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 .
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 17 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. Claim 17 is indefinite because it is dependent upon itself. For purposes of this examination, claim 17 is being treated as being dependent upon claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0014896 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses a insulation composition comprising: one or more biomass-derived polymer components([0015]-[0017], first additive comprising substantially 50 percent starch); one or more cellulose components [0015]; and one or more fire retardants [0015] applied to at least a portion of either or both of the one or more biomass-derived polymer components and the one or more cellulose components ([0036], usually a second additive is added to the cellulose fibers, the second additive containing borates, the borates provide fire retardant, and they can be added prior to or simultaneously with the first additive).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt further discloses wherein the one or more biomass derived polymer components are in the form of either or both of fibers and foam ([0037], swellable cornstarch and [0020], added surfactant and [0028], adding water and simultaneously blowing).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt further discloses wherein the one or more cellulose components are in the form of one or more of recycled fibers, virgin fibers, cellulose dust, microcrystalline cellulose, and nanofibrillated fibers [0022].
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt further discloses wherein the one or more fire retardants are selected from liquid borate solution, solid borate powder, and biomass-derived fire retardant [0036].
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt further discloses wherein the insulation composition is in a form of loose blown fiber insulation ([0028], simultaneously blowing said insulation onto said surface with a water spray to produce a final solid product).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt further discloses wherein the insulation composition is in a board form([0055], insulation must also dry properly to a solid final product, preferably with a hard surface so that it will not be so easily damaged).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt further discloses wherein the one or more biomass-derived polymer components and the one or more cellulose components are bound together ([0019], ethylene vinyl acetate, and [0039], which is a redispersible binder).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt further discloses wherein the one or more cellulose components includes a plurality of cellulose fibers [0022], the insulation composition further comprising one or more carbon-negative binders to bind the cellulose fibers into microstructures ([0036], borates and instant claim 12; binders are one or more borates).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt discloses a method to make an insulation composition ([0028], method of applying a fibrous cellulose insulation comprising one or more biomass-derived polymer components [0015], mixture comprises first additive ([0016]-[0017], first additive comprising substantially 50 percent starch), one or more cellulose components [0015], and one or more fire retardants [0015]), the method comprising the steps of: binding a plurality of cellulose components together with a biomass-derived polymer to form a polymer-cellulose composition([0028], mixing a first portion of a first additive with cellulose fiber and ([0016]-[0017]), first additive comprising substantially 50 percent starch); and adding a fire retardant to one or more of the cellulose components, the biomass derived polymer, and the polymer-cellulose composition ([0036], second additive is added to the cellulose fibers, the second additive containing borates, and borates provide fire retardant).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt further discloses wherein the plurality of cellulose components comprises one or more of recycled fibers, virgin fibers, cellulose dust, microcrystalline cellulose, and nanofibrillated fibers [0015], and wherein the biomass-derived polymer substantially binds the plurality of cellulose components together and ([0016]-[0017]), first additive comprising substantially 50 percent starch, and the starch acts as an adhesive and is a thickener [0037].
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt further discloses wherein a binder to bind the plurality of cellulose components and the biomass-derived polymer is selected from one or more of bio-based polymer, biodegradable polymer, and a lignin-based binder ([0018], methylcellulose [0038], methylcellulose reacts with the cellulose fibers only when wet and acts as an adhesive and as a thickener).
Regarding claim 38, Schmidt further discloses further comprising the step of forming the insulation composition into a board ([0055], insulation must also dry properly to a solid final product, preferably with a hard surface so that it will not be so easily damaged).
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 6, 7, and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0014896 A1) in view of Gross et al. (U.S. Pub. 2008/0050565 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt discloses a dried composition ([0055], insulation must also dry properly to a solid final product, preferably with a hard surface so that it will not be so easily damaged), but Schmidt does not disclose wherein the insulation composition is in a batt form. However, Gross discloses an insulation composition (abstract, insulating fire retardant composite material) comprising: one or more cellulose components([0416], pretreated and untreated Foley Fluffs and [0224], foley fluffs are fabricated from cellulosic materials); and one or more fire retardants ([0416], 15 percent solution of FR 3496 and [0231], Fire Retard 3496), that further discloses wherein the insulation composition is in a batt form ([0344], batt of insulation fiber). As both Schmidt and Gross disclose methods of making cellulose-based fire retardant insulation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of Gross in the composition disclosed by Schmidt to make a batt insulation, as it is easier to transport and install.
