DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment dated 18 March 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 10-13, 18, 19, and 21-26 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 All outstanding objections and rejections made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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 filed on 18 March 2026. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 13, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,340,868 (“Strauss”).
As to claims 1, 4, 5, and 24, Strauss teaches a binder composition that is aqueous (claim 1) including a polycarboxy polymer, thus a polymeric carboxylic acid, at least a trifunctional monomeric carboxylic acid, and beta-hydroxyalkylamide.
The beta-hydroxyalkylamide has the structure of a polyol (3:5-15). While not exemplified, the formula for the beta-hydroxyalkylamide includes polyols having three of four hydroxyl groups, based on the range of m and n (3:13-20). Therefore, Strauss contemplates the use of polyols having at least three hydroxyl groups.
Strauss teaches that the hydroxyalkylamide (polyol) is preferably present in amounts of 35 to 55 wt % (3:49-52), which is within the recited range for the polyol. Strauss teaches the monomeric carboxyl acid is preferably in a concentration of 15 to 40 wt % (3:55-60), which substantially overlaps the recited range for monomeric carboxylic acid. Furthermore, the polycarboxy polymer is present in preferably 10 to 30 % by weight (3:45-50), which substantially overlaps the recited range for polymeric polycarboxylic acid. Given these preferred ranges, Strauss therefore suggests a range for the weight ratio of polycarboxylic acid to monomeric polycarboxylic acid of 0.25:1 to 2:1, which substantially overlaps the recited range of claims 1, 4, and 5. Given that Strauss discloses the recited components, in preferred ranges substantially overlapping the recited ranges, the composition of claim 1 is an obvious modification of Strauss.
Strauss does not discuss the viscosity at the recited temperature and concentration of claims 1 and 23. However, given that Strauss suggests a composition of the same three components in the recited proportions, it is reasonable to expect such a composition to have the recited viscosity at that solids concentration. In addition, Strauss teaches the importance of low viscosity when uncured (1:65-67), and thus to the extent that the recited viscosity is taught, Strauss suggests providing compositions reducing viscosity to a low amount to allow flow; given the similarity of the components and amounts, obtaining the recited viscosity would be within the skill and motivation of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 6, Strauss teaches the polycarboxy polymer maybe a homopolymer of acrylic acid (2:33-40), exemplifying polyacrylic acid (2:60-61, 5:10-11).
As to claim 7, Strauss teaches citric acid as a preferred monomeric polycarboxylic acid (3:1-2, 5:13).
As to claim 11, the composition of Strauss does not include PVA.
As to claim 13, Strauss teaches the binder applied to blown, thus random fibers, to coat (4:7-35).
As to claim 18, Strauss teaches a binder applied to blown, thus random fibers, to coat (4:7-35), thus forming a fibrous insulation product (1:50).
Strauss teaches the binder composition that is aqueous (claim 1) including a polycarboxy polymer, thus a polymeric carboxylic acid, at least a trifunctional monomeric carboxylic acid, and beta-hydroxyalkylamide.
The beta-hydroxyalkylamide has the structure of a polyol (3:5-15). While not exemplified, the formula for the beta-hydroxyalkylamide includes polyols having three of four hydroxyl groups, based on the range of m and n (3:13-20). Therefore, Strauss contemplates the use of polyols having at least three hydroxyl groups.
Strauss teaches that the hydroxyalkylamide (polyol) is preferably present in amounts of 35 to 55 wt % (3:49-52), which is within the recited range for polyol. Strauss teaches the monomeric polycarboxylic acid is preferably in a concentration of 15 to 40 wt % (3:55-60), which substantially overlaps the recited range. Furthermore, the polycarboxylic polymer is present in preferably 10 to 30 % by weight (3:45-50), which substantially overlaps the recited range. Given these preferred ranges, Strauss therefore suggests a range for the weight ratio of polycarboxylic acid to monomeric polycarboxylic acid of 0.25:1 to 2:1, which substantially overlaps the recited range of claim 18. Given that Strauss discloses the recited components, in preferred ranges substantially overlapping the recited ranges, the composition of claim 1 is an obvious modification suggested by Strauss.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8, 10, 12, 21-23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,340,868 (“Strauss”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of US 2007/0006390 (“Clamen”).
As to claims 2 and 3, Strauss does not discuss a ratio of hydroxyl to carboxyl groups in the binder composition. However, Clamen teaches similar aqueous binders of polycarboxy polymers and polyols, and teaches a preferred range of carboxyl groups to hydroxyl groups of 1/0.2 to 1/0.8 (para. 0064), or a hydroxyl to carboxyl range of 0.2:1 to 0.8: 1, which substantially overlaps the recited ranges of claims 2 and 3. Clamen teaches such ratios provide a good cure network while limiting VOC. As such, the use of carboxyl compounds and hydroxyl compounds, including in the recited range, is an obvious modification suggested by Clamen.
As to claim 8, Strauss does not teach sorbitol. However, Clamen teaches similar compositions of polycarboxylic acids and polyols for fiber binding, and teaches that the polyols may include more than one polyol, and teaches that polyols such as sorbitol may be used in lieu of or in addition to beta-hydroxyalkylamides (para. 0060), such that the use of sorbitol for some portion of the polyol of a binder is an obvious substitution suggested by Clamen.
As to claim 10, Strauss teaches polyacrylic acid and citric acid, but does not teach sorbitol. However, Clamen teaches similar compositions of polycarboxylic acids and polyols for fiber binding, and teaches that the polyols may include more than one polyol, and teaches that polyols such as sorbitol may be used in lieu of or in addition to beta-hydroxyalkylamides (para. 0060), such that the use of sorbitol for some portion of the polyol of a binder is an obvious substitution suggested by Clamen.
As to claim 12, Strauss does not discuss a nitrogen based protective agent. However, Clamen teaches similar binding agents containing polycarboxylic compounds and polyols, and teaches the utility of using a waterproofing agent that may be amine based compounds (para. 0061), thus a nitrogen based protective agent. Clamen teaches the use of compounds for waterproofing and improving curing (para. 0019), and as such, the use of such a compound is an obvious modification suggested by Clamen for fiber binding.
As to claim 21, Strauss does not teach sugar alcohol. However, Clamen teaches similar compositions of polycarboxylic acids and polyols for fiber binding, and teaches that the polyols may include more than one polyol, and teaches that polyols such as sorbitol (a sugar alcohol) may be used in lieu of or in addition to beta-hydroxyalkylamides (para. 0060), such that the use of sorbitol for some portion of the polyol of a binder is an obvious substitution suggested by Clamen.
As to claims 22 and 23, Strauss does not exemplify the amount of solids, but is not limiting as to the dilution thereof. Clamen teaches similar compositions of polycarboxylic acids and polyols for fiber binding, and teaches binder amounts after dilution in the recited range are suitable for use (para. 0069), and as such, the recited amount of binder solids in the recited range is an obvious modification suggested by Clamen.
As to claims 25 and 26, Strauss teaches that the hydroxyalkylamide (polyol) is preferably present in amounts of 35 to 55 wt % (3:49-52), which substantially overlaps the recited range for polyol for claims 25 and 26. Strauss teaches the monomeric polycarboxylic acid is preferably in a concentration of 15 to 40 wt % (3:55-60), which substantially overlaps the recited ranges of claims 25 and 26. Furthermore, the polycarboxylic polymer is present in preferably 10 to 30 % by weight (3:45-50), which overlaps the recited ranges of claims 25 and 26. Given these preferred ranges, Strauss therefore suggests a range for the weight ratio of polymeric polycarboxylic acid to monomeric polycarboxylic acid of 0.25:1 to 2:1, which substantially overlaps the recited range of claims 25 and 26.
Strauss does not discuss a ratio of hydroxyl to carboxyl groups in the binder composition. However, Clamen teaches similar aqueous binders of polycarboxy polymers and polyols, and teaches a preferred range of carboxyl groups to hydroxyl groups of 1/0.2 to 1/0.8 (para. 0064), or a hydroxyl to carboxyl range of 0.2:1 to 0.8: 1, which substantially overlaps the recited ranges of claims 25 and 26. Clamen teaches such ratios provide a good cure network while limiting VOC. As such, the use of carboxyl compounds and hydroxyl compounds, including in the recited range, is an obvious modification suggested by Clamen.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,340,868 (“Strauss”) as applied to claim 18, further in view of US 2007/0006390 (“Clamen”).
As to claim 19, Strauss does not discuss a ratio of hydroxyl to carboxyl groups in the binder composition. However, Clamen teaches similar aqueous binders of polycarboxy polymers and polyols, and teaches a preferred range of carboxyl groups to hydroxyl groups of 1/0.2 to 1/0.8 (para. 0064), or a hydroxyl to carboxyl range of 0.2:1 to 0.8:1, which substantially overlaps the recited range. Clamen teaches such ratios provide a good cure network while limiting VOC. As such, the use of carboxyl compounds and hydroxyl compounds, including in the recited range, is an obvious modification suggested by Clamen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Strauss and Clamen do not teach the recited viscosity. As an initial matter, this argument does not apply to claims 18 and 19, which do not recite any viscosity. Second, the compositions of Strauss or Strauss in view of Clamen read directly onto the recited formula; as such, it would be expected that the compositions would have the recited low viscosity as recited by claims 1 and 24. Applicant has not explained why a composition of Strauss, especially given its teachings of low viscosity, would not meet the recited broad viscosities.
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
Prosecution Insights