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, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on September 18, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 18, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “3” has been used to designate both the “flat fiber,” on ¶-[0075] and “seam loops,” on ¶-[0080] of the original specification. 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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crook et al., (hereinafter Crook), United State Patent No. 6,212,739 B1.
With regard to claims 1-2, 10 and 14, Crook discloses a "Method for thermally setting a seam loop for a base structure for a fabric, such as for a seam felt of a paper machine, comprising the steps of:
providing a flat fabric comprising longitudinal threads and transverse threads, wherein the flat fabric has in particular undergone a first thermal setting process; (abstract, column 1, lines 6-24 and figure 2)
folding the flat fabric into a two-layer structure at least one folding point, thereby forming a seam loop at the respective folding point; (column 1, lines 6-24 and figure 2)
inserting a pintle wire into the seam loop, wherein; (column 1, lines 6-24 and figure 2)
the pintle wire can include a metal or other electrically conductive material (column 3, lines 29-32), which will be heated. Although the reference does not explicitly recite the application of electricity by the application of an electrical voltage in order to thermally in the seam loop, this is implied.
Regarding to claims 3-4, figure 2 shows that the transverse threads are removed from the areas adjacent to the folding point, i.e., in the pintle inserting area.
With regard to claims 5-9, Crook teaches that the yarn(s) can be monowire or multiwire yarns having different shapes, including circular shape; column 1, line 44 through column 2, line 5, column 3, lines 6-19, and figures 1 through 4 shows circular pintle(s).
Regarding to claim 11, Crook teaches the coating of the pintle(s) with conductive particles; see column 1, lines 51-60 and column 3, lines 29-41.
With regard to claims 12-13, while Crook does not teach the use of sensors to control the temperature; however, this is within the level of ordinary skill in the art if a better temperature control of the seam were desired and thus considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent a showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the art of “Method, Basic Structure, and Paper Machine Clothing.”
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
