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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment with respect to the objection to claim 25 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended the claim to align with the suggestion of the Office. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Krueger et al. (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the composition of Krueger is based primarily on a polymer “P” having a reactive and carboxylic acid functionality as a main component with a lignin as an additional minor component and therefore does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of components (i), (ii), and (iii) in the amounts recited or that such a composition would offer any advantages. However, the instant claims recite wherein the aqueous binder composition “comprises” components (i), (ii), and (iii) and are not interpreted as excluding unrecited or additional components including the polymer “P” of Krueger. Furthermore, the claims do not recite an amount for component (i) (i.e., one or more kraft lignins) that would require said component to be present in a majority amount rather than an “additional minor component.”
Applicant notes that the disclosure of Krueger with regard to the recited β-hydroxyalkylamide compound is within the background section of Krueger, in which the reference recognizes drawbacks associated with employing the same as a crosslinker (i.e., costly/inconvenient synthetic preparation). Applicant thus argues that Krueger does not disclose any compositions comprising β-hydroxyalkylamides and that adding such a compound would be contrary to the disclosure of Krueger. As noted within the previously mailed Office Action: “While Krueger notes the disadvantage that β-hydroxyalkylamide crosslinkers require more costly preparation ([0009]), the Examiner contends that the disclosure of Krueger renders obvious the choice of a β-hydroxyalkylamide crosslinker within an aqueous binder composition comprising a kraft lignin because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).” The drawbacks with regard to selection of a β-hydroxyalkylamide as a crosslinker for carboxylic acid-containing aqueous binder compositions noted by Krueger are limited only to cost or inconvenient synthetic preparation. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art when considering the disclosure of Krueger would consider β-hydroxyalkylamides a known/suitable crosslinker for carboxylic acid-containing aqueous binder compositions but would not expect such drawbacks to render the composition unusable for its intended purpose of crosslinking carboxylic acid-containing aqueous binder compositions for granular and/or fibrous substrates. Even if, arguendo, Krueger’s disclosure of a β-hydroxyalkylamide was found to be insufficient to read on the instantly claimed crosslinker, Krueger teaches other components which read on the claimed crosslinker and overlap with the claimed amount, see, e.g., rejection of claim 31 within the previously mailed Office Action: Krueger also teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol component which may be triethanolamine which reads on the claimed crosslinker (a “multifunctional organic amine” according to the instant specification pg. 9, para 4). Krueger teaches that said triethanolamine may be present in an amount of 1 wt% or less ([0101]), which overlaps with the claimed range). Therefore, it is the position of the Office that Krueger reads on the breadth of the claim as currently recited.
Applicant points to para. [0101] wherein Krueger discloses triethanolamine is an optional component preferably present in amount of 0.5 wt% or less. Applicant thus argues that Krueger does not disclose the inclusion of a plasticizer in the amount recited within the claims. Krueger teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol compound which may be, inter alia, triethanolamine ([0101]), which reads on the claimed plasticizer (iii) according to the instant specification pg. 15, para. 1 and 2. Krueger teaches that said polyol component is included in an amount of 1 wt% or less ([0101]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it is the position of the Office that Krueger reads on the breadth of the claim as recited.
The ranges recited for components (ii) and (iii) within claims 31 and 36 are substantially outside of the range recited for the corresponding components of Krueger. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the amount of the component which reads on the claimed components (ii) or (iii) above the disclosed range, especially with respect to the dry weight of one or more kraft lignins. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 31 and 36 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 23-24, 27-28, 30, 32-35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (US 2013/0210967, cited in the previous Office Action, hereinafter referred to as “Krueger”) in view of Sewring et al. (“Acid Precipitation of Kraft Lignin from Aqueous Solutions: The Influence of pH, Temperature, and Xylan” J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2019, 39, 1, 1-13, cited in the previous Office Action, hereinafter referred to as “Sewring”) and Knight et al. (US 2016/0096985, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”).
As to Claim 23: Krueger teaches an aqueous binder composition for fibrous substrates (Abstract) including mineral fibers ([0104]), wherein the composition may comprise at least one lignin compound ([0001]) which may be a kraft lignin ([0096]). Krueger teaches that the composition may be free of formaldehyde ([0024]) and does not require the presence of phenol (i.e., phenol free). Krueger further teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol compound which may be, inter alia, triethanolamine ([0101]), which reads on the claimed plasticizer (iii) according to the instant specification pg. 15, para. 1 and 2 and the claimed plasticizer (iii) according to the instant specification pg. 15, para. 1 and 2. Krueger teaches that said triethanolamine may be present in an amount of 1 wt% or less ([0101]), which overlaps with the claimed range for components (ii) and (iii). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Krueger suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for an amount of an alkanolamine additive for use in aqueous binder compositions comprising kraft lignins having mechanical properties suitable for binding fibrous substrates to form composite articles.
Krueger is silent towards the carboxylic acid group content of the kraft lignin.
Sewring teaches it is recognized within the art that lignins derived from kraft processes exhibit a carboxylic acid group content of 0.1 to 0.8 mmol/g (pg. 2, col. 1, para. 2), which is within the claimed range. Krueger and Sewring are considered analogous art because they are directed towards methods of forming kraft lignin and applications thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a kraft lignin for the composition of Krueger having a carboxylic acid group content within the claimed range, such as 0.1 to 0.8 mmol/g, because Sewring teaches that a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect lignins derived from kraft processes (i.e., kraft lignins) to have such a carboxylic acid content.
Krueger is silent towards the pH of the composition.
Knight teaches an adhesive containing at least a resin and a kraft lignin (Title) and composite products comprising the same ([0047]) which may be an aqueous mixture ([0046]). Knight further teaches that the adhesive comprises a kraft lignin mixture which has a pH of about 10 or greater ([0043]) which is in the claimed range. Knight notes that pH values below this range render the kraft lignin insoluble or substantially insoluble ([0058]). Krueger and Knight are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely adhesive/binder compositions comprising kraft lignin and composite articles formed thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the composition of Krueger to at least the range of 10 or greater and the motivation would have been that Knight teaches basic media is required to form a mixture with kraft lignins and that kraft lignin is substantially insoluble at lower pH values ([0058]).
As to Claim 24: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger is silent towards the carboxylic acid group content of the kraft lignin.
Sewring teaches it is recognized within the art that lignins derived from kraft processes exhibit a carboxylic acid group content of 0.1 to 0.8 mmol/g (pg. 2, col. 1, para. 2), which is within the claimed range. Krueger and Sewring are considered analogous art because they are directed towards methods of forming kraft lignin and applications thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a kraft lignin for the composition of Krueger having a carboxylic acid group content within the claimed range, such as 0.1 to 0.8 mmol/g, because Sewring teaches that a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect lignins derived from kraft processes (i.e., kraft lignins) to have such a carboxylic acid content.
As to Claims 27-28: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger is silent towards the phenolic OH content of the kraft lignin.
Sewring teaches it is recognized within the art that lignins derived from kraft processes exhibit a phenolic OH group content of 2 to 5 mmol/g (pg. 2, col. 1, para. 2), which is within or overlaps with the claimed range. Krueger and Sewring are considered analogous art because they are directed towards methods of forming kraft lignin and applications thereof. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a kraft lignin for the composition of Krueger having a phenolic OH group content within the claimed range or the overlapping portion thereof, such as 2 to 5 mmol/g, because Sewring teaches that a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect lignins derived from kraft processes (i.e., kraft lignins) to have such a phenolic OH content.
As to Claims 30: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger teaches that β-hydroxyalkylamides (i.e., a crosslinker according to the instant specification pg. 9, paras. 1-2) are known within the art as suitable for crosslinking aqueous binder compositions ([0009], [0011], [0015]). While Krueger notes the disadvantage that β-hydroxyalkylamide crosslinkers require more costly preparation ([0009]), the Examiner contends that the disclosure of Krueger renders obvious the choice of a β-hydroxyalkylamide crosslinker within an aqueous binder composition comprising a kraft lignin because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.07).
