Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 3/14/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-23 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “said two through- channels that are disposed opposite one another across said central through- channel and spaced at said first distance from said central through-channel are aligned substantially parallel to said two lateral edges of said substrate” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim (claim 6). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 13A appears to show the opposite of what is claimed. It shows the two through channels disposed opposite one another across said central through channel to be aligned perpendicular to the lateral edges of the substrate,
In instant Figure 1 the applicant showed the lateral edges as the top and the bottom of the drawing. The Examiner interprets Figure 13A to have that same convention [see marked up Figure below]. If the lateral edges are meant to be on the left and right of instant Figure 13A. the applicant should mark up the figure to show so or alternatively change the language of the claim and instant specification to match the Figure.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2010/0239814 MOURAD et al., hereinafter MOURAD.
As for claims 1and 19, MOURAD discloses a paper machine clothing with a substrate (104) with an upper side (laser side) and lower side (opposite side) [0057, Figure 1B] and two lateral edges [Figure 3A]. MOURAD discloses a plurality of through holes (1014) which extend through the substrate connecting the lower side and upper side [Figure 1B and Figure 10]
MOURAD disclose at least a center through-channel (X) having six neighboring through-channels (1-6) [marked up figure 10]. The six neighboring through-channels form an irregular hexagon [marked up figure 10].
PNG
media_image2.png
379
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claims 2, MOURAD discloses two of the six (1 and 4) surrounding through-holes are on opposite sides of said central through-channel (X). This forms a line that is substantially parallel to the lateral edges of the paper machine clothing.
PNG
media_image2.png
379
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MOURAD discloses a first distance, d1, from said central through-channel (X) to through-channels (1 and 4) and a second distance, d2, to through-channels (2, 3, 5, and 6)
PNG
media_image3.png
353
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claims 3 and 4, the lines of the marked-up figure were measured as total pixels in Microsoft Paint as follows: d1 ~ 55 pixels and d2 ~ 68 pixels. This means that d2 length is about 1.24 times greater than the d1 length which falls within the claimed range.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 7, MORADS shows that at least ‘3’ is surrounded by six directly neighboring through channels.
PNG
media_image2.png
379
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 2010/0239814 MOURAD et al., hereinafter MOURAD
As for claim 6, MOURAD shows its Figure 10 and holes to be oriented in substantially the same configuration as the instant claimed diagram [instant Figure 13A]. While this matches instant Figure 13A it would be perpendicular to the lateral edges. Figure 6 also shows an irregular hexagon wherein the holes are patterned in the rotated 90 degrees and therefore parallel to the lateral edges.
PNG
media_image4.png
380
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, both images do not explicitly give the orientation that the image was taken. Therefore, alternatively changes in shape would be prima facie obvious thereby rotating the holes 90 degrees absent evidence of unexpected results [MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B)].
As for claim 8, MOURAD shows that each of through-channels (2-6) are each surrounded by 6 directly neighboring through channels. The Examiner interprets 5 out of 6 to meet the term ‘substantially all’. If five could not meet the term substantially all then the applicant should have claimed ‘all’. Furthermore, through-channel (1) is at least surrounded by 5 through-holes. The person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the picture to imply a 6 hole below to continue the pattern. In the alternative it would be obvious to continue the pattern for the full width of the belt.
PNG
media_image2.png
379
681
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 9-11, the figure 10 shows a total of 31 holes and of those 31 holes 13 holes are shown explicitly to have 6 surrounding holes. However, this image only shows part of the clothing. It is the Examiner position that the full clothing meets the claims or would be obvious to do so. In a full -sized paper machine clothing only the holes on the outer edges will not be surrounded. Therefore the percent of through holes with 6 surrounding holes will increase as the width of the fabric increases. MOURAD further explains that there are 50-60 holes per inch of fabric [0055]. A larger width fabric means a higher proportion of holes will be completely surrounded as the patten repeats. At the time of the invention the person of ordinary skill in the art would look to use the pattern supplied for the whole fabric. In Figure 13 of MOURAD it is shown how the fabric patterns repeat themselves through a larger section of fabric.
Claims 12-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2010/0239814 MOURAD et al., hereinafter MOURAD, in view of U.S. 2019/0323175 KOECKRITZ et al., hereinafter KOECKRITZ.
As for claim 12-14 and 20-22, MOURAD discloses the features as per supra including the substrate with an irregular hexagon pattern of through-holes. MOURAD further disclose non-cylindrical cross-sectional areas with the cross-sectional area becoming smaller proceeding in the thickness direction [Figure 2A and image 6]. MOURAD discloses an image in there may be some overlap of the outer rim but it is difficult to tell [Figure 6 (602)]. It looks like there is either overlap or abutting along diagonals but not along horizontal lines (so 4/6 holes surrounding a center through-hole).
PNG
media_image4.png
380
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KOECKRITZ discloses a paper machine clothing with a non-cylindrical through-hole and overlapping out rims [Figure 13 and 0019]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to make the through-holes closer in MOURAD such that there was overlapping outer rims. When the rims are fully overlapping the surface completely disappears. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as KOECKRITZ states that overlapping outer rims has the advantage of increasing the open area without hurting structural integrity [0021].
As for claims 15 and 16, KOECKRITZ discloses less than 5% of the upper surface is flat [0023].
As for claims 17 and 18, KOECKRITZ discloses 80% of the lower surface should be flat [0024].
As for claim 23, MOURAD discloses using a laser to form the plurality of through -channels but fails to disclose blowing cooling air. KOECKRITZ discloses using a laser followed by cooling air when forming through-channels for making paper machine clothing [0037]. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to using the cooling air of KOECKRITZ after the laser MOURAD. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by KOECKRITZ who states that cooling has the advantage of inhibiting overheating and damaging of the substrate material [0037].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights