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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/26 has been entered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al, CN 101942119 with evidence from “Chitosan-based Materials: Preparation, modification and application”, hereinafter “Chitosan”, in view of WO 2018/038671 and Brady et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0222463.
Zhu discloses a starch based composition. See abstract. Considering example 1, Zhu discloses an aqueous composition comprising acid, (adipic acid, oleic acid, stearic acid), a plasticizer, (sorbitol), chitosan and wherein the binder comprises 0.005-10t% of chitosan, wherein the acid is a Bronstead or Lewis acid, (0.65 kg of adipic acid, 0.30 kg of oleic acid, 0.25 kg of stearic acid), wherein the binder comprises at least 15wt% of plasticizer, (150 kg corn starch and 2.5 kg sorbitol), wherein the binder has a pH of 6.8 which meets the limitation of less than 7, and wherein no polyanion is present in the composition of Zhu. So, considering the components of the binder there is 150 kg of corn starch, 0.65 kg of adipic acid, 0.30 oleic acid, 0.25 kg glucose amylase, 2 kg cellulose, 3 kg water, tributyl citrate 5 kg, polysorbate 2.5 kg, chitosan 0.75 kg, guar gum 0.15 kg, 1 kg sodium hydroxide. Therefore, the is total of about 165 kg. 0.75 kg chitosan is about 0.45%. The plasticizer is present in an amount of about 90%. The acid is present in about 0.58 percent. Therefore, Zhu appears to teach a composition which has amounts within the claimed ranges, except that it teaches higher amounts than claimed of the plasticizer. Further, it would have been obvious to have selected the appropriate proportions of each component in order to provide a binder having the desired properties. Note that commercially available chitosan has a degree of deacetylation of greater than 55%. See paragraph 2.3.1 of “Chitosan”. With regard to claim 6, no additives are required since the concentration of the additives can be 0%. With regard to claims 10 and 12, it would have been obvious to have selected the proportions of the components in order to provide a nonwoven having the desired properties.
Zhu differs from the claimed invention because it does not teach the claimed range of plasticizer and does not clearly teach use as a binder. It is noted that for the product claims, the claims are not drawn to airlaid nonwoven plus the claimed binder, but rather that the binder is “for an airlaid nonwoven material”, which is a statement of intended use. Since the composition of Zhu is capable of performing the intended use then it meets this limitation.
Additionally, WO ‘671 teaches a bio-based binder which includes chitosan and a plasticizer. The plasticizer is present in amounts of at least 0.05 wt% and preferably 1-50 wt%. The composition is useful as a binder for nowovens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the binder of Zhu so that it included lesser amounts of plasticizer as taught by WO ‘671, in order to achieve a suitably flexible binder without using excess plasticizer and because while WO ‘671 teaches any amount of 0.05 wt% or greater, it prefers amounts of 1-50 wt% which encompass the claimed range as providing optimum properties, noting that plasticizers are used in binders to reduce brittleness and promote flexibility.
Zhu and WO ‘671 differ from the claimed invention because it does not clearly teach employing the binder for airlaid nonwovens, although WO ‘671 teaches similar compositions for use as binders for nonwovens.
However, Brady discloses an aqueous binder for use for fibers which comprises one or more carbohydrates such as a monosaccharaide, disaccharide or polysaccharide, (paragraph 0007), a Lewis acid, (paragraph 0011). The carbohydrate corresponds to the claimed polyol. See also paragraph 0033. The binder can further comprise chitosan. See paragraph 0035. The binder is useful for binding nonwoven sheets such as air laid nonwovens. See paragraph 0056.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed the binder of Zhu as a binder for air laid nonwovens.
Zhu in view of Brady teaches the steps of providing the binder and applying the binder to an airlaid nonwoven.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhu does not teach a hydrogenated hydrolyzed starch as a plasticizer. However, the claims also recite other polyols including sorbitol which is clearly taught by Zhu. Sorbitol is used as a plasticizer in example 1.
Applicant argues that Zhu does not teach the claimed amount of plasticizer. However, WO ‘671 teaches plasticizer amounts for similar compositions. Additionally, the purpose of adding plasticizer is to add flexibility to the composition and therefore one of ordinary skill would have been able to select an amount within the ranges taught by WO ‘671 which produced the desired flexibility in the final product.
Applicant argues that Zhu does not teach a binder. However, even accepting that Zhu is not clear as to the use of the composition as a binder for nonwovens, the product claims are not drawn to a nonwoven but to a composition “for an airlaid nonwoven material”. Therefore, the claims are drawn to the composition, not to a nonwoven including the composition as a binder. Since the structure of Zhu is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. Also, the limitation regarding the nonwoven is found in the preamble. Finally, WO ‘671 teaches a similar composition which is useful as a binder for nonwovens.
Applicant argues that reducing the amount of starch in example 1 would not necessarily produce a useable product. However, sorbitol is in the composition of example 1 which corresponds to the claimed plasticizer.
Applicant argues that example 1 of Zhu uses sorbitol ester rather than sorbitol, but the example simply says sorbitol.
Applicant argues that Brady is not specific to airlaid binders, however, Brady clearly teaches using compositions including chitosan and plasticizers as a binder for airlaid nonwovens. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a reasonable expectation that the composition of Zhu, especially in light of the disclosure of WO ‘671, would also function as a binder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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, 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights