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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20-21 are pending in the application. Claims 8 and 19 were canceled. Claims 1, 11, 16, and 20 were amended and supported in the original Specification and claims.
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 1-7, 9-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Angel et al., (WO2018130648 (A1); cited on the IDS submitted on 11/02/2022; hereafter as “Angel”) in view of Tutin et al. (US 2004/0038017 A1; cited on the IDS submitted on 01/12/2023; hereafter as “Tutin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Angel teaches an insulating element [Paragraph 40], corresponding to the insulation product, wherein Angel further teaches:
Glass wool [Paragraph 40], corresponding to the plurality of glass fibers;
Said glass fibers form a network bonded with a cured organic binder [Paragraphs 38 and 68], corresponding to the binder at least partially coating the glass;
Wherein the binder of Angel is cured [Paragraph 70] thereby reading on “cross-linked” and formaldehyde is not disclosed as a component in the binder of Angel therefore the binder is considered to be formaldehyde-free, thereby reading on the crosslinked formaldehyde-free binder composition;
Wherein the glass fibers in the glass wool have an average fiber diameter of 2-8 µm [Paragraph 31];
Wherein the glass fibers in the glass wool have a laminar orientation, meaning that the fibers forming the glass wool are predominantly oriented parallel to the major surfaces of the mat [Paragraph 70], thereby reading on wherein at least 30% by weight of the glass fibers in the fibrous product are oriented within +/- 15° of a common plane defined by the length and width of the insulation product;
Wherein said insulating element preferable ranges the length from 60-150 cm and the width from 30-120 cm, and a thickness of 60-220 mm [Paragraph 31], corresponding to wherein the fibrous product has a length, a width, and a thickness, with the length being greater than each of the width and the thickness;
Wherein the internal insulating element has a density lower than 35 kg/m3 [Paragraph 39], which is equivalent to <2.2 pcf, and the density is meant in the uncompressed and unpacked state [Paragraph 71].
Angel and the claims differ in that Angel does not teach the exact same ranges for the density of the insulation element and for the glass fiber diameter of Claim 1.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Angel (density of the insulation element of <2.2 pcf, and the glass fiber diameter of 2-8 µm) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (density of the insulation element of 0.2 – 1.6 pcf and the glass fiber diameter of 2.03-3.81 µm for claim 1) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 1, Angel is silent to the binder composition wherein prior to crosslinking, the formaldehyde-free binder composition comprises at least one monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid in a combined amount of at least 45% by weight, based on a total weight of the binder composition of Claim 1.
Nevertheless, Tutin teaches a formaldehyde-free binder composition [Abstract], comprising:
An adduct of a 158 parts by weight butane tetracarboxylic acid and a 92 parts by weight pentaerythritol [Example 1; ¶ 0064; Claim 1] corresponding to wherein prior to crosslinking, the formaldehyde-free binder composition comprises at least one monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid;
Wherein the butane tetracarboxylic acid corresponds to the polycarboxylic acid and the pentaerythritol corresponds to the monomeric polyol;
And the combined amount of butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol is equivalent to 50% by weight (
a
m
t
.
b
u
t
a
n
e
t
e
t
r
a
c
a
r
b
o
x
y
l
i
c
a
c
i
d
+
a
m
t
.
p
e
n
t
a
e
r
y
t
h
r
i
t
o
l
t
o
t
a
l
b
i
n
d
e
r
a
m
t
.
=
158
+
92
500
=
50
%
) , which corresponds to at least 45% by weight based on the total weight of the binder composition; and
Said binder composition should be relatively stable for periods and can provide a strong bond with sufficient elasticity and moisture resistance [¶ 0047].
Angel and Tutin are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing insulators that can have an uncompressed density of <1 pcf [¶ 0060], and are comprised of glass fibers, monomeric polyols, and polycarboxylic acid.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol of Tutin with the insulating element of Angel, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Angel teaches the glass fibers in the glass wool have a laminar orientation, meaning that the fibers forming the glass wool are predominantly oriented parallel to the major surfaces of the mat [Paragraph 70], thereby reading on wherein at least 15% by weight of the glass fibers in the insulation are at least partially bound in a substantially parallel orientation with at least one other glass fiber in the insulation production.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Angel teaches the glass fibers in the glass wool have a laminar orientation, meaning that the fibers forming the glass wool are predominantly oriented parallel to the major surfaces of the mat [Paragraph 70], thereby reading on wherein at least 40% by weight of the glass fibers in the fibrous product are oriented within +/- 15° of a common plane defined by the length and width of the insulation product of claim 3 and further reads on the common plane is parallel to the length and width of the insulation product of claim 6.