As to Claims 32 and 33: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger further teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol compound which may be, inter alia, triethanolamine ([0101]), which reads on the claimed plasticizer (iii) according to the instant specification pg. 15, para. 1 and 2.
As to Claim 34: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger further teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol compound which may be, inter alia, triethanolamine ([0101]), which exhibits a boiling point of 335 ˚C (converted from 635.7 ˚C, see Occupational Safety and Health Administration Chemical Database – Triethanolamine Physical properties).
As to Claim 35: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger further teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol compounds including ethylene glycol having a molecular weight of 200 g/mol, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Krueger suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range for the molecular weight of a diol component additive for aqueous binder compositions comprising kraft lignins having mechanical properties suitable for binding fibrous substrates to form composite articles.
As to Claim 38: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger further teaches that the composition comprises a polymer P which comprises at least one monoethylenically unsaturated compound having at least one silicon-containing group ([0027]).
As to Claim 39: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger does not teach wherein the kraft lignin is an ammonia-oxidized lignin.
As to Claim 43: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (supra).
Krueger further teaches wherein the composition may comprise 1,2-propanediol ([0101]), which reads on the claimed propylene glycols.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (US 2013/0210967, hereinafter referred to as “Krueger”) in view of Sewring et al. (“Acid Precipitation of Kraft Lignin from Aqueous Solutions: The Influence of pH, Temperature, and Xylan” J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2019, 39, 1, 1-13, hereinafter referred to as “Sewring”) and Knight et al. (US 2016/0096985, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”) and further in view of Goldmann, W.M. et al. Solubility and fractionation of Indulin AT kraft lignin in ethanol-water media, Sep. Purif. Technol. 2019, 209, 826-823.
As to Claim 25: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (see above).
Krueger is silent towards an average carboxylic acid group content considering Mn wt. average of component (i).
However, as established above (see rejection of claim 23), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a kraft lignin for the composition of Krueger having a carboxylic acid group content within the claimed range, such as 0.1 to 0.8 mmol/g, because Sewring teaches that a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect lignins derived from kraft processes (i.e., kraft lignins) to have such a carboxylic acid content. Krueger is silent towards the molecular weight of the kraft lignin. Goldmann teaches that Indulin AT, a known commercial technical kraft lignin (pg. 827, col. 1, para. 5), exhibits a molecular weight of between 1 to 2 kDa in water (Abstract). Krueger and Goldmann are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, kraft lignins and products formed thereof (Goldmann notes the application of kraft lignins for adhesive production (pg. 827, para 1).
Accordingly, applying the bounds of the range of carboxylic acid content taught by Sewring and the molecular weight values that are known for kraft lignins would yield an average carboxylic acid group content considering Mn wt. average of component (i) calculated with the formula:
C
O
O
H
p
e
r
m
o
l
e
c
u
l
e
=
(
(
m
m
o
l
C
O
O
H
/
g
)
×
M
n
)
×
1
m
o
l
1000
m
m
o
l
which yields a value within the claimed range:
(
(
0.1
m
m
o
l
/
g
)
×
1000
g
/
m
o
l
)
×
1
m
o
l
1000
m
m
o
l
=
0.1
C
O
O
H
p
e
r
m
o
l
e
c
u
l
e
(
(
0.8
m
m
o
l
/
g
)
×
2000
g
/
m
o
l
)
×
1
m
o
l
1000
m
m
o
l
=
1.6
C
O
O
H
p
e
r
m
o
l
e
c
u
l
e
Therefore, while Krueger does not teach a molecular weight for the kraft lignin, a person having ordinary skill in the art would (1) recognize based on the disclosure of Goldmann that the kraft lignin produced by a kraft process as taught by Krueger would inherently exhibit a molecular weight that would yield an amount of carboxylic acid per molecule within the claimed range or (2) reasonably select a commercially available kraft lignin, such as Indulin AT kraft lignin, to successfully function as the kraft lignin as required by Krueger, thus yielding a an amount of carboxylic acid per molecule within the claimed range.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (US 2013/0210967, hereinafter referred to as “Krueger”) in view of Sewring et al. (“Acid Precipitation of Kraft Lignin from Aqueous Solutions: The Influence of pH, Temperature, and Xylan” J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2019, 39, 1, 1-13, hereinafter referred to as “Sewring”) and Knight et al. (US 2016/0096985, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”) and further in view of Sameni, J. et al., Characterization of Lignins Isolated from Industrial Residues and their Beneficial Uses, BioResources, 2016, 11, 4, 8435-8456, hereinafter referred to as “Sameni.”
As to Claim 26: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (see above).
Krueger is silent towards the nitrogen content of the kraft lignin.
Sameni teaches the phsyico-chemical properties of lignin isolated various isolated and commercial kraft lignin (Abstract and pg. 8437, Table 1, L2 and L3 represent kraft lignins). Sameni shows that lignins L2 and L3 exhibit nitrogen contents of 0.13 and 0.67% respectively (pg. 8443, Table 4). Krueger and Sameni are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, kraft lignins and applications thereof (Sameni contemplates the utility of kraft lignins for adhesive applications (pg. 8449, para. 5). Therefore, while Krueger does not teach a nitrogen content for the kraft lignin, a person having ordinary skill in the art would (1) recognize based on the disclosure of Sameni that the kraft lignin produced by a kraft process as taught by Krueger would inherently exhibit a nitrogen content within the claimed range or (2) reasonably select a commercially available kraft lignin, such as Indulin AT kraft lignin (i.e., L3 of Sameni, see pg. 8436 para. 1), to successfully function as the kraft lignin as required by Krueger, thus yielding an amount of nitrogen content within the claimed range.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger et al. (US 2013/0210967, hereinafter referred to as “Krueger”) in view of Sewring et al. (“Acid Precipitation of Kraft Lignin from Aqueous Solutions: The Influence of pH, Temperature, and Xylan” J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2019, 39, 1, 1-13, hereinafter referred to as “Sewring”) and Knight et al. (US 2016/0096985, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”) and further in view of Winterowd (US 20140296429, hereinafter referred to as “Winterowd”).
As to Claim 37: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (see above).
Krueger is silent towards wherein the composition comprises urea.
Winterowd teaches liquid kraft lignin compositions and composite formed thereof comprising at least a resin, kraft lignin, water, and urea (Abstract). Krueger and Winterowd are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, aqueous adhesive or binder compositions comprising kraft lignin. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a urea component within the composition of Krueger and the motivation would have been that Winterowd teaches that urea is known within the art as a suitable additive to aqueous adhesive or binder compositions comprising kraft lignin for at least the purpose of controlling viscosity ([0009]). It is noted that the disclosure of Krueger embraces additives for modifying the viscosity of the composition (see [0059] of Krueger).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 36 are allowable over the prior art.
The closest prior art is that of Krueger et al. (US 2013/0210967, cited in the previous Office Action, hereinafter referred to as “Krueger”).
As to Claim 31: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (see above).
Krueger teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol component which may be triethanolamine which reads on the claimed crosslinker which may be an alkanolamine according to the instant specification pg. 9, para 4. Krueger teaches that said triethanolamine may be present in an amount of 1 wt% or less ([0101]), which is outside the claimed range. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the amount of the component which reads on the claimed component (ii) above the disclosed range especially with respect to the dry weight of one or more kraft lignins.
As to Claim 36: Krueger, Sewring, and Knight teach the binder of claim 23 (see above).
Krueger further teaches that the composition may comprise a polyol compound which may be, inter alia, triethanolamine ([0101]), which reads on the claimed plasticizer (iii) according to the instant specification pg. 15, para. 1 and 2. Krueger teaches that said polyol component is included in an amount of 1 wt% or less ([0101]), which is outside of the claimed range. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the amount of the component which reads on the claimed component (iii) above the disclosed range especially with respect to the dry weight of one or more kraft lignins.
At the time of filing no prior art was found that could be used alone or in combination with other prior art, including the cited prior art, which would have rendered the instant claims anticipated or obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571) 272-1197. 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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights