DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Abstract Objections
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the abstract to fix objections to the abstract in the non-final rejection dated Feb. 13, 2026. However, the abstract of the disclosure still has issues, as discussed below.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be narrative in form and generally limited to a single paragraph, and a period “.” is missing at the end of abstract. Please reformat the abstract to a single paragraph and add the missing period.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification Objections
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to the specification for pgs. 1-2 to fix the objection to the specification in the non-final rejection dated Feb. 13, 2026. However, the Applicant failed to address issues on page 12 in the lists following on pg. 11 “…a method of manufacturing a man-made vitreous fibre element (MMVF element), comprising:…”, where semicolons should be present after each step of the method presented instead of commas.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Due to the Amendment filed May 13, 2025, the Examiner withdraws the objection to claims 1 and 12.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 is a product by process claim. It is noted, even though a product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production and the structure implied by the process steps are considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art (MPEP 2113).
Method Claim 12 depends from claim 1, and therefore, the Examiner interprets, the method steps of claim 1 are required in claim 12 and dependent claims 13-16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The amendment to the claims filed May 13, 2025 is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons stated in the non-final office action dated Feb. 13, 2025. However, due to the amendment there are new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed below and there is still of lack of clarity for claim 13.
Claims 13 and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 claims providing water treated man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF) manufacturing according to claim 1, but claims 1 and 12 fails to claim the step of providing, the water treated MMVF is in the form of a bale. Accordingly, claim 13 lacks clarity. For Examination purposes, the Examiner interprets claim 13 should indicate the provided water treated MMVF is in the form of a bale in addition to the additional step of processing the water treated MMVF from a bale into tufts.
Claim 23 claims an embodiment including the term “untreated MMVF”, and it is unclear to the Examiner what defines “untreated MMVF”. Additionally, Applicant is comparing the water treated MMVF to some other hypothetical “untreated MMVF”, and therefore, the metes and bounds of the comparison lack clarity. Please clarify claim 23. For Examination purposes the Examiner is Examining the claimed limitation wherein the bale, mat, or collection of fibers do not contain a binder.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, the Examiner finds support for the embodiment where bales of water treated MMVF are denser, there is no support for the mat or collection of loose fibers being denser. Accordingly, there appears to be new matter in certain embodiments of claim 23. If this is in error, please point to support for the mat or collection of loose fibers having being denser.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the Reese reference fails to anticipate the claimed method steps of claim 1. Applicant specifically argues Reese fails to disclose applying water after the collecting stage, and therefore, Reese does not anticipate the claim. The Examiner notes that Reese (Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 38-48) discloses the aqueous solution is applied with an application device 15, which is before the fibers are gathered (i.e. collected) into one or more bundles. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive that Reese fails to disclose the method of claim 1.
As stated in the claim interpretation above, claim 11 is interpreted as a product by process claim. For amended claims 1 and 11, the Examiner is applying a new grounds of rejection with a new reference, Seck et al. (US 2023/0103871A1).
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(s) 1-6, 10-12, 16-17, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seck et al. (US 2023/0103871).
Regarding claim 1, Seck ([0015]-[0022]) discloses a method for manufacturing insulation products based on mineral wool brought into contact with previously humidified mineral fibers. Seck ([0022]) discloses the mineral wool provided is preferably virgin mineral woold obtained by a method of centrifugation of molten glass or molten rock. Based on these disclosure by Seck that includes centrifugation of molten glass or molten rock, these steps would include providing a mineral melt (i.e. molten rock). While it is not explicitly stated the step of centrifugation includes the step of providing a fiberizing apparatus and fiberizing the mineral melt to form mineral wool (corresponding to man-made vitreous fibers MMVF), it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art , the disclosure of centrifugation to form mineral wool including steps of providing a fiberizing apparatus for centrifugation and fiberizing the mineral melt to form the MMVF.
Seck ([0025]) also discloses the mineral wool (i.e. MMVF) for humidification provided generally at room temperature, i.e. in thermal equilibrium with its environment, ([0023]) the mineral wool may be a mixture of virgin or recycled mineral wool and ([0027]) discloses humidifying the mineral wool by any appropriate means making it possible to deposit a controlled quantity of water in the form of a thin film on the surface of fibers, for example by hot water vapor or exposing the mineral wool to a water aerosol, for example a mist or an aqueous spray. With the disclosure of the mineral wool at room temperature for the humidifying, the mineral wool can be a mixture of recycled mineral wool and virgin mineral wool, and the disclosure of any appropriate means to deposit a controlled quantity of water such as by hot water vapor or exposing to a mist or spray to the mineral wool for humidification, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, applying the water after a step of collecting the virgin mineral wool at room temperature or after a step of providing a mixture of virgin wool and recycled mineral wool. Additionally, Seck ([0029]) also discloses the humidified wool comprises, when it is brought into contact with the binder particles, preferably 0.2 to 1.5 wt%, 0.3 to 1.2 wt%, or 0.4 to 1.0 wt% by weight of water relative to the dry mineral wool.. Based on these disclosures by Seck, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art Seck provides for a humidified mineral wool with the application of 0.2 to 1.5 wt% of water, based on the weight of the MMVF to the MMVF to form water treated MMVF.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Seck discloses humidifying the MMVF at room temperature, which provides for in step e, a temperature within Applicant’s claimed temperature of 10 degrees C to 100 degrees C, as claimed. Seck ([0055]) further discloses humidifying with water vapor at 100 degrees C. Accordingly, Seck provides for a step e, wherein the water is 100 degrees C, which is within Applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Seck discloses 0.2 to 1.5 wt% water relative to the dry wool, which encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Seck discloses ([0031]) the mineral fibers are not entangled or needled after humidifying or before the step of bringing the humidified fibers into contact with binder particles, and ([0026]) discloses before humidifying opening clods (corresponding to tufts) of mineral wool. Based on these disclosures by Seck, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the step d of collecting includes collecting a web of loose fibers, collecting loose fibers, or collecting tufts (i.e. clods) prior to step e.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Seck discloses exposing the mineral wool to a water aerosol, for example a mist or an aqueous spray. Accordingly, Seth provides for the water is applied by spraying. Additionally, since Seck discloses a water aerosol as a mist or an aqueous spray, and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the mist or spray includes droplets and therefore, this provides for the water is in the form of droplets.
Seck also discloses ([0055]) further discloses humidifying with water vapor at 100 degrees C. Since the water is heated, this provides for the water is physically treated water (i.e. heated).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Seck ([0026]) discloses a step of opening the flakes or clods of mineral wool to separate the fibers from each other. The step of separating the fibers provides for after step d and before step e, provides for the MMVF is subjected to a disentanglement process.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Seck discloses the humidified mineral wool (i.e. water treated MMVF) is performed with water. Additionally Seck ([0029]) discloses humidifying refers to the application of water without other additives. Therefore, Seck provides for the limitation of wherein a binder is not used therein.
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Seck ([0015]-[0022]) discloses a method for manufacturing insulation products based on mineral wool brought into contact with previously humidified mineral fibers. Seck ([0022]) discloses the mineral wool provided is preferably virgin mineral woold obtained by a method of centrifugation of molten glass or molten rock. Seck ([0025]) discloses the mineral wool is provided generally at room temperature, i.e. in thermal equilibrium with its environment and ([0027]) discloses humidifying the mineral wool by any appropriate means making it possible to deposit a controlled quantity of water in the form of a thin film on the surface of fibers, for example by hot water vapor or exposing the mineral wool to a water aerosol, for example a mist or an aqueous spray. Seck ([0029]) also discloses the humidified wool comprises, when it is brought into contact with the binder particles, preferably 0.2 to 1.5 wt%, 0.3 to 1.2 wt%, or 0.4 to 1.0 wt% by weight of water relative to the dry mineral wool. Seck discloses ([0031]) the mineral fibers are not entangled or needled after humidifying or before the step of bringing the humidified fibers into contact with binder particles, and ([0026]) discloses before humidifying opening clods (corresponding to tufts) of mineral wool. Based on these disclosures by Seck, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, Seck provides for a humidified mineral wool with the application of 0.2 to 1.5 wt% of water and it would be obvious the humidified mineral wool as a collection of loose fibers, prior to the application of the binder. Accordingly, the teachings of Seck provide for provides for the product claimed in claim 11 that prior to addition of the binder includes humidified mineral wool, which provides for a collection of loose fibers that do not contain a binder, as claimed in claim 23.
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Seck (abstract and [0036]) discloses contacting the humidified mineral wools fibers (corresponding to water treated MMVF) in contact with particles of binder comprising thermosetting reagents and shaping the mixture of mineral wool and binder particles and heating the shaped mixture in a curing oven to provide a molded product. Based on these disclosures, Seck provides for providing water treated MMVF, providing a binder, applying the binder to the MMVF to form a mixture, shaping the mixture, and curing the mixture to form an MMVF element.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the rejection of claim 12 above, Seck ([0041]) discloses the thickness of the MMVF element ranging from 20 mm and 500 mm, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed thickness range of the MMVF element of about 5 mm to about 60 mm.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the rejection of claim 4 above, Seck discloses ([0033]) addition of binder with a sprinkle of a thin layer of mineral wool evenly humidified with a “rain” of binder particles, generated by a vibrating screen under which the layer of mineral wool passes, or carding humidified mineral wool can be carried out under a vibrating screen through which a steady stream of binder particles passes and (abstract and [0036]) shaping the mixture of mineral wool and ([0041]) the shaped mixture having a thickness ranging from about 5 mm to about 60 mm. Seck ([0036]) discloses shaping by compression with a volume of mineral wool greater than the capacity of the mold. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art with claimed thickness ranges of the shaped mixture having a thickness range of about 5 mm to about 60 mm and shaping by compression, it would obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the humidified fiber in the form of a web of loose fibers having a thickness greater than the thickness range of about 5 mm to about 60 mm, and therefore, provides for web thicknesses within the claimed range of 5 cm to about 30 cm.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the rejection of claim 5 above, Seck also discloses ([0055]) further discloses humidifying with water vapor at 100 degrees C. Since the water is heated, this provides for the water is physically treated water (i.e. heated).
Regarding claim 21, as discussed in the rejection of claim 6 above, Seck ([0026]) discloses a step of opening the flakes or clods of mineral wool to separate the fibers from each other. The step of separating the fibers provides for after step d and before step e, the MMVF is subjected to a disentanglement process.
Seck ([0026])) also discloses a pneumatic means for opening of the mineral fibers, such as a rapid stream of air. Accordingly, with the disclosure of a pneumatic means including a rapid stream of air, Seck provides for the disentanglement process is an airstream process.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seck et al. (US 2023/0103871) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Briggs et al. (GB2147925A – hereinafter Briggs).
Regarding claim 18, Seck fails to disclose details of the spraying of the water. However, Briggs (Example 1) discloses a method of spraying an aqueous dispersion onto ceramic fibers with a spray gun having a spraying-air pressure. Both Seck and Briggs disclose spraying fibers with a liquid. Accordingly, it would obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of Seck the application of water by spraying with a known spraying device, such as a spray gun (i.e. pressure sprayer), as taught by Briggs.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seck et al. (US 2023/0103871) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Rusek, Jr. et al. (US 5,591,505 – hereinafter Rusek).
Regarding claim 20, Seck discloses a water aerosol as a mist or an aqueous spray, and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the mist or spray includes droplets and therefore, this provides for the water is in the form of droplets.
Seck fails to disclose the droplet size. However, Rusek (Col. 5, lines 8-20) discloses application of an aqueous solution to fibers by spraying and teaches the spray having a droplet size ranging from about 80 to 100 microns. Both Seck and Rusek disclose spraying fibers. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings of Rusek, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, in the method of Seck to use a known prior art spray droplet size for spraying fibers, such as a droplet size of 80 to 100 microns, as taught by Rusek.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seck et al. (US 2023/0103871) as applied to claims 1, 6, and 21 above, and further in view of Jorgensen et al. (US 2014/0001676 – hereinafter Jorgensen).
Regarding claim 22, as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above, Seck discloses a pneumatic disentanglement process with an airstream, but fails to disclose the airstream has an airflow from 1 m/s to 150 m/s. However, Jorgensen ([0033]-[0034]) teaches a disentanglement process with an airstream having an airflow ranging from 20 m/s to 150 m/s. Both Seck and Jorgensen disclose disentanglement processes of fibers. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a known airflow speed for disentanglement, such as the airflow speed ranging from 20 m/s to 150 m/s, as taught by Jorgensen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 14-15 are 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b), and allowance of the scope of this claim requires resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed below.
Regarding claims 7-9 and 13, the closest prior art of Seck ([0032]) teaches humidified mineral fibers in contact with binder particles using a pneumatic mixer, ([0033]) sprinkle a thin layer of mineral wool evenly humidified with a “rain” of binder particles, generated by a vibrating screen under which the layer of mineral wool passes, or carding humidified mineral wool can be carried out under a vibrating screen through which a steady stream of binder particles passes. Accordingly, Seck fails to disclose or suggest forming the water treated MMVF into a bale, as claimed in claim 7, storing the MMVF for at least 1 day, as required in claims 8 and 9, and the method of claim 12 comprising processing the water treated MMVF from a bale into tufts, as claimed in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Seck ([0042]) discloses the binder content ranging from between 3 and 9%. However, the closest prior art of Seck ([0040]) discloses it is easy to adjust the density and the thickness of the insulation by varying the compression rate, and discloses the insulation product having a density in the range of between 4 and 70 kg/m3. Accordingly, the method of Seck fails to disclose the MMVF element has a density in the claimed range of about 900 kg/m3 to about 14 kg/m3.
Regarding claim 15, Seck fails to disclose the MMVF element has an aged bending strength of at least about 19 N/mm2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights