DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 11/12/2025. Applicant filed a Response on 03/25/2026, amended claims 1-3 and 5-8, canceled claims 4 and 14, and added claims 21-22.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-22 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 21-22 are rejected.
Claims 9-13 and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 have been amended to recite “wherein said % is weight percent” in order to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections previously of record. New claim 21 recites the same claim language.
Applicant has not provided where basis in the specification exists for such added claim language. Table 4 shows, “Exemplary compositions of the binding agent according to the invention for 3mm thick MDF boards with the use of rapeseed protein (wt%)” (emphasis added) (specification at page 7, “1. Rapeseed protein” and Table 4). Therefore, those skilled in the art would understand that at least the amounts listed for rapeseed protein are recorded in weight%.
Further looking at Table 4, Products W0030 and A-F all comprise components in amounts that add up to 100. The Products and Adhesives of Table 5-6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 also comprise components that add up to 100, wherein at least the protein component is recited in “wt%” (see specification at pages 8-9, 11, 13 and 14-15).
Based upon these exemplified binding agents, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the various percentages taught in the specification and as claim are weight percentages, wherein the weight percentages are based on the total weight of the binding agent for cellulosic-containing materials.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 21-22 are 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 21 recite “wherein said % is weight percent.” However, it is unclear on what this weight percent is based upon, e.g., the weight of the protein component, the total weight of the binding agent, etc.
The claims have been interpreted as being based upon the total weight of the binding agent for cellulosic-containing materials for this office action. Clarification is required.
Amending the claims to read, “where said % is weight percent based on a total weight of the binding agent for cellulosic-containing materials” can overcome this rejection.
Regarding dependent claim 22, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 8 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, CN 108395870A (Lu).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Lu. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-3, Lu teaches a soybean protein wood adhesive (i.e., binding agent for cellulosic-containing materials) composed of the following parts by mass:
20-40% soy powder protein
35-80% water
1-50% oxidation modifier
1-10% protein molecule dispersant
5-40% low-alkali modifier
2-15% filler (Lu; page 2, lines 36-48).
20-40% soy protein powder overlaps in scope with the range of 3 to 25% soy protein as claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The oxidation modifier may be hydrogen peroxide (Lu; page 3, line 12).
1-50% hydrogen peroxide overlaps in scope with the claimed ranges of 0.05-15% by weight hydrogen peroxide (claim 1); and 1-15% or 4-8% or 0.05-5% by weight hydrogen peroxide (claim 3).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The protein molecular dispersant may be urea, a polyol, or a mixture thereof (Lu; page 3, lines 15-16). Lu exemplifies using glycerin as the polyol (Lu; page 4, line 25 and page 6, line 35).
1-10% polyol dispersant (i.e., glycerin) overlaps in scope with the claimed glycerin range of 5-45% by weight.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In Example 1, Lu exemplifies a wood adhesive comprising 60 parts water + 10 parts of a 30% concentration hydrogen peroxide (0.3*10 = 3 parts hydrogen peroxide) + 30 parts soybean protein powder + 5 parts glycerin + 20 parts magnesium hydroxide + 3 parts starch + 2 parts calcium carbonate = 130 total parts (Lu; page 4, lines 14-31).
Therefore, the composition contains:
3 parts hydrogen peroxide/130 total parts * 100 = 2.3% hydrogen peroxide (within the claimed 0.05-15% of claims 1 and 3);
30 parts soybean protein powder/130 total parts * 100 = 23.1% soybean protein (within the claimed 3-25% of claim 1);
5 parts glycerin/130 total parts * 100 = 3.9% glycerin, and water.
Although this example contains 3.9% glycerin, Lu teaches that the polyol protein molecule dispersant may be present in amounts ranging from 1-10% by weight as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of glycerin, including over the presently claimed, because Lu teaches such ranges as appropriate for the polyol additive.
Regarding claim 2, Lu is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the adhesives comprise 1-10% by mass of a protein modifier dispersing agent (Lu; page 2, line 46). Lu teaches that the protein modifier dispersing agent may be one of urea, a polyol, or a mixture thereof (Lu; page 3, lines 15-16 and page 4, lines 4-5).
Lu further exemplifies using glycerin (Lu; page 4, line 25 and page 6, line 35) or urea (Lu; page 4, line 55; page 5, line 26, and page 6, line 4).
1-10% by mass of a protein modifier dispersing agent overlaps in scope with the claimed urea range of 3-20% by weight, as well as the claimed glycerin range of 5-45% by weight, including mixtures thereof as taught by Lu (e.g., a mixture of 3% urea and 5% glycerin).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given that Lu discloses protein modifier dispersing agents that overlap the presently claimed glycerin and urea additives, including mixtures of glycerin and urea in the claimed amounts, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use both urea and glycerin as the protein modifier dispersing agent, which is both disclosed by Lu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Lu is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lu teaches that the adhesives comprise 2-15% by mass of filler, wherein the filler may be flour (i.e., gluten) (Lu; page 2, line 48 and page 3, lines 22-23). Lu further exemplifies using a flour filler (Lu; page 5, lines 1-2 and 31-32; page 6, lines 9-10).
2-15% by mass flour overlaps in scope and lies within with the claimed gluten range of 1-10% or 2-5% respectively.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benk et al, WO 2020/032899 A1 (Benk).
Benk was cited in the Office Action mailed 11/12/2025.
Regarding claim 5, Lu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lu teaches that “trialdehyde glue” is a urea formaldehyde resin, a phenol resin and a melamine formaldehyde resin. Urea formaldehyde resin will release formaldehyde during production and use, and the release period is 3 to 15 years. It is the main culprit causing indoor formaldehyde content to exceed the standard for a long time, which endangers the health of the human body. While the use of soy protein binder has been used since the 1920s, it has its own defects, mainly poor water resistance (Lu; page 2, lines 9-19).
The soybean protein wood adhesive of Lu overcomes these problems, can be prepared under normal temperature and pressure conditions, has simple operation and good industrial performance, and is suitable for large scale production (Lu; page 2, lines 36-39).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the adhesive comprises 2-20% or 5-15% by weight molasses as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Benk teaches a molasses binder used for producing isolation materials in the entire furniture industry, such as wood panels (i.e., a binder for cellulosic-containing materials or wood) (Benk; page 1, lines 7-9). There are four basic formaldehyde-based thermosetting resins commonly used in the woodworking industry: phenol formaldehyde, resorcinol formaldehyde, urea formaldehyde, and melamine formaldehyde (Benk; page 1, lines 14-23). All four of these produce formaldehyde emissions both during production and after brought to their final state. Manufacturers are in search of a product which reduces formaldehyde emissions without affecting the quality of the product (Benk; page 2, lines 13-25). Further, according to the World Health Organization, formaldehyde is classified as a substance which causes cancer to humans, and therefore formaldehyde emission limits have been set (Benk; page 2, line 3-page 3, line 8).
The aim of Benk is to produce a high-quality, affordable organic resin which does not comprise phenol and formaldehyde, which is not harmful to human health, and which improves rather than compromises the characteristics of the end product (Benk; page 4, lines 9-15). The main aim of Benk is to determine if molasses-based resins can be used instead of formaldehyde-based resins (Benk; page 4, line 32-page 5, lines 4).
Binders prepared using molasses that are by-products of sugar factories can be easily and economically obtained (Benk; page 7, lines 24-26). The resins do not have harmful effects on people, have continuous raw material resources, and are very cheap to produce in comparison to urea formaldehyde and phenol formaldehyde (Benk; page 8, lines 13-17). Further, the molasses resins meet standard limit values and have improved product characteristics as compared to those made with urea formaldehyde (Benk; page 10, line 27-page 12, line 9).
Benk is analogous art as it teaches binders for cellulose-containing products comprising molasses.
In light of the motivation provided by Benk to use molasses as a binder for wood-based products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use molasses as a binder additive in the adhesive compositions of Lu in order to obtain an adhesive for wood products which does not release formaldehyde, is not harmful to human health, is cheap and easily obtained as a continuous raw material resource, meets standard limit values, and improves rather than compromises the characteristics of the end product. Because both Lu and Benk are trying to solve the problem of formaldehyde emissions in binders for cellulose-based products, those skilled in the art would have looked to Benk for suitable known continuous raw material resource additives to use in the adhesives of Lu to allow for good industrial performance and suitable large scale production.
Further, the combination of known substances for the same purpose has been held to have been prima facie obvious. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerhoevn, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
While Lu in view of Benk do not explicitly disclose a percentage of molasses as claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the mass percent of molasses in the compositions of Lu in view of Belk, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain a wood adhesive which can be prepared under normal temperature and pressure conditions, has simple operation and good industrial performance, and is suitable for large scale production.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davidson et al, US 3,206,320 (Davidson).
Regarding claim 6, Lu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, i.e., a soy protein wood adhesive (Lu; page 2, line 41). The adhesive comprises 2-15% by mass of a filler, wherein the filler may be calcium carbonate or flour (Lu; page 3, lines 22-23).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the adhesive further contains water glass in an amount of 0.5% to 30%, or in an amount of 2% to 10%, wherein said % is weight percent.
With respect to the difference, Davidson teaches a method for producing from soya bean protein a water resistant adhesive (Davidson; col. 1, lines 13-15). The “soya glue base” designates an aqueous alkaline soya flour or protein dispersion suitable for use as an adhesive composition, which may comprise various amounts of “extenders” (i.e., fillers) such as calcium carbonate, water glass, wood flour or walnut shell flour (Davidson; col. 2, lines 43-52).
The glue bases may be used for paper laminating or for the manufacturing of plywood (i.e., a binding agent for cellulosic-containing materials) (Davidson; col. 7, line 55-col. 8, line 7).
Davidson is analogous art as it teaches binders for cellulosic materials comprising soy protein and water glass.
In light of the disclosure of Davidson of the equivalence and interchangeability of using calcium carbonate or flour as disclosed in Lu, with water glass as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use water glass as the filler in Lu, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
The filler mass% range of 2-15% disclosed by Lu overlaps in scope with and falls within the claimed water glass ranges of 2-10% by weight and 0.5-30% by weight respectively.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sain et al, “Spruce Bark-Extracted Lignin and Tannin-Based Bioresin Adhesives: Effect of Curing Temperatures on the Thermal Properties of Resins” (Sain).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Lu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, i.e., a soy protein wood adhesive (Lu; page 2, line 41).
Lu teaches that “trialdehyde glue” is a urea formaldehyde resin, a phenol resin and a melamine formaldehyde resin. Urea formaldehyde resin will release formaldehyde during production and use, and the release period is 3 to 15 years. It is the main culprit causing indoor formaldehyde content to exceed the standard for a long time, which endangers the health of the human body. While the use of soy protein binder has been used since the 1920s, it has its own defects, mainly poor water resistance (Lu; page 2, lines 9-19).
The soybean protein wood adhesive of Lu overcomes these problems, can be prepared under normal temperature and pressure conditions, has simple operation and good industrial performance, and is suitable for large scale production (Lu; page 2, lines 36-39).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the adhesive further contains a modified lignin in an amount of 1%to 15%, or in an amount of 5% to 10%, wherein said % is weight percent (claim 8), or wherein said modified lignin is derived from spruce wood (claim 22).
With respect to the difference, Sain teaches formaldehyde-free bioresin adhesives synthesized from lignin and tannin, which were obtained from softwood bark, wherein the lignin was modified lignin (Sain; Abstract).
In the wood industry, synthetic resin adhesives such as phenol-formaldehyde, urea-formaldehyde, and melamine urea-formaldehyde have dominated the market, but have formaldehyde as a major component which is toxic and potentially carcinogenic. Therefore, formaldehyde-free bioresin adhesives from sources such as lignin have been researched (Sain; “Introduction,” paragraph 1). Sain teaches that after cellulose, lignin is the second most abundant renewable and naturally occurring biopolymer (Sain; page 1, “Introduction,” paragraph 2). Chemically modified lignin structure could undergo oxidation and polymerization reactions easily, and as a result is suitable to use as a wood adhesive (Sain; page 2, para 1). Formaldehyde-free and water-resistant bioresin adhesives were produced, and were derived from spruce bark-derived lignin (Sain; page 3, paragraph 1).
The study demonstrated the full-fledged use of softwood bark-derived modified lignin to synthesize bioresin adhesives. It is possible to formulate sustainable, water-resistant, and thermally stable cross-linked resin adhesives from spruce bark-derived lignin upon modification with glyoxal, which has the potential to replace formaldehyde (page 11; “Conclusions”).
Sain is analogous art as it teaches wood adhesives comprising modified lignin derived from spruce wood.
In light of the motivation provided by Sain to use modified lignin derived from spruce wood as a formaldehyde-free bioresin adhesive for wood, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use modified lignin derived from spruce wood as a binder additive in the adhesive compositions of Lu in order to obtain an adhesive for wood products which is formaldehyde-free, sustainable in that lignin is the second most abundant renewable and naturally occurring biopolymer, water-resistant, and thermally stable. Because both Lu and Sain are trying to solve the problem of formaldehyde emissions in binders for cellulose-based products, those skilled in the art would have looked to Sain for suitable known continuous raw material resource additives to use in the adhesives of Lu to allow for good industrial performance and suitable large scale production.
Further, the combination of known substances for the same purpose has been held to have been prima facie obvious. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerhoevn, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
While Lu in view of Sain do not explicitly disclose a percentage modified lignin as claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the mass percent of modified lignin in the compositions of Lu in view of Sain, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain a wood adhesive which can be prepared under normal temperature and pressure conditions, has simple operation and good industrial performance, and is suitable for large scale production.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Sain as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view Shi et al, CN 111234774A (Shi).
Regarding claim 21, Lu in view of Sain are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Lu teaches the addition of 1-10% by mass of a protein molecular dispersing agent, wherein the dispersing agent may be a polyol such as glycerin (Lu; page 4, line 47 and page 5, lines 15-16).
Lu in view of Sain do not explicitly teach wherein the polyol is sorbitol.
With respect to the difference, Shi teaches a modified soybean protein, non-formaldehyde flame retardant adhesive for wood composite flooring (Shi; page 2, lines 49-50 and page 3, lines 8-9). The adhesive includes water, defatted soybean flour, a flame retardant, a water-based tackifier and an auxiliary agent (Shi; page 2, lines 26-31).
The auxiliary agent can be glycerol or sorbitol, as well as other polyols (Shi; page 3, lines 11-13).
Shi is analogous art as it teaches wood adhesives comprising soybean protein and sorbitol or glycerol.
In light of the disclosure of Shi of the equivalence and interchangeability of using glycerol as disclosed in Lu, with sorbitol as presently claimed, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sorbitol as the polyol in Lu, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Restriction Requirement mailed 07/28/2025, the Office maintains that the special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art for the reasons set forth in the above 35 USC 103 rejections, and is therefore proper and maintained.
Applicant’s Amendments filed 03/25/2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously of record, except regarding the claimed percentages as amended, for the reasons set forth on pages 3-4 above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Response filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Xia et al, CN104946197A (Xia) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Specifically, the claims have been amended to require the presence of hydrogen peroxide. Xia does not disclose or suggest binding agents comprising hydrogen peroxide as presently claimed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Response filed 03/25/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Edelmann, CA3076409A1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Edelmann; over Edelmann in view of Biesiekierski, “What Is Gluten" (Biesiekierski); over Edelmann in view of Benk et al, WO2020/032899A1 (Benk); and over Edelmann in view of Hedicon Composite, WO2015/162300A1 (Hedicon Composite), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Specifically, the claims have been amended to recite that the binding agent does not comprise animal protein. Animal protein is a required component of Edelmann (see, e.g., Edelmann at page 3, lines 13-17 and page 4, line 24-page 5, line 6). Therefore Edelmann, alone or in combination with Biesiekierski, Benk, or Hedicon Composite, does not disclose or suggest binding agents which do not comprise animal protein as presently claimed.
However, upon further consideration and search, and due to Applicant’s claim amendments, new grounds of rejection are made over of Lu; and over Lu in view of Benk, Davidson, Sain, or Sain and Shi, for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections over these references would be cumulative to the above rejections. See attached machine translations of Tian and Wang for all citations.
Tian et al, CN 104312479A (Tian), teaches wood adhesives which comprise 5-75 parts protein powder, 0.1-90 parts of an additive, 0.5-90 parts of a dispersing agent, 0.5-10 parts of a plasticizer, and 0-20 parts filler (page 2, lines 48-51). The protein powder may be soybean protein powder or pea protein powder (page 2, lines 58-60). The dispersing agent may be urea (page 3, line 1). The plasticizer may be glycerin (page 3, line 13). The filler may be flour (page 3, line 19). The adhesive further comprises water and a pH adjusting agent such as hydrogen peroxide (page 3, lines 21-25). The adhesive of Example 4 comprises hydrogen peroxide, soy protein, pea protein, urea, glycerin, flour and water (page 5, lines 19-32).
Wang et al, CN 107189754A (Wang), teaches a paper tube adhesive comprising 10-20% vegetable protein powder, 0.1-2% preservative, 0-7% antifreeze, and water (page 2, lines 26-41). The vegetable protein powder may be soybean or pea protein, the preservative may be hydrogen peroxide, and the antifreeze may be glycerin, urea, or mixtures thereof (page 2, lines 47-56).
Mancera et al, “Kraft lignin behavior during reaction in an alkaline medium,” teaches modified kraft lignin which may be used in wood adhesives (Abstract and page 2, first full paragraph).
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 CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights