Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 14 are pending in the application with claims 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, and 15-31 being cancelled.
The 112 rejection has been maintained.
The rejection over Neagu has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. Neagu discloses a cellulose/foam layer having a density of 100 to 700 kg/m3 (paragraph 24). This is way above the claimed range of 16 to 64 kg/m3 or 1 to 4 pcf.
The rejection over Massenzo in view of Strimling has been overcome in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejection over Massenzo in view of Strimling and Wu has been maintained.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Slattegard (US 2021/0324167).
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.
Claim 14 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.
It does not make sense how a single laminate product could be comprised of a plurality of laminate products sandwiched together. Does Applicant want to convey an assembly or an article comprising a plurality of the laminate products connected to each other? Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0055819 to Massenzo et al. (hereinafter “Massenzo” in view of US 2018/0320367 to Strimling (hereinafter “Strimling”) and further in view of CN 210911535 to Wu (hereinafter “Wu”).
Massenzo discloses a thermal insulating panel 100 comprising a first encasement layer 111, a second encasement layer 112, and an insulative fiber core 120 sandwiched between the first and second encasement layers (abstract; and figure 1B). The encasement layer is formed from kraft paper and the insulative fiber core is made of cellulose fibers (paragraph 92). The insulative fiber core is a porous sheet of interlinked insulative fibers that are not readily separable (paragraph 35). The porous sheet is fiberized by hammermills to provide agglomerated fibers which are deposited to form a web of the individual fibered cellulose fibers (paragraph 37). The web is equated to the claimed cellulose-based mat matrix. The insulative fiber core has a density of 0.02 g/cc (1.24 pcf) or 0.04 g/cc (2.5 pcf) (figures 15 and 16) within the claimed range. Massenzo also teaches the cellulose fibers of the core layer that is to be blown in place (paragraph 58).
Massenzo does not explicitly disclose (i) at least a portion of the plurality of fibers are joined together to form agglomeration that established voids therebetween in the insulative fiber core, (ii) a binder for securing the insulative fiber core to the first and second encasement layers.
Strimling, however, discloses a cellulose-based fire-resistant insulation material comprising a plurality of cellulose fibers forming superstructures that establish voids in the insulation (abstract). The insulation material further contains an adhesive to bind the cellulose fibers together to form the agglomerations (paragraph 57). The insulation material also includes nanocellulose fibers to bind larger fibers together due to its extensive availability of sites and surface area for hydrogen bonding (paragraph 57). The insulative material includes a least a portion of the plurality of cellulosic fibers obtained from Short Fiber Residuals (SFR) (paragraph 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cellulose-based fire-resistant insulation material from Strimling for the insulative fiber core disclosed in Massenzo motivated by the desire to provide an insulative fiber core with superstructures to enhance heat flow reduction properties, while imparting excellent fire retardancy.
Wu, however, discloses a thermal insulating panel comprising an upper paper layer, a lower paper layer and a corrugated core paper disposed between the upper and lower paper layers (abstract). The corrugated core paper, the upper paper layer and the lower paper layer are secured to each other using a waterproof adhesive (paragraph 26). A wax film coating is arranged on the outer surface of the upper paper layer and the lower paper layer to provide water resistance (paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a waterproof adhesive from Wu to secure the insulative fiber core to the first and second encasement layers disclosed in Massenzo/Strimling motivated by the desire to obtain improved adhesion strength.
As to claims 3, 4 and 6, Massenzo does not explicitly disclose a thermal insulating panel comprising:
a second binder for joining at least a portion of the plurality of cellulose fibers together to form the agglomerations,
at least a portion of the plurality of cellulose fibers comprising nanocellulose fibers, or
at least a portion of nanocellulose fibers comprising a second binder for joining at least a portion of the plurality of cellulose fibers together to form the agglomerations.
Strimling, however, discloses a cellulose-based fire-resistant insulation material comprising a plurality of cellulose fibers forming superstructures that establish voids in the insulation (abstract and figure 5). The insulation material further contains a sizing additive such as an adhesive to bind the cellulose fibers together to form the agglomerations (paragraph 57). The insulation is in the form of a fiber mat comprising clusters of fibers fixedly joined together (paragraph 21). The insulation material also includes nanocellulose fibers to bind larger fibers together due to its extensive availability of sites and surface area for hydrogen bonding (paragraph 57). The insulative material includes a least a portion of the plurality of cellulosic fibers obtained from SFR (paragraph 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cellulose-based fire-resistant insulation material from Strimling for the insulative fiber core disclosed in Massenzo motivated by the desire to provide an insulative fiber core with superstructures to enhance heat flow reduction properties, while imparting excellent fire retardancy.
The combined teachings of Massenzo, Strimling and Wu result in a thermal insulating panel wherein Strimling’s sizing additive is used to bind the cellulose fibers together to form the agglomerations and wherein Wu’s waterproof adhesive is used to secure the layers of the thermal insulating panel together. The sizing additive and the waterproof adhesive are chemically different.
As to claim 10, Massenzo discloses that the encasement layer is formed from kraft paper (paragraph 92).
As to claim 11, neither Massenzo nor Strimling discloses or suggests a thermal insulating panel wherein the first and second encasement layers are treated with a moisture resistant coating.
Wu, however, discloses a thermal insulating panel comprising an upper paper layer, a lower paper layer and a corrugated core paper disposed between the upper and lower paper layers (abstract). The corrugated core paper, the upper paper layer and the lower paper layer are secured to each other using a waterproof adhesive (paragraph 26). A wax film coating is arranged on the outer surface of the upper paper layer and the lower paper layer (paragraph 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the first and second encasement layers disclosed in Massenzo/Strimling with a wax film coating from Wu motivated by the desire to provide a thermal insulation panel with excellent moisture resistance properties.
As to claim 14, Massenzo discloses a plurality of thermal insulating panels being connected together to form a shipping container (paragraph 77 and figure 8B). Each thermal insulating panel is a sandwich structure comprised of a first encasement layer 111, a second encasement layer 112, and an insulative fiber core 120 sandwiched between the first and second encasement layers.
Response to Arguments
The rejection over Massenzo in view of Strimling has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. None of the cited references disclose or suggest a binder for securing the mat matrix to the first skin and the second skin. However, the rejection over Massenzo in view of Strimling and Wu has been maintained.
As previously discussed, Massenzo does not explicitly disclose at least a portion of the plurality of fibers are joined together to form agglomeration that established voids therebetween in the insulative fiber core. Strimling discloses a cellulose-based fire-resistant insulation material comprising a plurality of cellulose fibers forming superstructures that establish voids in the insulation (abstract).
Applicant alleges that nowhere does Strimling disclose the cellulose-based mat matrix.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in figure 5, the cellulose-based fire-resistant insulation material comprises a plurality of cellulose fibers forming superstructures that establish voids in the insulation. The insulation material further contains a sizing additive such as an adhesive to bind the cellulose fibers together to form the agglomerations (paragraph 57). The insulation is in the form of a fiber mat comprising clusters of fibers fixedly joined together (paragraph 21).
Massenzo and Strimling concern with the cellulose-based mat matrix comprising a web of clusters of fibers fixedly joined together (Massenzo, paragraphs 35 and 37 vs. Strimling, paragraph 21). The cellulose-based mat matrix is blown in place (Massenzo, paragraphs 58 vs. Strimling, paragraph 21, abstract).
Applicant asserts that Massenzo and Strimling are incompatible due to Massenzo’s encasement of the insulative component while Strimling necessitates its avoidance.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Strimling does require bagging or encasement of the fiberized material (paragraph 50).
Further, it is essential to recognize that Strimling does not explicitly discourage the encasement. The absence of mention regarding encasement in Strimling should not be interpreted as a teaching against it. Rather, silence on the matter does not imply a limitation on encasement practices. As there is a motivation to combine the teachings of Massenzo and Strimling, a prima facie case of obviousness is said to exist.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0324167 (hereinafter “Slattegard”) further in view of US 2020/0039713 to Neagu et al. (hereinafter “Neagu”).
As to claims 1, 10 and 11, Slattegard discloses a porous material for packaging applications, comprising cellulose fibers and gluten with a weight ratio of from 1:6 to 6:1, and wherein the porous material has a density of 27-33 kg/m3 or 1.7 to 2.1 pcf within the claimed range (abstract, and table 3). The porous material comprises a cellulose matrix having a plurality of cellulosic fibers joined together to form agglomerations with the voids therein (figure 3 and 5).
The cellulose fibers have a length of 0.7 to 1.5 mm and thus correspond to claimed short fiber Residuals (SFR). The porous material further includes nanofibrillated cellulose and microfibrillated cellulose and each of which corresponding to the claimed SFR (paragraph 34).
Slattegard also discloses that the gluten acts as an emulsifier and a foaming agent (paragraph 21). Slattegard further teaches that the gluten serves as a binder for the cellulose fiber network (paragraph 21).
Stallegard does not explicitly disclose (i) a laminate product comprising a first paper skin material, as second paper skin material and the porous material disposed between the first and second paper skin materials, (ii) a binder is provided for securing the porous material to the first and second paper skin materials, and (iii) the first and second skin layers treated with a moisture resistance coating.
Neagu, however, discloses a laminated packaging product comprising a first facing layer of paper, a second facing layer of paper, and a foam-formed fibrous cellulose layer sandwiched between the first and second facing layers of paper (paragraph 135). The foam-formed fibrous cellulose layer comprises a plurality of dialcohol-modified cellulose fibers that are bonded to each other by a hydrogen bonding to form agglomerations (paragraph 52). Neagu also teaches that the layers of the laminated packaging product are joined to each other using adhesive lamination wherein an adhesive layer or a binding layer is a polyolefin layer (paragraphs 130, 137, and 158). Neagu further discloses a laminated packaging product further comprising an outermost thermoplastic layer to provide moisture resistance and scratch/wear resistance and stability to the packaging container (paragraph 158).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the porous cellulose layer disclosed in Slattegard between two paper layers as disclosed in Neagu motivated to provide a laminated packing material. This is a typical structure of the laminated packing material and Neagu provides necessary details to practice the invention of Slattegard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention provide an outermost thermoplastic layer on the paper layer of Slattegard in view of Neagu, motivated by the desire to provide moisture resistance and scratch/wear resistance and stability to the laminated packaging material.
As to claim 3, Slattegard teaches that the gluten serves as a binder for the cellulose fiber network (paragraph 21). Neagu teaches that the layers of the laminated packaging product are joined to each other using adhesive lamination wherein an adhesive layer or a binding layer is a polyolefin layer (paragraphs 130, 137, and 158). Therefore, the binder for the cellulose fiber network, and the binding layer for the layers of the laminated packaging product are compositionally different from one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the porous cellulose layer disclosed in Slattegard between two paper layers as disclosed in Neagu motivated to provide a laminated packing material. This is a typical structure of the laminated packing material and Neagu provides necessary details to practice the invention of Slattegard.
As to claim 4, Slattegard discloses that the porous material further includes nanofibrillated cellulose corresponding to the claimed nanocellulose fibers (paragraph 34).
As to claim 6, Slattegard teaches that the gluten serves as a binder for the cellulose fiber network (paragraph 21). As the nanofibrillated cellulose is a part of the cellulose fiber network, the examiner takes the position that the gluten would bind the nanofibrillated cellulose together to form the agglomerations.
As to claim 14, Slattegard discloses a porous material for packaging applications, comprising cellulose fibers and gluten with a weight ratio of from 1:6 to 6:1, and wherein the porous material has a density of 27-33 kg/m3 or 1.7 to 2.1 pcf within the claimed range (abstract, and table 3). The porous material comprises a cellulose matrix having a plurality of cellulosic fibers joined together to form agglomerations with the voids therein (figure 3 and 5).
The cellulose fibers have a length of 0.7 to 1.5 mm and thus correspond to claimed short fiber Residuals (SFR). The porous material further includes nanofibrillated cellulose and microfibrillated cellulose and each of which corresponding to the claimed SFR (paragraph 34).
Slattegard also discloses that the gluten acts as an emulsifier and a foaming agent (paragraph 21). Slattegard further teaches that the gluten serves as a binder for the cellulose fiber network (paragraph 21).
Stallegard does not explicitly disclose a composite structure comprising a plurality of the laminate products securing to each other.
Neagu, however, discloses a laminated packaging product comprising a first facing layer of paper, a second facing layer of paper, and a foam-formed fibrous cellulose layer sandwiched between the first and second facing layers of paper (paragraph 135). The foam-formed fibrous cellulose layer comprises a plurality of dialcohol-modified cellulose fibers that are bonded to each other by a hydrogen bonding to form agglomerations (paragraph 52). Neagu also teaches that the layers of the laminated packaging product are joined to each other using adhesive lamination wherein an adhesive layer or a binding layer is a polyolefin layer (paragraphs 130, 137, and 158). Neagu further discloses a laminated packaging product further comprising an outermost thermoplastic layer to provide moisture resistance and scratch/wear resistance and stability to the packaging container (paragraph 158). As shown in figure 5, a packaging container comprises a plurality of laminated packing products connected to each other (figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention construct a packaging container by connecting a plurality of laminated packing products together because this is a typical structure of the packaging container and Neagu provides necessary details to practice the invention of Slattegard.
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 Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788