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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2003/0008978 to Chen in view of US Pub. No. 2002/0091185 to Taylor, US Pub. No. 2013/0334726 to Hernandez-Torres and US Pub. No. 2009/0324915 to Swift.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-21, Chen teaches a binder composition obtained by polymerizing acrylic acid monomer in water in the presence of a cure accelerator to form a low molecular weight polyacrylic acid, and subsequently reacting the low molecular weight polyacrylic acid with a polyhydroxy crosslinking agent to make a composition suitable for use as a component in a binder for fiberglass insulation products (Chen, Abstract, paragraph 0001). Chen teaches that the low molecular weight polyacrylic acid has a molecular weight preferably ranging from 1000 through 10,000 (Id., paragraph 0007). Chen teaches that the cure accelerator may be sodium hypophosphite (Id., paragraph 0008) and that the polyhydroxy crosslinking agent may be sorbitol (Id., paragraph 0009). Chen teaches that the polyacrylic acid-based binder component will preferably range from 2 wt% to 30 wt% of the binder mixture (Id., paragraph 0010). Chen teaches an example where the lost-on-ignition ranged from 1.4% to 25% (Id., paragraph 0029).
Regarding the claimed components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiberglass insulation of Chen, wherein the binder comprises polyacrylic acid, sorbitol, and sodium hypophosphite, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiberglass insulation comprising a binder based on the totality of the teachings of Chen. Note that sorbitol is ordinarily known in the art as having a number average molecular weight of 182.17 g/mol or within the claimed range, and that Chen does not require the presence of any other polyol, including one having a number average molecular weight outside the claimed range.
Regarding the claimed amounts of the components, Chen teaches that exemplary amounts of solids by weight includes 71.6 solid part of the polyacrylic acid, 21.8 solid part of a crosslinker.
Regarding the claimed pH, Chen teaches a substantially similar binder composition comprising a polyacrylic acid, sorbitol, and sodium hypophosphite, in the claimed amounts. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the binder of Chen would comprise a pH within the claimed range. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding the claimed ratio, Chen teaches that the molar ratio of hydroxyl groups to carboxylic acid groups may range from 0.4 to 0.6 (Chen, paragraph 0007). Chen does not appear to teach the claimed range. However, Taylor teaches a similar binder comprising a polycarboxy polymer and a polyol, wherein the polycarboxy polymer comprises homopolymers and copolymers of polyacrylic acid having a low molecular weight less than 10,000 (Id., paragraphs 0022-0024), and wherein the polyol may be a compound with a molecular weight less than about 1000, such as sorbitol (Id., paragraph 0025). Taylor teaches that the ratio of the number of equivalents of hydroxyl groups from the polyol to the number of equivalents of carboxy, anhydride or salts thereof of the polyacid is preferably in the range from about 0.4/1 to about 1.0/1 (Id., paragraph 0026). Taylor suggests that the ratio is adjusted based on the molecular weight of the polycarboxy polymers based on the properties, such as recovery and rigidity properties (Id., paragraphs 0021, 0026).
Chen and Taylor teach similar binder compositions having overlapping ratios of the number of equivalents of hydroxyl groups to carboxy groups. Taylor suggests that the ratio varies based on the molecular weight of the polyacrylic acid polymers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiberglass insulation of Chen, and adjusting and varying the ratio of the number of equivalents of hydroxyl groups form the polyol to the number of equivalents of carboxy, anhydride or salts thereof, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Taylor, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiberglass insulation binder comprising properties known in the art to be predictably suitable for similar compositions based on the desired recovery and rigidity properties.
Chen teaches that the binder is for fiberglass insulation (Chen, paragraphs 0001, 0012, 0023). Chen does not appear to teach the characteristics of the glass fibers and the fibrous insulation batt. However, Hernandez-Torres teaches improved fiberglass insulation products including a thermosetting binder and a surfactant, wherein the binder includes a polyhydroxyl compound and a polycarboxylic acid (Hernandez-Torres, Abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0006-0010). Hernandez-Torres teaches that the polycarboxylic acid is a polyacrylic acid (Id., paragraph 0015), and the polyhydroxyl compound or polyol may be polyvinyl alcohol (Id., paragraph 0056), and the polyol component may be a carbohydrate (Id., paragraph 0058), including sugar alcohols like sorbitol (Id., paragraph 0060). Hernandez-Torres teaches that the mixtures or blends of two or more polyhydroxyl compounds of the same or different type may be used in a binder composition, such as a polysaccharide and a synthetic polyol (Id., paragraphs 0063-0068). Hernandez-Torres teaches that the binder composition may include a catalyst such as sodium hypophosphite (Id., paragraph 0095) and processing aids (Id., paragraph 0097). Hernandez-Torres teaches that the binder is typically applied in an amount from about 3% to about 17% (Id., paragraph 0026), including flexible, light density insulation ranging from 0.3 to 4.0 pcf and about 2 to about 13% LOI (Id., Table B), wherein the measure of how much binder is applied to glass products is known as LOI (Id., paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiberglass insulation of Chen, wherein the insulation comprises a binder amount and LOI and density, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Hernandez-Torres, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fiberglass insulation comprising properties known in the art to be predictably suitable for similar insulation materials with similar binders.