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt discloses a dried composition, but Schmidt does not disclose wherein the insulation composition is in a form of layered assemblies. However, Gross discloses a insulation composition (abstract, insulating fire retardant composite material) comprising: one or more cellulose components([0416], pretreated and untreated Foley Fluffs and [0224], foley fluffs are fabricated from cellulosic materials); and one or more fire retardants ([0416], 15 percent solution of FR 3496 and [0231], Fire Retard 3496), that further discloses wherein the insulation composition is in a form of layered assemblies (Fig 1-5 showing a layered construction). As both Schmidt and Gross disclose methods of making cellulose based fire retardant insulation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of Gross in the composition disclosed by Schmidt to make a layered insulation, as it provides more controlled insulation properties (Gross, Table 37).
Regarding claim 33, Schmidt does not further disclose forming the insulation composition into a layered assembly comprising one or more layers of the insulation composition. However, Gross discloses a insulation composition (abstract, insulating fire retardant composite material) comprising: one or more cellulose components([0416], pretreated and untreated Foley Fluffs and [0224], foley fluffs are fabricated from cellulosic materials); and one or more fire retardants ([0416], 15 percent solution of FR 3496 and [0231], Fire Retard 3496), that further discloses wherein forming the insulation composition into a layered assembly comprising one or more layers of the insulation composition(Fig 1-5 showing formation of layered structure); and sandwiching the one or more layers of the insulation composition between two membranes, wherein one of the two membranes is a backing membrane (Fig 11 showing a fire resistant layer sandwiched between a quilted ticking layer and a foam layer). As both Schmidt and Gross disclose methods of making cellulose based fire retardant insulation, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of Gross in the method disclosed by Schmidt to make a layered insulation, as it provides more controlled insulation properties (Gross, Table 37).
Regarding claim 34, Schmidt in view of Gross discloses a method of claim 33 as detailed above. Gross further discloses wherein either or both of the two membranes is made of one or more of biomass-derived polymer sheet and kraft paper ([0289], unbleached Kraft wrapping paper).
Regarding claim 35, Schmidt further discloses wherein the biomass-derived polymer of the insulation composition is a foam ( [0037], swellable cornstarch and [0020], added surfactant and [0028], adding water and simultaneously blowing).
Regarding claim 36, Schmidt in view of Gross discloses a method of claim 34 as detailed above. Gross further comprising the step of shredding the layered assembly to form loose blown insulation ([0388], The treated cellulose fluff was then blown into a 150 gsm airlaid handsheet which was 20 percent by weight of bicomponent fiber Type 1661).
Regarding claim 37, neither Schmidt nor Gross disclose further comprising the step of forming the layered assembly into a batt having multiple layers, wherein the batt includes multiple batt layers spaced from one another by one or more internal membranes. However, Gross discloses the formation of a layered structure (Fig 1-5) and the molding of the fire resistant composite into a structure with the composition sandwiched between layers (Fig 11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the structures disclosed to make a layered assembly into a batt having multiple layers, wherein the batt includes multiple batt layers spaced from one another by one or more internal membranes; depending on the final use, the resistance characteristics required and the properties desired (Table 37 showing testing of properties).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (U.S. Pub. 2005/0014896 A1) in view of Song et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0339461 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Schmidt discloses wherein the plurality of cellulose components includes cellulose dust([0044], receives the fiber in a powder form) and Song discloses the step of binding at least a portion of the cellulose dust in the insulation composition with at least a portion of the plurality of microbeads ([0046], The expandable polymeric bead may be micro beads with a mechanism in which when heated, the plastic shell portion is softened, and the core portion in a liquid state increases in pressure, allowing the particles to expand). As both Schmidt and Song disclose compositions used as insulating materials, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the expandable beads disclosed by Song in the composition disclosed by Schmidt, as it provides for good properties (Song, [0056], leading to an improvement of the mechanical properties).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781