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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-2 and 4-17, in the reply filed on October 16, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the newly amended claims including the limitation wherein the composition does not comprise a fatty acid ester of glycerol. This is not found persuasive because As outlined below, the common technical feature, amended to further require the absence of a fatty acid ester of glycerol, does not contribute over the prior art as shown by US Pub. No. 20160333240 to Grigsby. See the prior art rejections detailed above. Examiner would also like to highlight that the new claim limitation is not support by the originally filed disclosure.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-21 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-17 are 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.
Specifically, the limitation “wherein the composition does not comprise a fatty acid ester of glycerol” is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The limitation “wherein the composition does not comprise a fatty acid ester of glycerol” is a negative limitation. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977), See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). There is no mention in the originally filed disclosure of a fatty acid ester of glycerol or fatty acid in general. Therefore, the amended claim is not supported by the originally filed disclosure and introduces new matter.
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, 2, and 4-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a support agent selected from at least one in the group of saccharides and polyols.” It is unclear if at least one of each of a saccharide and polyols is required or if a saccharide or polyol is required. It is unclear if the “in the group” is intended as a Markush group, which would typically have the syntax “a support agent selected from at least one in the group of consisting of saccharides and polyols.”
Similarly, claim 1 also recites the limitation “wherein the support agent is one or more of a polyols selected from glycerol, mannitol, maltitol and sorbitol saccharides selected from glucose, mannose, fructose, sucrose, sucralose, sucrose esters, cyclodextrin, hydrolysed starch, dextrin.” It is unclear if the limitation are intended to be alternative, open to a combination of the listed material, or is intended to be inclusive, requiring a compound from each material listed.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the biobased polymer is a polysaccharide, a polyelectrolyte polysaccharide.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation a polysaccharide, and the claim also recites a polyelectrolyte polysaccharide, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Additionally, claim 1 recites the biobased polymer and the protein hydrolysate as alternatives. It is unclear if claim 2 intends to require the biobased polymer or limits the biobased polymer if present, but not required, if the protein hydrolysate is present.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “comprising chitosan, a cyclodextrin, tannic acid and at least one acid as a pH adjuster, wherein the composition is an aqueous composition.” A tannic acid is already required by claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “comprising 0.005 to 20% (wt) of chitosan; 1 to 30% (wt) of the cyclodextrin; 0.1 to 5% (wt) of tannic acid; and 0.1 to 30% (wt) of the pH adjuster.” It is unclear if the chitosan is the same or different from the chitosan of claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “having a pH of less than 5, comprising beta-cyclodextrin.” It is unclear if the beta-cyclodextrin is intended to further defined the cyclodextrin, and therefore contributing to the recited amount, or differs. If further defining, it is unclear if the cyclodextrin is beta-cyclodextrin or comprises beta-cyclodextrin.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “comprising chitosan, hydrolysed starch, tannic acid, a salt and a pH adjuster.” However, claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, recites “a pH adjuster, providing a resulting aqueous composition with a pH of less than 7.” It is unclear if the pH adjust of claim 7 is the same or different from that of claim 1. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 7 as encompass the pH adjust of claim 7 being within the scope of the pH adjuster of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “0.1 to 30% of the pH adjuster.” However, the basis of the percent is not specified, such as by weight, volume, or molar.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the polysaccharide” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claimed. Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the biobased polymer is a polysaccharide.” However, claim 9 does not depend on claim 1, only claim 1. Claim 1 recites “support agent being selected from at least one in the group of saccharides and polyols.” However, the saccharides appear to be limited to glucose, mannose, fructose, sucrose, sucralose, sucrose esters, cyclodextrin, hydrolyzed starch, dextrin. The polysaccharide being carboxymethyl cellulose would not fall out in these area.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “1 to 20% (wt) of the cyclodextrin, beta-cyclodextrin”. It unclear if the cyclodextrin is required to be beta-cyclodextrin, comprise beta-cyclodextrin, or is optionally contained.
Similarly, claim 13 recites the limitation “1 to 30% (wt) of the cyclodextrin, beta-cyclodextrin”. It unclear if the cyclodextrin is required to be beta-cyclodextrin, comprise beta-cyclodextrin, or is optionally contained.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claim(s).
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0333240 to Grigsby.
Regarding claims 1-2, 7-9, and 15-17, Grigsby teaches an adhesive composition including for paper board (composition suitable as a binder for fiber-based paper) comprising a first component comprising (i) a framework element including a polypeptide that is a hydrolyzed protein (protein hydrolysate) or polysaccharide, oligosaccharide and/or monosaccharide and (ii) a polyphenol such as a tannic acid, and (B) a second component comprising a polypeptide, oligopeptide, amino acid or polyamine (Grigsby, abstract, para 0006-0013, 0315-0332, claims 38-39). Grigsby teaches the polysaccharide including chitosan, hydrolyzed starch, dextrins, carboxymethylcellulose, and combinations thereof (Id., para 0090, 0330-0332), reading on a water soluble biobased polymer that is a polysaccharide (claim 2), including chitosan (claim 7), hydrolyzed starch (claim7), and carboxymethyl cellulose (claim 9), and a support agent that is dextrin or hydrolysed starch. Grigsby teaches the composition comprising one or more additive, including glycerol (Id., para 0107-0108). Grigsby teaches adjusting the pH (Id., para 0169-0179). Grigsby teaches the adhesive being use with lignocellulosic fibers (Id., para 0243). Grigsby teaches the ratio of the framework element to the polyphenol being from about 20:1 to about 1:1, such as about 4:1 or about 3:1 by dry weight (Id., para 0015). Grigsby teaches the ratio of polyphenol to second component being from about 1:1 to about 1:8, such as about 1:3 (Id., para 0020). Grigsby teaches the pH being adjusted by the addition of an acid, such as formic acid (pH adjuster, organic acid, claim 15) to a pH of about 4 to 6 and teaches the lower pH imparting greater moisture resistance (Id., para 0146, 0121), reading on a pH adjuster providing a resulting aqueous composition with a pH of less than 7. Grigsby teaches the composition comprising a non-metal or metal salt (Id., para 0347-0349), reading on the composition comprising a salt (claim 7, 17). Grigsby teaches the framework element being soy protein, including hydrolysed (protein hydrolysate), and teaches solubilizing the framework element (Id., para 0268-0272, 0277, 0317-0319), reading on being a protein hydrolysate, specifically peptone soy. Grigsby teaches the polypeptide being a soybean protein and being hydrolysed (protein hydrolysate), and teaches solubilizing the framework element (Id., para 0315-0319, 0147), reading on being a protein hydrolysate, specifically peptone soy. Grigsby does not require a fatty acid ester of glycerol (Id., all, claim 1), reading on the composition not comprising a fatty acid ester of glycerol.
While Grigsby does not teach a single embodiment comprising the specifically claim component, Grigsby discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composition of Grigsby, wherein the composition comprises a framework element that is hydrolyzed protein or polysaccharide such as chitosan, hydrolyzed starch, dextrin, carboxymethyl cellulose or a combination thereof, tannic acid as the polyphenol, and a second component as the polypeptide with glycerol as an additive with formic acid to adjust the pH to about 4 to 6 and one of the polypeptide being the hydrolysed soybean protein, motivated by the desire of using disclosed predictably suitable components for use in combination and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Grigsby based on the totality of the teachings of Grigsby.
Examiner would also like to note that the limitation “suitable as a binder for fiber-based materials, paper, textile, woven and nonwoven materials” is a recitation with regards to the intended use of the composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Grigsby teaches the ratio of the framework element to the polyphenol being from about 20:1 to about 1:1, such as about 4:1 or about 3:1 by dry weight (Grigsby, para 0015), reading on a ratio of the polysaccharide: tannic acid being about 4:1. Grigsby teaches the ratio of polyphenol to second component being from about 1:1 to about 1:8, such as about 1:3 (Id., para 0020). Grigsby teaches the adhesive composition comprising a solids content of at least about 20% by weight (Id., para 0099) and teaches specific embodiments having 30% by weight solids (Id., para 0521, Tables 1&2). At a solids weight percent of about 20%, this would equate to 10% by weight polysaccharide, 2.5% by weight tannic acid, and 7.5% by weight second component. At a solids weight percent of about 30%, this would equate to 15% by weight polysaccharide, 3.75% by weight tannic acid, and 11.25% by weight second component. Grigsby teaches the polysaccharide including a combination of chitosan and hydrolyzed starch (Id., para 0090, 0330-0332). While Grigsby is silent with regards to the specific split of the chitosan and hydrolyzed starch used in combination as the polysaccharide, it would have been obvious to try 50:50 split resulting in a range of 5-7.5% each at 20% by weight solids and 30 % by weight solids, within the claimed range of 0.005-20 wt% chitosan and 1-50 wt% hydrolyzed starch. Therefore, the disclosed ratios and solids amounts result in weight percentages overlap with the claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary that amounts of the components and therefore the percentages, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. While the prior art is silent with regards to the specific amount of the formic acid to adjust the pH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have expected the amount to be within the claimed range of 0.1 to 30% as the formic acid is an organic acid as claimed used to achieve a pH within the claimed range and comprising composition as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 16, Grigsby teaches the adhesive composition comprising a solids content of at least about 20% by weight (Grigsby, para 0099). Grigsby teaches the adhesive composition having a viscosity of at least about 5 cPs and less than about 100,000 cPs (Id., para 0100), reading on a viscosity of about 5 to 100,000 mPas. While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of less than 500 mPas, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the viscosity, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Claims 4-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2016/0333240 to Grigsby, as applied to claims 1-2, 7-9, and 15-17 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2003/0220042 to Lostocco.
Regarding claim 4-6 and 10-14, Grigsby teaches the use of polysaccharides including natural or modified as well as specific examples of starches, oxidised starches, hydrolysed starches, gums, celluloses, hemicelluloses, dextrins, dextrans, glycogens, chitosans, chitins, aminopolysaccharides, glycoproteins, and any combination of any two or more thereof. (Grigsby, para 0088-0090).
Grigsby does not teach the composition comprising cyclodextrin (claim 4, 10, 12), specifically beta-cyclodextrin.
However, Lostocco teaches a composition that can be used as a binder composition for fiber containing fabrics that comprises an odor control additive, such as cyclodextrins and there derivatives, including beta-cyclodextrin (claim 6) in an amount of less than 5 weight percent (Lostocco, abstract, para 0068-0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the composition of Grigsby, wherein the composition comprises the cyclodextrin of Lostocco, motivate by the desire of using conventionally known polysaccharide dextrins predictably suitable for use in binder composition as well as to impart odor control properties.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art combination teaches the cyclodextrin odor control in an amount of less than 5 weight percent (Lostocco, abstract, para 0068-0069), overlapping with the claimed range of 1 to 30% (wt). The prior art combination teaches the ratio of the framework element to the polyphenol being from about 20:1 to about 1:1, such as about 4:1 or about 3:1 by dry weight (Grigsby, para 0015), reading on a ratio of the polysaccharide(chitosan):tannic acid being about 4:1. The prior art combination teaches the ratio of polyphenol to second component being from about 1:1 to about 1:8, such as about 1:3 (Id., para 0020), reading on a ratio of the tannic acid to protein hydrolysate being about 1:3. At a solids weight percent of about 20%, this would equate to 10% by weight polysaccharide (chitosan), 2.5% by weight tannic acid, and 7.5% by weight protein hydrolysate, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the amounts overlap with the claimed range. The prior art combination teaches embodiment having 30% by weight solids (Id., para 0521, Table 2). At a solids weight percent of about 30%, this would equate to 15% by weight polysaccharide (chitosan), 3.75% by weight tannic acid, and 11.25% by weight protein hydrolysate, within the claimed range. Therefore, the disclosed ratio and solids amounts overlap with the claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary that amounts of the components and therefore the percentages, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. While the prior art is silent with regards to the specific amount of the formic acid to adjust the pH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have expected the amount to be within the claimed range of 0.1 to 30% as the formic acid is an organic acid as claimed used to achieve a pH within the claimed range and comprising composition as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art combination teaches the pH of the composition being from about 4 to about 6 (Grigsby, para 0121). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of a pH less than 5, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the pH, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art combination teaches the cyclodextrin odor control in an amount of less than 5 weight percent (Lostocco, abstract, para 0068-0069), overlapping with the claimed range of 1 to 20% (wt). The prior art combination teaches the ratio of the framework element to the polyphenol being from about 20:1 to about 1:1, such as about 4:1 or about 3:1 by dry weight (Grigsby, para 0015), reading on a ratio of the polysaccharide (CMC):tannic acid being about 4:1. The prior art combination teaches the ratio of polyphenol to second component being from about 1:1 to about 1:8, such as about 1:3 (Id., para 0020), reading on a ratio of the tannic acid to protein hydrolysate being about 1:3. At a solids weight percent of about 20%, this would equate to 10% by weight polysaccharide (CMC), 2.5% by weight tannic acid, and 7.5% by weight protein hydrolysate, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the amounts overlap with the claimed range. The prior art combination teaches embodiment having 30% by weight solids (Id., para 0521, Table 2). At a solids weight percent of about 30%, this would equate to 15% by weight polysaccharide (CMC), 3.75% by weight tannic acid, and 11.25% by weight protein hydrolysate, within the claimed range. Therefore, the disclosed ratio and solids amounts overlap with the claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary that amounts of the components and therefore the percentages, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. While the prior art is silent with regards to the specific amount of the formic acid to adjust the pH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have expected the amount to be within the claimed range of 0.1 to 30% as the formic acid is an organic acid as claimed used to achieve a pH within the claimed range and comprising composition as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art combination teaches the cyclodextrin odor control in an amount of less than 5 weight percent (Lostocco, abstract, para 0068-0069). The prior art combination teaches the ratio of the framework element to the polyphenol being from about 20:1 to about 1:1, such as about 4:1 or about 3:1 by dry weight (Grigsby, para 0015), reading on a ratio of the polysaccharide:tannic acid being about 4:1. The prior art combination teaches the ratio of polyphenol to second component being from about 1:1 to about 1:8, such as about 1:3 (Id., para 0020), reading on a ratio of the tannic acid to protein hydrolysate being about 1:3. At a solids weight percent of about 20%, this would equate to 10% by weight polysaccharide, 2.5% by weight tannic acid, and 7.5% by weight protein hydrolysate, which is within the claimed range. Therefore, the amounts overlap with the claimed range. The prior art combination teaches embodiment having 30% by weight solids (Id., para 0521, Table 2). At a solids weight percent of about 30%, this would equate to 15% by weight polysaccharide, 3.75% by weight tannic acid, and 11.25% by weight protein hydrolysate, within the claimed range. Therefore, the disclosed ratio and solids amounts overlap with the claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges 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 existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary that amounts of the components and therefore the percentages, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art. While the prior art is silent with regards to the specific amount of the formic acid to adjust the pH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have expected the amount to be within the claimed range of 0.1 to 30% as the formic acid is an organic acid as claimed used to achieve a pH within the claimed range and comprising composition as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination teaches the framework element being soy protein, including hydrolysed (protein hydrolysate), and teaches solubilizing the framework element (Grigsby, para 0268-0272, 0277, 0317-0319), reading on being a protein hydrolysate, specifically peptone soy.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0226150 to Aydin in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0210323 to Hjelmgaard.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 9,Aydin teaches a binder comprising bio-based complex composition suitable for fiber based material, textile, woven, and nonwoven material (composition suitable as a binder for fiber-based materials, textiles, woven, and nonwoven materials) including mineral fibers comprising a cationic biopolymer that is chitosan (water soluble biobased polymer), an anionic biopolymer, a cross-linker, and a plasticizer (supporting agent) such as glycerol, sorbitol, mannitol, xylitol, glucose, mannose, fructose, sucrose, and sucralose, wherein the composition has a pH below pH7 achieved by the addition of a Bronsted acid and/or Lewis acid (pH adjuster) (Aydin, abstract, para 0017, 0019-0020, 0029, 0032-0034), reading on a pH adjuster providing a resulting aqueous composition with a pH of less than 7. Aydin does not require a fatty acid ester of glycerol (Id., all, claim 1), reading on the composition not comprising a fatty acid ester of glycerol. Aydin teaches the anionic biopolymer being a polysaccharide, such as carboxymethyl cellulose (claim 9) (Id., para 0027-0028), reading on a water soluble biobased polymer that is a polysaccharide (claim 2). Aydin teaches the one or more additive including cross-linker and plasticizer being preferably 0-50% by weight, more preferably 0-30% by weight and selected depending on the application and expected final material properties (Id., para 0033). Aydin teaches the plasticizer being at least 0.05 wt%, preferably 1-50 wt% (Id., para 0034). Aydin teaches the composition further comprising one or more preservative selected from one or more of fungicide, bactericide, pharmaceutical preservative, cosmetic preservative and food preservative (Id., para 0035). Aydin teaches the preservative being 0.005-10 wt% (Id., para 0035). Aydin teaches the use of chitosan and CMC together with a plasticizer and citric acid (Id., para 0042).
Aydin does not explicitly teach the composition comprising tannic acid.
However, Hjelmgaard teaches an adhesive for a mineral wool product comprising at least one hydrocolloid that is a biopolymer, including protein or polysaccharide, tannic acid, and a pH-adjuster (Hjelmgaard, abstract, para 0017-0021, 0166-0171, 0176). Hjelmgaard teaches the use of tannic acid in conjunction with protein, starch, and/or carboxymethylcellulose in the adhesive compositions and suitable for use as a crosslinker or anti-swelling agent (Id., abstract, para 0047-0056, 0064-0065, 0168, 0171, 0180, 0182). Hjelmgaard teaches the composition comprising chitosan (Id., para 0184).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the binder of Aydin, wherein the binder comprises the tannic acid of Hjelmgaard, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known additives predictably suitable for use in binder, or adhesive, compositions containing polysaccharides such as starch, carboxymethyl cellulose, and/or chitosan used for mineral fibers and by the desire of imparting crosslinking and/or anti-swelling properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2015/0050857 to Zhang teaches a binder composition suitable for use as a fiber-binder comprising a protein, including modified and/or denatured proteins such as hydrolyzed soy protein (protein hydrolysate); a first crosslinking compound that includes a carbohydrate, including glucose and fructose; a second crosslinking compound that includes two or more primary amine; and extenders including starch. USPN 6,689,378 to Sun teaches it is known to react cyclodextrin, including beta-cyclodextrin, to polysaccharides, such as cellulose, starches, chitosan, and derivatives thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789