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 .
Claims 1-21 are being treated on the merits.
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 1-4, 6, 9 & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller (USPN 4,502,513).
Regarding Claim 1, Mueller discloses a woven industrial fabric (Figures 1 & 2) comprising: a woven body (Figures 1 & 2) comprising interlaced MD and CMD yarns (Figures 1 & 2), the woven body having edge portions (20 and/or 32) on opposite sides in the CMD direction; and a fusible thread (17 and/or 29) joined into at least one of the edge portions (Figures 1 & 2); wherein the fusible thread is transformed to interlock with the MD and CMD yarns of the at least one edge portion (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Mueller discloses the fusible thread is formed of a first material (Figures 1 & 2), and wherein one of the MD and CMD yarns is formed of the first material (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Mueller discloses the fusible thread is sewn into the at least one edge portion (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Mueller discloses the fusible thread is sewn into the at least one edge portion in a zig-zag stitching pattern or an overlocking stitching pattern (Figures 1 & 2; Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28).
Regarding Claim 6, Mueller discloses installed in the forming section of a papermaking machine (Figures 1 & 2, Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 35).
Regarding Claim 9, Mueller discloses the fusible thread is transformed to interlock with the MD and CMD yarns via melting (Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28).
Regarding Claim 19, Mueller discloses a woven industrial fabric (Figures 1 & 2), comprising: a woven body (Figures 1 & 2) comprising interlaced MD and CMD yarns in a first weaving pattern (Figures 1 & 2), the woven body having edge portions (20 and/or 32) on opposite sides in the CMD direction; and a fusible thread sewn (17 and/or 29) into at least one of the edge portions in a second pattern that differs from the first weaving pattern (Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Mueller discloses a method of making paper (Figures 1 & 2), the method comprising:(a) determining at least one property of a papermaking fabric on a paper machine (Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 35), at least one property of the paper machine, or at least one property of the paper (Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 35), wherein the papermaking fabric comprises a woven body comprising interlaced MD and CMD yarns (Figures 1 & 2), the woven body having edge portions (20 and/or 32) on opposite sides in the CMD direction (Figures 1 & 2), and wherein the papermaking fabric further comprises a fusible thread interlocking with the MD and CMD yarns of at least one edge portion (Figures 1 & 2, Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28); and(b) regulating at least one property of the papermaking fabric, at least one operation behavior of the fabric, or replacing the papermaking fabric (Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 35 & Col. 3, line 58- & Col. 4, line 55).
Regarding Claim 21, Mueller discloses a woven industrial fabric (Figures 1 & 2), comprising: a woven body comprising interlaced MD and CMD yarns (Figures 1 & 2), the woven body having edge portions (20 and/or 32) on opposite sides in the CMD direction, at least some of the MD yarns and/or CMD yarns being formed of a first material (Figures 1 & 2); and a coating applied to at least one of the edge portions, the coating being formed of the first material (Col. 3, line 58- & Col. 4, line 55).
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.
Claims 5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (USPN 4,502,513) in view of Hara (US 2009/0035498).
Regarding Claim 5, Mueller does not specifically disclose the fusible thread is formed of polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate. However, Hara discloses a heat fusible fiber formed of polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (Para. 35-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use fusible threads made from polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Hara, in order to provide weather resistance and dimensional stability.
Regarding Claim 7, Mueller does not specifically disclose the fusible thread has a size between about 150-800 dtex. However, Hara discloses the fusible thread has a size between about 150-800 dtex (Para. 10,13, 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use fusible threads having a size of dtex, as taught by Hara, in order to provide anti-twist effect and flexibility.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (USPN 4,502,513).
Regarding Claim 8, Mueller does not specifically disclose the fusible thread extends inwardly between about 2.5 and 20 mm from an edge of the at least one edge portion. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of inward extending threads from the edge in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of a strong selvage edge, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the inward extending threads from the edge involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 10-15 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (USPN 4,502,513) in view of Bylund (USPN 3,856,599).
Regarding Claim 10, Mueller discloses a method of produced an industrial fabric (Figures 1 & 2), comprising the steps of: (a) providing a woven fabric having interlaced MD and CMD yarns (Figures 1 & 2); (b) edges from the CMD edges of the woven fabric to create edge portions on the fabric (20 and/or 32); (c) joining a fusible thread into at least one of the edge portions (Figures 1 & 2, Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28); and (d) transforming the fusible thread so that the fusible thread mechanically interlocks with the MD yarns and the CMD yarns of the at least one edge portion (Figures 1 & 2, Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28). Mueller does not specifically disclose cutting excess edges from the CMD edges of the woven fabric to create edge portions on the fabric. However, Bylund discloses cutting edges (Figures 2 & 3) which are then thermoplastic sealed (Col. 2, lines 10-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to cut edges, as taught by Bylund, in order to provide a desired size of the fabric for use.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mueller and Bylund disclose wherein step (d) comprises heating the fusible thread (Mueller, Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28 & Bylund, Col. 2, lines 10-16).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Mueller and Bylund disclose the step of pressing the transformed fusible thread to increase smoothness (Mueller, Col. 4, lines 29-57, “weld”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Mueller and Bylund disclose the fusible thread is formed of a first material (Mueller, Figures 1 & 2), and wherein one of the MD and CMD yarns is formed of the first material (Mueller, Figures 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Mueller and Bylund disclose the fusible thread is sewn into the at least one edge portion (Mueller, Figures 1 & 2, Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Mueller and Bylund disclose the fusible thread is sewn into the at least one edge portion in a zig-zag stitching pattern or a overlocking stitching pattern (Figures 1 & 2; Col. 3, line 58-Col. 4, line 28).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Mueller and Bylund do not specifically disclose the fusible thread extends inwardly between about 2.5 and 20 mm from an edge of the at least one edge portion. It, however, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to experiment with different ranges of inward extending threads from the edge in order to achieve an optimal configuration for the purpose of a strong selvage edge, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges of the inward extending threads from the edge involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller (USPN 4,502,513) in view of Bylund (USPN 3,856,599) in further view of Hara (US 2009/0035498).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Mueller and Bylund do not specifically disclose the fusible thread is formed of polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate. However, Hara discloses a heat fusible fiber formed of polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate (Para. 35-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use fusible threads made from polyamide or polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Hara, in order to provide weather resistance and dimensional stability.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Mueller and Bylund do not specifically disclose the fusible thread has a size between about 150-800 dtex. However, Hara discloses the fusible thread has a size between about 150-800 dtex (Para. 10,13, 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use fusible threads having a size of dtex, as taught by Hara, in order to provide anti-twist effect and flexibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732