Regarding claims 4-5, Angel does not explicitly disclose the binder composition viscosity.
However, the properties of the binder composition such as its viscosity are functions of the composition and the method by which it is made. Since Angel in view of Tutin teach the same binder composition formed by the same method as required by the instant claim, as set forth in the rejection above, the binder composition of Angel and Tutin would be expected to result in the same viscosity as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed viscosity, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (glass fibers, formaldehyde-free binder composition comprising a monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid) for the same utility (making aqueous binder composition) and for the same purpose (to producing insulation).
Regarding claim 7, Angel teaches the glass fibers in the glass wool have an average fiber diameter of 2-8 µm [Paragraph 31] thereby overlapping with the claimed range of 3.05-3.68 µm.
However, Angel does not explicitly disclosure a glass fiber diameter of 3.05-3.68 µm.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the glass fiber diameter range taught by Angel (2-8 µm) overlap the instantly claimed range (3.05-3.68 µm) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Angel does not particularly teach the amount of glass fibers oriented in the form of a gusset.
However, Angel teaches the same insulation product comprising a binder composition and glass fibers made in a substantially similar method. Therefore, the percentage by weight of the binder composition present in the form of a gusset would be expected to be the same amount as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed insulation product, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (glass fibers and binder composition) for the same utility (insulation) and for the same purpose (to insulate with improved performance).
Regarding Claim 10, Angel is silent to the cross-linked formaldehyde-free binder composition comprising Maillard reactants, so said composition will be interpreted to be free of Millard reactants as claimed.
Regarding claims 11, 13-15, Angel teaches the insulation product comprising glass fibers having an overlapping average fiber diameter, a cross-linked formaldehyde free binder composition, monomeric polyol, polycarboxylic acid, and an insulation product having a width, thickness and length as set forth above for claim 1. Angel further teaches the glass fibers in the glass wool have a laminar orientation, meaning that the fibers forming the glass wool are predominantly oriented parallel to the major surfaces of the mat [Paragraph 70], thereby reading on wherein at least 55% by weight of the glass fibers in the fibrous product are oriented within +/- 30° of a common plane defined by the length and width of the insulation product of claim 11, reading on at least 65% by weight of the glass fibers are oriented within +/- 30° of a common plane of claim 13, reading on at least 75% by weight of the glass fibers are oriented within +/- 50° of a common plane of claim 14, and further reading on wherein at least 15% by weight of the glass fibers in the insulation product are at least partially bound in a substantially parallel orientation of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 11, Angel is silent to the binder composition wherein prior to crosslinking, the formaldehyde-free binder composition comprises at least one monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid in a combined amount of at least 45% by weight, based on a total weight of the binder composition.
Nevertheless, Tutin teaches a formaldehyde-free binder composition [Abstract], comprising:
An adduct of a 158 parts by weight butane tetracarboxylic acid and a 92 parts by weight pentaerythritol [Example 1; ¶ 0064; Claim 1] corresponding to wherein prior to crosslinking, the formaldehyde-free binder composition comprises at least one monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid;
Wherein the butane tetracarboxylic acid corresponds to the polycarboxylic acid and the pentaerythritol corresponds to the monomeric polyol;
And the combined amount of butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol is equivalent to 50% by weight (
a
m
t
.
b
u
t
a
n
e
t
e
t
r
a
c
a
r
b
o
x
y
l
i
c
a
c
i
d
+
a
m
t
.
p
e
n
t
a
e
r
y
t
h
r
i
t
o
l
t
o
t
a
l
b
i
n
d
e
r
a
m
t
.
=
158
+
92
500
=
50
%
) , which corresponds to at least 45% by weight based on the total weight of the binder composition; and
Said binder composition should be relatively stable for periods and can provide a strong bond with sufficient elasticity and moisture resistance [¶ 0047].
Angel and Tutin are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing insulators that can have an uncompressed density of <1 pcf [¶ 0060], and are comprised of glass fibers, monomeric polyols, and polycarboxylic acid.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol of Tutin with the insulating element of Angel, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Angel in view of Tutin is silent regarding a viscosity less than 40,000 cP at 65% to 70% by weight solids and is further silent on the binder composition comprising at least one monomeric polyol. Regarding claim 15, Angel is silent regarding the viscosity of less than 10 cP at 10% weight solids.
However, the properties of the binder composition such as its viscosity are functions of the composition and the method by which it is made. Since Angel in view of Tutin teach the same binder composition formed by the same method as required by the instant claim, as set forth in the rejection above, the binder composition of Angel and Tutin would be expected to result in the same viscosity as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed viscosity, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (glass fibers, formaldehyde-free binder composition comprising a monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid) for the same utility (making aqueous binder composition) and for the same purpose (to producing insulation).
Regarding claim 12, Angel teach the insulating element has a density in the range of 20-45 kg/m3 [Paragraph 40], which is equivalent to 1.2-2.8 pcf, and the density is meant in the uncompressed and unpacked state [Paragraph 71].
However, Angel does not explicitly teach the exact same ranges for the density of the insulation element as recited in the instant claim.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Angel (density of the insulation element of 1.2-2.8 pcf) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (density of the insulation element of 0.2 – 1.6 pcf) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 16-18, Angel teaches the insulation product comprising glass fibers having an overlapping average fiber diameter and a cross-linked formaldehyde free binder composition including at least one monomeric polyol as set forth above for claim 11. Angel further teaches the glass fibers in the glass wool have a laminar orientation, meaning that the fibers forming the glass wool are predominantly oriented parallel to the major surfaces of the mat [Paragraph 70], thereby reading on wherein at least 15% by weight of the glass fibers in the fibrous product are at least partially bound in a substantially parallel orientation of claim 16, and reading on at least 30% by weight of the glass fibers are oriented within +/- 15° of a common plane of claim 17, and further reading on at least 40% by weight of the glass fibers are oriented within +/- 15° of a common plane of claim 18.
Angel also teaches wherein the amount of glass fibers is at least 90 wt. % [Paragraph 31], which is equivalent to a binder content less than or equal to 10 wt. %, which encompasses the binder content (LOI) less than or equal to 4% by weight of the insulation product of claim 16.
However, Angel is silent on the binder composition comprises at least one monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid in a combined amount of at least 45% by weight, based on a total weight of the binder composition of claim 16.
Nevertheless, Tutin teaches a formaldehyde-free binder composition [Abstract], comprising:
An adduct of a 158 parts by weight butane tetracarboxylic acid and a 92 parts by weight pentaerythritol [Example 1; ¶ 0064; Claim 1] corresponding to wherein prior to crosslinking, the formaldehyde-free binder composition comprises at least one monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid;
Wherein the butane tetracarboxylic acid corresponds to the polycarboxylic acid and the pentaerythritol corresponds to the monomeric polyol;
And the combined amount of butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol is equivalent to 50% by weight (
a
m
t
.
b
u
t
a
n
e
t
e
t
r
a
c
a
r
b
o
x
y
l
i
c
a
c
i
d
+
a
m
t
.
p
e
n
t
a
e
r
y
t
h
r
i
t
o
l
t
o
t
a
l
b
i
n
d
e
r
a
m
t
.
=
158
+
92
500
=
50
%
) , which corresponds to at least 45% by weight based on the total weight of the binder composition; and
Said binder composition should be relatively stable for periods and can provide a strong bond with sufficient elasticity and moisture resistance [¶ 0047].
Angel and Tutin are considered to be analogous art as the claimed invention, as all are in the same field of methods of preparing insulators that can have an uncompressed density of <1 pcf [¶ 0060], and are comprised of glass fibers, monomeric polyols, and polycarboxylic acid.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol of Tutin with the insulating element of Angel, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
However, Angel in view of Tutin do not particularly teach the amount of glass fibers oriented in the form of a gusset of Claim 16.
However, Angel in view of Tutin teach the same insulation product comprising a binder composition and glass fibers made in a substantially similar method. Therefore, the percentage by weight of the binder composition present in the form of a gusset would be expected to be the same amount as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed insulation product, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (glass fibers and binder composition) for the same utility (insulation) and for the same purpose (improving insulation performance).
Regarding Claims 20-21, Angel teaches glass fibers and an aqueous cross-linked formaldehyde free binder composition as set forth above for claim 1; the deposition of glass fibers onto a receiving belt [Paragraph 70], corresponding to the claimed random deposition of glass fibers onto a moving conveyor, a glass fiber fleece [Paragraph 68], corresponding to the claimed fiberglass blanket; and melting the binder composition onto the glass fibers to cure the binder [Paragraph 68], corresponding to the claimed curing to crosslink the binder composition.
However, Angel is silent to a curing oven and the moisture content of the blanket.
Nevertheless, Tutin teaches:
a curing oven where the binder is cured [¶ 0055-0056] corresponding to the curing oven of Claim 20; and
binder moisture resistance so that it does not swell under humid conditions [¶ 0047]
wherein the reaction is conducted in a reactor that allows for the removal of water generated during the formation of the polyester and may be continued until the desired acid number is reached [¶ 0041]; and
on heating, water present in the binder composition evaporates and the composition undergoes curing [¶ 0058], which will be interpreted to mean there is no water present after curing which corresponds to a moisture content of no greater than 3% by weight of Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 21, Angel in view of Tutin do not teach the exact same ranges for the viscosity.
However, the properties of the binder composition such as its viscosity are functions of the composition and the method by which it is made. Since Angel in view of Tutin teach the same binder composition formed by the same method as required by the instant claim, as set forth in the rejection above, the binder composition of Angel and Tutin would be expected to result in the same viscosity as required by the instant claims. Case law has held that claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is expectedly present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). The courts have stated that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." Further, if it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position. In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed viscosity, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients (glass fibers, formaldehyde-free binder composition comprising a monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid) for the same utility (making aqueous binder composition) and for the same purpose (to producing insulation).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 14 and 16 of copending Application No. 17/831,647 (reference application; hereafter as “Appl. ‘647”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the insulation product of the reference application has glass fiber diameter and insulation product density that are overlapping with the instant claim. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) neither Angel nor Anderson discloses or suggests manufacturing the claimed insulation product using the specific binder compositions as now claimed. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above, wherein Angel teaches an insulating element comprised of laminar glass wool [¶ 40, 70] bound in a binder composition [¶ 31, 70] with an uncompressed density lower than 35 kg/m3 , and Tutin teaches a formaldehyde-free binder for an insulator composition comprising butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol [Example 1; ¶ 0064]. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (2) Anderson teaches an aqueous binder comprising the reaction product of polyols and itaconic acids, not a pre-crosslinking composition that necessarily contains monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid constituents present in a combined amount of at least 45 wt. % of the total binder composition. However, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Anderson for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Rather, attention is directed to the disclosure above, wherein Tutin, not Anderson, relied upon to teach a pre-crosslinking composition comprised of butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol [Example 1; ¶ 0064] that is 50 wt. % of the total binder composition. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (3) the range of “less than 97%” is too broad to provide a meaningful teaching or direction to arrive at the specific range of “at least 45%”. However, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Anderson for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Rather, attention is directed to the disclosure above, wherein Tutin teaches butane tetracarboxylic acid and pentaerythritol [Example 1; ¶ 0064] that is 50 wt. % of the total binder composition. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (4) the presented disclosures clarify the binder chemistry underlying the reported results and align with the binder features now expressly recited in each independent claim. However, the data has been considered but not found to be convincing. The amended Claims 1, 11, and 16 require the monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid to be in a combined amount of at least 45% by weight but none of the examples (neither exemplary nor comparative) disclose the amount of total monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive. It is suggested that experimental data be presented with several examples in the claimed range (>45% by weight of monomeric polyol and polycarboxylic acid) demonstrate improved material efficiency in comparison to examples outside of the claimed range (<45% by weight).
The Double Patenting rejection based on the claims of U.S. Application 17/831647 (US 2022/0390059 A1) set forth in the previous Office action is maintained since the Applicant did not submit a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764