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 .
Applicant’s amendment dated 25 November 2025 and supplemental amendment dated 8 December 2025 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-22 as amended are pending. All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action.
New grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0086567 (“Hawkins”).
As to claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 16, and 17, Hawkins teaches a binder composition that is curable (para. 0079) and formaldehyde free (abstract) and is available in aqueous dispersion (para. 0068).
Hawkins teaches the use of a carbohydrate, specifically a carbohydrate polymer having DE from 2 to 20 (para. 0033), thus a reducing sugar as required by claim 1, specifically exemplifying maltodextrin, a dextrin, having DE of 11 and 18 (see table 4, as one example) which is a reducing sugar, a polysaccharide as required by claim 2, and a maltodextrin as required by claim 3.
Hawkins teaches the use of a crosslinking agent including polycarboxylic acids (para. 0035) as required by claim 1, specifically exemplifying citric acid (para. 0091, table 6) as required by claims 4 and 16.
Hawkins teaches examples having a polyol of less than 1000 g/mol in the recited amount (table 16, sample 10, teaching triethanolamine at 5.2 wt % of the total of a) and b) as required by claims 1, 7, and 8. This same example contains approximately 64 percent maltodextrin and 30 % citric acid as required by claims 6 and 17.
Hawkins does not exemplify an epoxy silane, using an amino silane in examples throughout. However, Hawkins teaches silane coupling agents, including epoxy silanes (para. 0038, 0042) suitable as coupling agents, in amounts from 0.1 to 0.5 wt % (para. 0037), which is within the range recited by claims 1 and 10, and substantially overlaps the range of claims 11 and 12. Given that Hawkins teaches the utility of epoxy silane, including in the recited amount, it would be an obvious modification to use such compounds as a coupling agent, including in the recited amounts, as suggested by Hawkins.
As to claim 5, Hawkins teaches the use of maltodextrin in the recited DE range and citric acid (table 6). While the recited amount of polyol is not explicitly exemplified with this maltodextrin, Hawkins teaches the use of process aids, including polyols of the recited weight in amounts from 1 to 20 wt % (paras. 0054, 0055), which overlaps the recited amount of claim 1. Hawkins teaches that the amount is chosen to facilitate processing of fibers and orientation, to reduce viscosity, increase ramp height, or accelerate dewatering (para. 0054). As such, the use of polyols of the recited molecular weight, including in the recited amount, is an obvious modification to adjust properties of the binder composition as suggested by Hawkins.
As to claim 9, Hawkins does not exemplify the recited polyol amount. Hawkins teaches the use of process aids, including polyols of the recited weight in amounts from 1 to 20 wt % (paras. 0054, 0055), which overlaps the recited amount of claim 1. Hawkins teaches that the amount is chosen to facilitate processing of fibers and orientation, to reduce viscosity, increase ramp height, or accelerate dewatering (para. 0054). As such, the use of polyols of the recited molecular weight, including in the recited amount, is an obvious modification to adjust properties of the binder composition as suggested by Hawkins.
As to claim 13, Hawkins teaches mixtures of the compositions (see examples), but does not discuss premixing components c and d prior to mixing with water and reducing surfar. Case law holds that the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). It would be an obvious modification to have added other components, such as catalyst, or other processing aids, subsequent to adding components c and d.
As to claim 14, Hawkins teaches the binder may be used in fibrous insulation made from glass, glass wool, or ceramic fibers, thus mineral wool (para. 0072).
As to claim 15, Hawkins teaches the binder may be used in fibrous insulation made from glass, glass wool, or ceramic fibers, thus mineral wool (para. 0072). Hawkins teaches curing the binder at temperatures of 100 degrees C and above (para. 0079).
As to claims 19 and 20, Hawkins does not exemplify the recited amount of polyol, but teaches the use of polyols, including those with less than 1000 g/mol, as a processing aid (paras. 0054-0055). Hawkins teaches from 1 to 20 % by weight of this component for providing uniformity and improving viscosity (para. 0054),which includes the recited amounts of claims 19 and 20. As such, the use of polyols, including in the recited amounts, to improve processing is an obvious modification suggested by Hawkins.
As to claims 21 and 22, while not exemplified, Hawkins teaches the use of a preferred range of 0.01 to 2.5 wt % of the solids (para. 0037), which is approximately a 0.01 to 2.5 wt % of the components a and b, given the teaching of the amount of the amount of polyol (para. 0054). This range encompasses the recited ranges of claims 21 and 22, and as such, the use of silane coupling agent, including epoxy silane, in the recited range is an obvious modification suggested by Hawkins.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0086567 (“Hawkins”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2012/0168054 A1 (“Chen”).
As to claim 12, Hawkins teaches examples having approximately 64 percent maltodextrin and 30 % citric acid, which are within recited ranges (Table 16, example 10).
Hawkins does not exemplify an epoxy silane, using an amino silane in examples throughout. However, Hawkins teaches silane coupling agents, including epoxy silanes (para. 0038, 0042) suitable as coupling agents, in amounts from 0.1 to 0.5 wt % (para. 0037), which is within the recited range.
Hawkins teaches the use of polyols of the recited weight in amounts from 1 to 20 wt % (paras. 0054, 0055), which overlaps the recited amount of claim 12, and as such, the amount of polyol is an obvious modification suggested by Hawkins.
Hawkins does not teach the specific polyol being ethylene glycol. However, Chen teaches similar biobased binders based on carboxylic acids and polyols, and teaches that ethylene glycol is among the types of polyol appropriate for said composition (para. 0079, teaching ethylene glycol, along with glycerol, and triethanolamine). Given the nearness of structure of ethylene glycol with the polyols disclosed by Hawkins as process aids (see Hawkins, para. 0055, teaching propanediols and butanediols), the use of ethylene glycol in such compositions, including in the recited amount, is an obvious modification, given the teaching of Hawkins of the use of low molecular weight polyols for process aids, and the teaching of Chen of the use of ethylene glycol in biobased binder formulations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0086567 (“Hawkins”) as applied to claim 7, further in view of US 2012/0168054 A1 (“Chen”).
As to claim 18, Hawkins does not teach the specific polyol being ethylene glycol. However, Chen teaches similar biobased binders based on carboxylic acids and polyols, and teaches that ethylene glycol is among the types of polyol appropriate for said composition (para. 0079, teaching ethylene glycol, along with glycerol, and triethanolamine). Given the nearness of structure of ethylene glycol with the polyols disclosed by Hawkins as process aids (see Hawkins, para. 0055, teaching propanediols and butanediols), the use of ethylene glycol in such compositions, including in the recited amount, is an obvious modification, given the teaching of Hawkins of the use of low molecular weight polyols for process aids, and the teaching of Chen of the use of ethylene glycol in biobased binder formulations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 and 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has not provided evidence of any advantages accruing from the recited composition over the compositions of Hawkins, sufficient to overcome a prima facie finding of obviousness. Hawkins teaches the use of coupling agents, including epoxysilane coupling agents, and suggests compositions having the recited amount therein.
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 KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764