Regarding the claimed fiber diameter, R-value and thickness, the prior art combination teaches that the fibers typically have a diameter of about 2 to 9 microns (Chen, paragraph 0023), and that the R-value is the rate of flow of thermal energy per unit area per degree of temperature difference across the thickness of the slab material (Hernandez-Torres, paragraph 0023). Additionally, Swift teaches similar cured binders to produce or promote cohesion in non-assembled or loosely assembled matter, wherein the binders are used to bind glass fibers (Swift, Abstract, paragraphs 0016, 0021). Swift teaches exemplary binder contents, such as 3.8% (Id., Examples 10-11). Swift teaches products having a nominal average fiber diameter of about 9 ± about 1.5 HT (Id., paragraph 0088). Swift teaches that glass fibers bonded with the binders may have a density in the range from about 0.4 lbs/ft3 to about 6 lbs/ft3, such as from about 0.75 to about 2.5 lbs/ft3, and an R-value in the range from about 2 to about 60 (Id., paragraph 0077, claim 165). Note that Swift does not require compression to arrive at the density value. Swift teaches various embodiments comprising R-values and densities and thicknesses within the claimed ranges (see for example Id., paragraphs 0083-0195, specifically paragraphs 0089, 0097, 0158, 0166).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiberglass insulation of the prior art combination, wherein the glass mat comprises glass fiber diameters and a thickness and corresponding R-value, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught and suggested by Swift, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fibrous insulation product having the desired properties established by the prior art as being predictably suitable for fibrous insulation products based on the intended use.
Regarding the claimed stiffness, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and cured binder composition as the claimed invention, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the claimed stiffness naturally flows from the invention of the prior art combination. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the prior art combination teaches a thickness such as about 2 in., 2.5 in., 3 in., 3.5 in., and 4 in. (Swift, paragraph 0079). Note that the prior art combination does not appear to recite multiple plies (see for example Id., claim 161), and Applicants’ specification does not appear to define a ply. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the insulation product of the prior art combination is a single ply.
Regarding claims 6-14, 16, 17, and 20, note that the prior art combination teaches a density in the range from about 0.3 to 4.0 pcf, and an R-value in the range from about 2 to about 60, and various thicknesses such as 2 in., 2.5 in., 3 in., 3.5 in., 4 in., 6 in., about 10 in., and about 12 in. among others, including various combinations of densities, R-values and thicknesses based on the desired end-use (see Swift, paragraphs 0079, 0081, 0083-0195). Additionally, the prior art combination teaches that the density, fiber size, and/or binder content may be varied to produce a particular insulation product with desired thermal properties. There is ample motivation for one of ordinary skill to determine a desired balance of the properties, such as the claimed values, including area weight as set forth in claim 17, based on the end-use application of the insulation material and the totality of the teachings of the prior art combination.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art combination teaches an exemplary insulation having an R-value of about 38 and a nominal thickness of about 12 in. (Swift, paragraph 0166). Although the prior art combination teaches a nominal weight of about 0.4957 lbs/ft2 in this specific example, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill to adjust the density such as within the claimed range, as Swift teaches a density in the range from about 0.4 lbs/ft3 to about 6 lbs/ft3, such as from about 0.75 to about 2.5 lbs/ft3, and an R-value in the range from about 2 to about 60. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fiberglass insulation of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the density, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional fibrous insulation product having the desired properties established by Swift as being predictably suitable for fibrous insulation products based on the intended use.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art combination teaches that a cured fiberglass insulation product can be used in residential building insulation, wherein the insulation may be friction fit between framing members of walls (Swift, paragraphs 0164, 0177). Note that framing members of walls are ordinarily known in the art as being plural and parallel.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen in view of Taylor, Hernandez-Torres and Swift and US Pub. No. 2019/0106563 to Zhang.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-21, in the event it is shown that the pH does not naturally flow from the teachings of Chen, Zhang teaches an aqueous formaldehyde-free binder composition that comprises at least one long-chain polyol, a primary cross-linking agent, and a secondary cross-linking agent comprising a short-chain polyol (Zhang, Abstract, paragraph 0007), including an insulation product comprising a plurality of randomly oriented fibers and the aqueous binder composition (Id., paragraph 0012) which is cured (Id., paragraphs 0015, 0043). Zhang teaches that the primary crosslinking agent may be polyacrylic acid/sodium hypophosphite present in the aqueous binder composition in an amount from 50% to 85% by weight, including 60% to 80% by weight, based on the total solids content of the aqueous binder composition (Id., paragraphs 0046-0048). Zhang teaches that the short-chain polyol is a sugar alcohol including sorbitol, wherein the short-chain polyol is present in the aqueous binder composition in an amount from 0 to 30% by weight total solids, including 2% to 30% and 5% to 20% (Id., paragraphs 0051-0053). Zhang teaches that the aqueous binder composition may include a catalyst such as sodium hypophosphite (Id., paragraph 0055). Zhang teaches that the pH of the binder composition has a natural pH between about 2.0-3.0 based on the desired color and that the composition may include pH adjusters (Id., paragraphs 0064-0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the binder of Chen, and adjusting and modifying the pH, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Zhang, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional curable binder having the desired color suitable for the intended application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786