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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 25-43 have been cancelled. New Claims 44-61 have been added. As such, Claims 44-61 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 21, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on April 21, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,192,986 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 44-46, 48-52, 55-58, 60, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,539,077 to Floyd (“Floyd”).
With regard to Claims 44-46 and 50-52, Floyd discloses an aqueous resin composition for use as a binder in a nonwoven fabric that comprises water, a reaction product of an amine derivative, such as melamine, with a dialkoxyethanal, and a polyol. See, e.g., Abstract, Examples, entire document. The reaction product of the amine derivative with the dialkoxyethanal, along with additional agents in Floyd, qualifies as the claimed additive. Floyd discloses that a preferred polyol is polyvinyl alcohol, column 2, lines 27-29, which is provided in a preferred amount of 15% to 50% by dry basis weight of the resin combination. Column 2, lines 31-34. Floyd also discloses using a metal salt, such as aluminum chloride, column 2, lines 39-43, in the composition as a catalyst, which is provided in a preferred amount of 1 to 10% by weight of a reaction product. Column 2, lines 43-47 and Table 2. As such, if the polyol is present in an amount of 50% by weight of the resin composition, and the catalyst is present in an amount of 6% by weight of the reaction product, which would be 50% by weight of the resin composition, then the ratio of metal catalyst to polyol is about 1:9. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). With regard to Claim 48 and 56, the reaction product of the amine derivative with the dialkoxyethanal disclosed by Floyd provides at least a water repellent function because it provides crosslinking with the polyol to improve strength, toughness, and water resistance. Column 2, lines 34-37. With regard to Claims 49, 57, and 58, Floyd further discloses that polyvinyl alcohol can be fully hydrolyzed, see, e.g., Example IV, which satisfies the limitation of at least 50%, at least 90%, and at least 98% hydrolyzed. With regard to Claims 55 and 60, Floyd teaches that the binder composition is cured, see Examples, which would inherently form a polymeric network that acts as a binder. It is the position of the Office that the metal salt would still be contained in the binder even after curing, and the present claim language does not require any type of covalent bonding of the metal salt with the network. With regard to Claim 61, Floyd teaches that the sodium hydroxide can be added to the binder composition so that it cures at around a pH of 9 or 8.4. Examples 1 and 5.
Claims 44-46, 49-51, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0252855 to Pisanova et al. (“Pisanova”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0023174 to Quinn (“Quinn”).
With regard to Claims 44-46 and 49-51, Pisanova discloses a formaldehyde-free curable aqueous composition containing polyvinyl alcohol, a cross-linking agent, and a catalyst, wherein the composition is used as a binder in nonwoven products, such as fiberglass insulation. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Additional ingredients satisfy the structural limitations of the claimed additives. Pisanova teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol in the binder composition can be 88.5% hydrolyzed. See, e.g., paragraph [0068] (listing CELVOL 205S as the polyvinyl alcohol used, shown to have a hydrolysis level of 88.5% in paragraph [0065]). Pisanova discloses that the catalyst used in the curable aqueous compositions can comprise a metal salt, such as aluminum chloride or aluminum sulphate. Paragraph [0048]. However, Pisanova does not disclose the weight ratio of the metal salt to the polyvinyl alcohol. Quinn is also related to fibrous insulation products that include a binder composition, wherein the binder composition comprises a polyol, such as polyvinyl alcohol, a cross-linking agent, and a catalyst. See, e.g., Abstract, paragraph [0033], entire document. Quinn also teaches that the catalyst used in the binder composition can comprise a metal salt. Paragraph [0054]. Quinn teaches that the amount of catalyst can be present in an amount of 0.5% to about 10% by weight, or preferably in an amount of 3% to 6% by weight, based on the total solids in the binder composition. Paragraph [0055]. As to the amount of polyvinyl alcohol in the binder composition, Quinn teaches that the preferred amount of polyol is present in an amount of 20% to 99% by weight of the total solids. Paragraph [0034]. As such, Quinn teaches that a weight ratio of metal salt catalyst to polyol in such binder compositions falls within the claimed ranges of 1:19 to 1:1 or 1:9 to 1:1. For example, a catalyst amount of 5% by weight based upon the total solids and a polyol amount of 20% by weight based on the total solids would provide metal salt to polyol ratio of 1:4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the catalyst metal salt in a ratio amount of 1:19 to 1:1, or 1:9 to 1:1, compared to the polyol in the binder composition disclosed by Pisanova, in order to provide a suitable catalyst amount for the binder to enable proper polymerization and cross-linking, as shown to be known in the art by Quinn. With regard to Claim 54, Pisanova discloses the polyvinyl alcohol has a viscosity of 2.5 to 5.0 centipoise. Paragraph [0039].
Claims 47 and 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisanova in view of Quinn as applied to Claims 44 and 49 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0033747 to Miller et al. (“Miller”).
With regard to Claims 47 and 53, Pisanova does not disclose using aluminum nitrate as a catalyst. Miller is also related to aqueous formaldehyde-free binder compositions for use in fibrous insulation materials. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Miller teaches that suitable metal salts to accelerate a reaction include both aluminum chloride and aluminum nitrate. Paragraph [0036]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize aluminum nitrate as a catalyst in the reaction disclosed by Pisanova because Miller teaches that aluminum nitrate is a suitable and predictable substitution for aluminum chloride in a similar reaction, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 59 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The arguments and the IDS filed on April 21, 2026 does not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the Section 103 rejections, set forth above, which were presented to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board during an appeal process, and affirmed by the Board on November 7, 2025. As such, the rejections are maintained in their entirety. However, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the Section 112 rejections and the double patenting rejections. As such, Claim 59 is only objected to for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights