DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on August 27th, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on April 1st, 2025.
Objections of claims 3-9, 11, 12 and 19 due to minor informalities
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Troger does not discuss or suggest the use of biodegradable multicomponent fibers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Troger discloses the use of bico fibers as the fibrous binder 5 in specification paragraph [0035]. The “bico” in bico fibers is shorthand for bicomponent. This is evidenced by specification paragraph [0071] of Simpson (referenced below). Troger further discloses the fibrous binder 5, comprising the bico fibers, is biologically degradable in specification paragraph [0033]. As such, Troger discloses the use of biodegradable multicomponent fibers.
Applicant argues Simpson does not disclose a mixture of wood fibers and multicomponent fibers. Rather, Simpson discloses hemp fibers in combination with bicomponent fibers (paragraph [0072]) and this combination may or may not include wood fibers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simpson discloses the hemp fibers may include woodfibers in specification paragraph [0032]. Therefore, the mixture of hemp fibers and bicomponent fibers in specification paragraph [0071] may comprise woodfibers. As such, Simpson discloses a mixture of wood fibers and multicomponent fibers.
Applicant argues Simpson does not disclose hardwood fibers bundles, much less beechwood fiber bundles. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145 (IV). The rejections are based on a combination of Troger and Simpson, wherein Troger discloses hardwood fiber bundles, in particular beechwood fibers bundles in specification paragraph [0020].
Applicant argues that while Simpson describes the use of pin rollers for opening the hemp fibers [0096], mixing does not take place by the pin rollers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simpson discloses in specification paragraph [0088], “The mixing may be carried out after individual components have been opened, or alternatively or additionally mixing may take place concomitantly with opening”. Simpson further discloses in specification paragraph [0090], “Spiked cylinders may be used along the process to open and blend the fibres”. As such, Simpson discloses the mixture comprising woodfibers and bicomponent fibers may be mixed by the pin rollers.
Applicant argues the long fibers (hemp fibers) described in Simpson cannot be processed with a fast-running pin roller. Only slow-running carding machines are suitable for this purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Furthermore, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate an updated grounds of rejection provided below.
Updated Grounds of Rejection
Claim Objections
Claims 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 1, “A method of claim 1, wherein” should say “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troger et al. (US 20090068430 A1; hereafter Troger), in view of Simpson et al. (US 20230313427 A1; hereafter Simpson).
Regarding claim 1, Troger discloses a method for producing flexible or elastic wood fiber insulant products ([0002, 0088]; producing wood-fiber heat-insulating material that is flexible and elastic), comprising:
providing wood fibers ([0022]; wood fibers) which have been produced in a refiner ([0022]; wood chips are shredded by refiner into wood fibers),
providing multicomponent fibers ([0035]; bico fibers),
preparing a mixture ([0033]; mixing wood fibers and biologically degradable binder 5, comprising the bico fibers) of the wood fibers and the multicomponent fibers,
then scattering the mixture onto a press belt ([0034-0035]; fleece of wood fibers and bico fibers is mixed before applying to continuous conveyor belt that presses the mixture),
and then heating the mixture ([0056]; heating mixture in example 1),
and joining a plurality of the multicomponent fibers together and to a plurality of the wood fibers ([0057]; the wood fibers and the bico fibers are thermally fixed together), wherein the wood fibers comprise hardwood fiber bundles ([0020]; beech wood fibers) and wherein the multicomponent fibers comprise biodegradable multicomponent fibers ([0033, 0035]; bico fibers are biologically degradable).
Troger does not explicitly disclose the multicomponent fibers comprises an inner component and an outer component, wherein the outer component melts or starts to melt at a first melting temperature, the inner component melts or starts to melt at a second melting temperature, the second melting temperature is higher than the first melting temperature, heating the mixture to the first melting temperature and cooling the mixture, and mixing the wood fibers and the multicomponent fibers together in a blowline and/or with a pin roll and/or in a cyclone and/or in a hammer mill without a sieve.
However, Simpson teaches a method for producing a wood fiber insulation product ([0001, 0032]; making insulation product comprising woodfibre) comprising a mixture of wood fibers ([0032]; woodfibre) and multicomponent fibers ([0071]; bicomponent fibers), wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises an inner component ([0071]; core of bicomponent fibers) and an outer component ([0071]; sheath of bicomponent fibers), wherein the outer component melts or starts to melt at a first melting temperature ([0065-066, 0071]; bico fibers may be polymer, resin or plastic, such that the sheath has a melting temperature), the inner component melts or starts to melt at a second melting temperature ([0065-066, 0071]; bico fibers may be polymer, resin or plastic, such that the core has a melting temperature), the second melting temperature is higher than the first melting temperature ([0071]; the core with a higher melting temperature than the sheath), heating the mixture to the first melting temperature ([0082]; heating to partially melt the bico fibers) and cooling the mixture after the heating ([0008]; cooling after heating). Simpson further teaches the multicomponent fibers are mixed when preparing the mixture with the wood fibers in a pin roll ([0090]; spiked cylinders to open and blend the wood fibre and bico fibers).
Troger and Simpson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of producing wood fiber insulation materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Troger with the teachings of Simpson to provide the multicomponent fibers comprises an inner component and an outer component, wherein the outer component melts or starts to melt at a first melting temperature, the inner component melts or starts to melt at a second melting temperature, the second melting temperature is higher than the first melting temperature, heating the mixture to the first melting temperature and cooling the mixture, and mixing the wood fibers and the multicomponent fibers together with a pin roll. Doing so would allow the hardwood fibers to bind to the multicomponent fibers at a lower melting temperature and therefore reduce the cost and energy usage required for manufacture (Simpson [0009]) and allow the multicomponent fibers to be mixed more gently and therefore suffer less mechanical damage (Simpson [0096]). Please note that in the modification of Troger, in view Simpson, the inner component of the multicomponent fibers of Troger is not replaced by Simpson.
Regarding claim 2, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hardwood fiber bundles are produced in the refiner in a length of 0.5 mm to 10 mm (Troger [0022]; average fiber length of 20 mm or less) and a width of 0.1 mm to 2 mm (Troger [0022]; average fiber diameter of 1 mm or less; In the case where the claimed ranges (length and width) "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner component is a polyamide (Troger [0026, 0035]; bico fibers can comprise polycaprolactam polyamide).
Regarding claim 5, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the outer component of the multicomponent fibers comprises one or more polylactides (Troger [0026, 0035]; bico fibers can comprise polylactic acid; Simpson [0066, 0071]; core-sheath bico fibers can comprise PLA).
Regarding claim 6, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein not more than 7.5% of multicomponent fibers are used in the mixture, based on the mass of the wood fibers (Troger claim 1; 5 to 30 wt. % of the biologically degradable binder in the form of bico fibres; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wood fibers are provided with a flame retardant (Troger [0022]; treating with a flame-retardant ant-repellent agent) and/or with water impregnation (Troger [0034]; mixture with wood fibers is introduced to moisture).
Regarding claim 10, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flexible or elastic wood fiber insulant products have a density in a range between 35kg/m3 and 75kg/m3 (Troger [0088]; density of 40 to 300 kg/m3; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the outer component is heated in the heating step via hot air (Troger [0057]; hot air flow) and hot steam (Troger [0056]; steam).
Regarding claim 12, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising scattering a fiber web (Troger [0034-0035]; fleece of wood fibers and bico fibers) formed in the joining step onto a circulated conveyor belt (Troger [0034]; continuous conveyor belt) and compressing and heating the fiber web in a continuous production process (Troger [0034-0035]; pressing and thermally fixing using continuous conveyor belt).
Regarding claim 19, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hardwood fiber bundles comprise beechwood fiber bundles (Troger [0020]; beech wood fibers).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troger et al. (US 20090068430 A1; hereafter Troger), in view of Simpson et al. (US 20230313427 A1; hereafter Simpson) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 20100272938 A1; hereafter Mitchell).
Regarding claim 3, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Troger does not explicitly disclose the first melting temperature is below 1000C.
However, Mitchell teaches a method for producing a mixture of hardwood fibers ([0007]; hardwood fibers) and multicomponent fibers ([0025, 0037]; core/sheath bicomponent fibers), wherein the multicomponent fibers comprises an inner component ([0025, 0037]; core of bicomponent fibers) with a second melting point ([0037]; example of Bionelle/Biomax Aliphatic Polyester Bicomponent Fiber, wherein aliphatic polyester has a melting point) and an outer component ([0025, 0037]; sheath of bicomponent fibers) with a first melting point ([0037]; example of Bionelle/Biomax Aliphatic Polyester Bicomponent Fiber, wherein Bionelle has a melting point), the second melting temperature is higher than the first melting temperature ([0037]; example of Bionelle/Biomax Aliphatic Polyester Bicomponent Fiber, wherein aliphatic polyester has a higher melting point than Bionelle) and the first melting temperature is below 1000C ([0037]; example of Bionelle/Biomax Aliphatic Polyester Bicomponent Fiber, wherein Bionelle has a melting point of 90 to 120⁰C; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Troger and Mitchell are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of producing products from mixtures of hardwood and bicomponent fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a first melting temperature below 1000C based on the type of material used as taught by Mitchell in order to provide the appropriate melting temperature to yield the desired fiber mixture. Doing so would lower the heating energy required to join the hardwood and multicomponent fibers and therefore reduce the energy costs of the manufacturing process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troger et al. (US 20090068430 A1; hereafter Troger), in view of Simpson et al. (US 20230313427 A1; hereafter Simpson) as applied to claim 1, and as evidenced by Kean et al. (US 6159882 A; hereafter Kean).
Regarding claim 9, modified Troger discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein Troger discloses the mixture, before the heating step, is applied onto a press belt ([0034-0035]; fleece of wood fibers and bico fibers is mixed before applying to continuous conveyor belt) by air laying ([0041]; dispersing by the air flow of the air laying system). As evidenced by column 1, lines 20-25 of Kean, air laying of nonwoven is a process wherein fibers are deposited in a horizontal orientation on a belt. Therefore, the mixture being oriented along a principal board plane is implicit to the air laying of Troger.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754