is that the fiber is able to absorb large amounts of shock or stress [column 6 line 46]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber of OTSTOT into the fabric of SCHERB to improve the fabric properties. One would be motivated to modify the SCHERB fabric based on the improved shock and stress resistance of the polyethyleneterephthalate fiber as taught by OTSTOT.
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 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights