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 45-59 in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 60-74 were cancelled and new claims 75-89 were added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 51 recites the limitation "at least one of the first layer or the second layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the first layer or the second layer are the first nonwoven layer or the first polymeric matrix layer, similarly it is not clear if the claims are referring to the second nonwoven layer or the second layer of polymeric matrix.
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 45, 48, 50-58, 76, 78-83 and 86-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict et al (US 6406577) in view of Sayers (GB 2332916).
A coated abrasive backing consisting of an endless, seamless, loop is provided. The backing loop includes about 40-99% by weight of an organic polymeric binder, based upon the weight of the backing; and an effective amount of a fibrous reinforcing material engulfed within the organic polymeric binder material. The endless, seamless backing loop includes a length with parallel side edges, and at least one layer of fibrous reinforcing material engulfed within the organic polymeric binder material such that there are regions of organic binder material free of fibrous reinforcing material on opposite surfaces of the layer of fibrous reinforcing material. The fibrous reinforcing material can be in the form of individual fibrous strands, a fibrous mat structure, or a combination of the these (ABST).
Benedict teaches the belt as shown in Fig. 6 which is an enlarged fragmentary cross-sectional view of an endless, seamless backing loop according to the present invention. The backing 60 has three parallel layers, i.e., planes, 62, 63, and 64 of fibrous reinforcing material. These three layers 62, 63, and 64 are separated from one another by regions of organic polymeric binder material 65 and 66. These three layers 62, 63, and 64, generally do not overlap, interlock, or cross one another, and are coated by regions of organic binder material 67 and 68 at the surfaces of the backing. Although each of the layers of fibrous reinforcing material could be a layer of reinforcing strands, a layer of a fibrous reinforcing mat or web, or a layer of a fibrous reinforcing mat with reinforcing strands incorporated therein, the embodiment in FIG. 6 shows layers 62 and 64 as layers of fibrous mat structure, and layer 63 as a layer of fibrous strands positioned in the machine, i.e., longitudinal, direction of the backing loop 60 (col. 14, lines 47-64).
Benedict teaches a first nonwoven and a second nonwoven. Layer 65 of organic polymeric binder with linear strands 63 are equated with the first layer of a first polymeric matrix material. Layer 66 of organic binder material is equated with the second layer of second polymeric matrix material.
The layer of nonwoven 62, equated with the first nonwoven layer is on an external side, however the laminate has a coating of organic binder noted as 67 on Fig. 6. The nonwoven layer 62 is interpreted to be on an external side of the industrial fabric.
PNG
media_image1.png
166
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, Sayers is directed to a papermaking press felt (10) that comprises at least one resilient nonwoven elastomer fiber layer (13,14). The felt may comprise a base structure (11) and a paper contacting surface which may be a nonwoven fiber batt (12) the elastomer layers being between these layers. The felt may be assembled by needling the layers together (ABST).
Sayer teaches the layer or layers of elastomer nonwoven fibres are placed between the paper-contacting surface of the press felt, and the upper surface of the base structure. The base structure can be a woven cloth, knitted fabric, composite membrane, or other nonwoven structure. The paper contacting surface may be a nonwoven fibre batt, of the well known kind (pg. 2 and 3, last line and 1st paragraph). The elastomeric spun bond web provide for dewatering properties as well as improved mechanical properties by providing resilient cushioning between the base structure and the paper contacting surface. The paper contacting surface of a batt layer 12 reducing the tendency of the felt to mark the paper (page 5, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a nonwoven surface of a papermaking fabric motivated to provide for resilient cushioning and reduce tendency of felt to mark the paper.
As to claim 48, Benedict teaches the nonwoven material can be one of staple bonded, spun bonded, melt blown, needle punched, or thermo-bonded forms. A nonwoven web is typically porous, having a porosity of about 15% or more. Depending upon the particular nonwoven employed, the fiber length can range from about 100 micrometers to infinity, i.e., continuous fibrous strands (col. 12, lines 32-41).
As to claim 50, Benedict teaches the fibrous strands are commercially available as threads, cords, yarns, rovings, and filaments. Threads and cords are typically assemblages of yarns. A thread has a very high degree of twist with a low friction surface. A cord can be assembled by braiding or twisting yarns and is generally larger than a thread. A yarn is a plurality of fibers or filaments either twisted together or entangled. A roving is a plurality of fibers or filaments pulled together either without a twist or with minimal twist. A filament is a continuous fiber. Both rovings and yarns are composed of individual filaments. A fiber mat or web consists of a matrix of fibers, i.e., fine threadlike pieces with an aspect ratio of at least about 100:1. The aspect ratio of a fiber is the ratio of the longer dimension of the fiber to the shorter dimension (col. 11, lines 5-17).
As to claim 51, Benedict teaches the organic binders can be thermoplastics such as Examples of thermoplastic materials suitable for preparations of backings in articles according to the present invention include polycarbonates, polyetherimides, polyesters, polysulfones, polystyrenes, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene block copolymers, polypropylenes, acetal polymers, polyamides, polyvinyl chlorides, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, or combinations thereof. Of this list, polyamides, polyurethanes, and polyvinyl chlorides are preferred, with polyurethanes and polyvinyl chlorides being most preferred (col. 10, lines 19-28).
As to claim 52, Benedict teaches a pattern on the surface of the faceside as shown in Fig. 2.
Benedict does not teach the belt is configured to receive a product selected from the group consisting of a paper product, nonwoven product, building product. The recitation is directed to a statement of use and do not distinguish the claimed invention from prior art as Benedict teaches a belt with the structural and material limitations as claimed and therefore could be used for the claimed use.
PNG
media_image2.png
240
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 53, Benedict in view of Sayers teaches the external side of the papermaking fabric is the nonwoven felt and the backing of the belt 36, equated with the second layer of the claimed invention, is an external layer also.
As to claim 54, Benedict teaches the articles take the form of belts and band that are adapted to be mounted on pulleys, wheels and drums and these belts are equated with a conveyor belt as claimed.
As to claims 55 and 56, Benedict teaches the nonwoven layers, 32, is embedded in the organic binder, polymer matrix.
As to claim 57, Benedict teaches particles are in the surface organic binder as noted as fillers. Other materials that can be advantageously added to the backing for certain applications of the present invention include inorganic or organic fillers. Inorganic fillers are also known as mineral fillers. A filler is defined as a particulate material, typically having a particle size less than about 100 micrometers, preferably less than about 50 micrometers. The filler may also be in the form of solid or hollow spheriods, such as hollow glass and phenolic spheroids. Fillers are capable of being dispersed uniformly within the binder material. Examples of useful fillers for applications of the present invention include carbon black, calcium carbonate, silica, calcium metasilicate, cryolite, phenolic fillers, or polyvinyl alcohol fillers. If a filler is used, it is theorized that the filler fills in between the reinforcing fibers, and possibly prevents crack propagation through the backing. Typically, a filler would not be used in an amount greater than about 70 weight % based on the weight of the make coating, and 70 weight % based on the weight of a size coating (col. 15, lines 20-37).
As to claim 58, Benedict teaches the first and second organic binder (polymer matrix) layers can be made from the same polymers because Benedict does not specifically teach there are different organic binders in the different layers.
As to claims 76, Benedict differs and does not teach needled fibers in the first nonwoven layer.
Sayers is directed to a papermaking press felt (10) that comprises at least one resilient nonwoven elastomer fiber layer (13,14). The felt may comprise a base structure (11) and a paper contacting surface which may be a nonwoven fiber batt (12) the elastomer layers being between these layers. The felt may be assembled by needling the layers together (ABST).
Sayers teaches the surface nonwoven layer needles the fibers into the spunbond layers and assembles all the layers together (ABST), needled fibers 16 pass through the batt layer 11 and elastomeric spunbond nonwoven layers 13, 14, 15 and base 11 (page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to needle the fibers of the nonwoven external surface layer to the other nonwoven layers motivated to attached the layers together with fibers.
As to claim 78, Benedict is not specific with regard a paper machine.
Sayers teaches a directed to a papermaking press felt and therefore teaches an external side that is positioned on the paper machine and a backside on the paper machine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a press felt with an external side that is positioned on the backside of the paper machine.
As to claim 79, Benedict teaches and shows in Fig. 6 that the length and width of the layers are all the same.
As to claims 80-83, Benedict teaches the linear components are spaced apart and states “the reinforcing fibrous strands can be placed in the backing in a specific portion along the width of the seamless, endless loop. In this way, regions in which reinforcing fibrous strands are present in one plane can be separated from each other without overlap. For advantageous strength, however, the fibrous reinforcing strands are in a continuous layer across the width of the belt backing.” (col. 18, lines 66-67, col. 19, lines 1-5). The fibrous strands are inherently parallel as they are separated without overlap and therefore they would be in the same plane and it is parallel to the first side as shown in Fig. 6.
As to claim 86, Benedict does not teach the process of the linear components being bonded to one another through crosshead extrusion. The claim is directed to a product by process limitation. It should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or an obvious variant from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though a different process made the prior product. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the Applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289,292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce the linear components with bonding via crosshead extrusion motivated to produce a polymer layer with reinforced linear components.
As to claim 87, Benedict teaches a spunbond nonwoven material (col. 12, lines 32-34). Sayers teaches the internal layers are spunbond layers.
As to claims 88 and 89, Benedict teaches the organic binder layer 34 embeds the continuous fiber strands (col. 13, lines 1-8) and the linear components extend though the entire layers (first layer).
Claims 46, 47, 75, 84 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict et al (US 6406577) in view of in view of Sayers (GB 2332916) and in further view of Kramer et al (WO 2004061213).
As to claim 46 and 75, Benedict teaches the examples of nonwovens can be spunbonded webs (col. 12, lines 32-42) and in examples (col. 24, lines 58-61). Benedict does not teach perforations through at least a portion of the industrial fabric. Benedict differs and does not teach needling fibers of the first nonwoven into the external side of the first layer.
Sayers teaches the surface nonwoven layer needles the fibers into the spunbond layers and assembles all the layers together (ABST), needled fibers 16 pass through the batt layer 11 and elastomeric spunbond nonwoven layers 13, 14, 15 and base 11 (page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to needle the fibers of the nonwoven external surface layer to the other nonwoven layers motivated to attached the layers together with fibers.
Kramer is directed to a resin-impregnated belt for papermaking. Kramer teaches a method for manufacturing resin-impregnated endless belt structure and belt structure, designed for use on a long nip press on a papermaking machine and for other papermaking and paper processing applications, requires the application of a polymeric resin material onto a base substrate in a precise predetermined pattern in droplets having an average diameter of 10.Math. (10 microns) or more. The polymeric resin material is then set by means appropriate to its composition, and, optionally, may be abraded to provide the belt with a uniform thickness, and a smooth, macroscopically monoplanar surface (ABST).
Kramer teaches there are discrete hole, 74, in the polymeric resin that forms the surface of the belt over the reinforcing base substrate 52. Moreover, when the outer surface of the belt has a resin coating of some predetermined thickness, it permits grooves, blind-drilled holes or other cavities to be formed on that surface without exposing any part of the woven base fabric . These features provide for the temporary storage of water pressed from the web in the press nip, and are usually produced by grooving or, drilling in a separate manufacturing step following the curing of the resin coating (page 22).
The holes are equated with perforations (claim 46) and permeable and impermeable sections and the sections are on the faceside.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a perforated layer motivated to provide for adequate draining in the belt in the papermaking process.
As to claim 47, Benedict teaches the fibrous reinforcement nonwoven layer, e.g. 64, is embedded in an organic binder layer 66 and 68 which is equated with a coating or film.
As to claims 84 and 85, Benedicts does not specifically teach the belt is on a paper machine.
Kramer teaches the belt is for use on a paper making machine. The polymeric resin can be set to provide the belt with a smooth monoplanar surface (ABST). Kramer teaches the belt structure is for use on a long nip press and therefore a press fabric (claim 85). As the side with the holes is directed to the paper to draw on moisture, the smooth side is considered the back side (page 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide for a smooth side on the backside of the belt on the paper machine motivated to use the belt for paper machine and have the belt smooth on the conveyor rollers.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict et al (US 6406577) in view of Sayers (GB 2332916) and in further view of Rexfelt et al (US 5360656).
As to claim 49, Benedict does not teach the industrial fabric is spirally wound.
Rexfelt is directed to a press felt is devised for use in a papermaking machine, and a method is provided for manufacturing such a press felt. The press felt comprises a base fabric which is made of fabric of yarn material and is endless in the machine direction of the press felt, and one or more layers of fiber material arranged on the base fabric. The base fabric of the press felt comprises at least one layer composed of a spirally-wound strip made of fabric of yarn material and having a width which is smaller than the width of the final base fabric. Longitudinal threads of the spirally-wound fabric strip of yarn material make an angle with the machine direction of the press felt. The spirally arranged layers are used have the advantages that the threads have the upper base layer and in the lower base layer run in mutually different directions and this provide increase flow resistance which is advantageous after the press nip (col. 3, lines 38-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a spirally wound industrial fabric motivated to provide threads in mutually different directions and provide increasing flow resistance.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedict et al (US 6406577) in view of Sayers (GB 2332916) and in further view of Sayers et al (US 5925221).
As to claim 59, Benedict does not teach a coating on the linear components, filament strands.
Sayers ‘221 is directed to a papermaking fabric for use as a press felt (ABST). The press felt comprises a fibrous batt layer supported by a base structure in the form of a mesh or grid formed by perforations in the sheet of resin bonded fibers. Sayers teaches the basalt fibers are preferably treated with a sizing agent such as silicone in order to reduce brittleness. The fibers may be treated with one or more high temperature bonding agents (col. 1, lines 57-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to coat the fibers or linear strands motivated to reduce brittleness or improve temperature resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections over Benedict have been withdrawn.
New grounds of rejection has been presented under 35 USC 103 over Benedict in view of Sayers (GB2332916) and additional rejections over Benedict, Sayers (GB) and Kramer, Rexfelt and Sayers (US).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
