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 § 102
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 –
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 21-22, 25, 27-28, 30 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hernandez-Torrez (PG Pub. 2013/0334726).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, 11-12, 22, 25 and 27-28, Hernandez-Torrez teaches a fibrous insulation product comprising a plurality of glass fibers and a crosslinked formaldehyde-free binder at least partially coating the fibers [0025, 0030, 0050, 0052 and 0099]. The crosslinked formaldehyde-free binder is formed from an aqueous binder composition comprising 5-37% by weight of at least one monomeric polyol having at least four hydroxyl groups (pentaerythritol is taught and the polyols having at least two hydroxyl groups which would include polyols with at least 4 hydroxyl groups and at least 5 hydroxyl groups) based on the total solids content of the aqueous binder composition [0055 and 0057]. The quantity of the formaldehyde-free crosslinked binder on the fibers is in the claimed range (1-30% is taught) [0026]. The R-value of the fibrous insulation product is in the claimed range [Examples]. The glass fibers have an average fiber diameter in the claimed range [0025]. The fibrous insulation product when uncompressed has a density in the claimed range [0033]. Hernandez-Torrez teaches such a similar fibrous insulation made of similar materials in such similar amounts the claimed maximum failure force (wall) per product weight, maximum failure force (ceiling) and average normal force is inherent to the fibrous insulation product of Hernandez-Torrez. Further, the present specification teaches “The inventive insulation products (i.e., the packaged NGFG batts) are believed to have an improved stiffness owing, at least in part, to the use of a binder containing a monomeric polyol, the processing/curing of which leads to stronger cross-linking in the fiber matrix” and “The inventive insulation products (i.e., the packaged NGFG batts) are believed to have an improved stiffness owing, at least in part, to the use of a binder containing a monomeric polyol, the processing/curing of which leads to stronger cross-linking in the fiber matrix.” and therefore, it is clear the fibrous insulation product of Hernandez-Torrez et al. inherently possesses the claimed properties as the binder contains monomeric polyol and is crosslinked and is composed of such similar components in such similar quantities.
Regarding claim 9, the crosslinking agent is polyacrylic acid [0070].
Regarding claims 10 and 30, the aqueous binder composition further comprises at least 50% by weight a crosslinking agent comprising a polymeric polycarboxylic acid having at least two carboxylic acid groups based on the total solids content of the aqueous binder composition [0072]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claims 21 and 41, Hernandez-Torrez teaches the quantity of the cross-linked formaldehyde-free binder on the fibers is in the claimed range by weight of the fibrous insulation product (2-20% is taught in 0026). The R-value of the fibrous insulation product is in the claimed range (R-19 is taught in Example 1). The glass fibers have an average fiber diameter in the claimed range (3-6micrometers is taught in 0025). The fibrous insulation product has a density when uncompressed in the claimed range (0033 teaches 0.2-10 pcf and further 0034 teaches the density as a results effective variable that is selected to tailor the product to the end use application and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed density in order to tailor the product to the end use application and arrive at the claimed invention). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
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, 14, 17-21, 26, 37-38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hernandez-Torrez (PG Pub. 2013/0334726).
Regarding claims 6 and 26, the aqueous binder composition further comprises at least 50% by weight a crosslinking agent comprising a polymeric polycarboxylic acid having at least two carboxylic acid groups based on the total solids content of the aqueous binder composition [0072]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). Hernandez-Torrez is silent regarding a ratio of molar equivalents of carboxylic acid groups to hydroxyl groups in the aqueous binder composition is between 0.60/1.0 and 1.0/0.6 or 0.8/1.0 to 1.0 to 0.8 However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of molar equivalents of carboxylic acid groups to hydroxyl groups in the aqueous binder composition including equivalent amount of 1.0/1.0 by adjusting the amount of the polycarboxylic acid and polyhydroxyl compound in the binder by routine experimentation in order to improve the performance of the fibrous insulation product, especially because Hernandez claims a wide range of values for the amount of polyhydroxyl compound in the binder and wide variety of compounds to be used as the polycarboxylic acid and polyhydroxyl compound [0055], the polyhydroxy compound or polyol is polyvalent, having two or more hydroxyl groups that can be available for reaction...the polyol may be smaller monomeric compounds like glycerol, ethylene glycol, propanediols, propanetriols, tri ethylol propane, erythritol or other butane-based polyols, pentaeythritol; and [0057]. Hernandez-Torrez also teaches the carboxylic acid groups and the hydroxyl groups as a results effective variable to affect crosslinking and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed ratio of molar equivalents of carboxylic acid groups to hydroxyl groups in the aqueous binder composition in order to affect crosslinking and arrive at the claimed invention. Thus, polyol (polyhydroxyl) component may be present in the binder composition in an amount from about 1% to about 99% by weight of the total solids in the binder composition; and para [0070].
Regarding claim 14, Hernandez-Torrez teaches the polyol is polyvinyl alcohol (long chain polyol with at least 2 hydroxyl groups). Hernandez-Torrez teaches varying the molecular of the polyol and such is also known in the art to a person of ordinary skill and arriving at the claimed molecular weight would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to affect the binder properties such as mechanical properties including strength, adhesion, and viscosity.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 37-38, Hernandez-Torrez is silent regarding the claimed viscosity. However, Hernandez-Torrez teaches inclusion of viscosity modifiers in order to tailor the viscosity and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any viscosity, including that presently claimed, in order to tailor the binder to improve properties of the insulation such as strength, uniformity, flexibility and other mechanical properties.
Regarding claims 19-20, Hernandez-Torrez is silent regarding the claimed R-value. However, Hernandez-Torrez teaches the R-value can vary depending on the desired properties needed and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed R-values in order to improve insulation effect and energy savings or to lower cost and tailor the insulation to a warmer climate and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 21 and 41, Hernandez-Torrez teaches the quantity of the cross-linked formaldehyde-free binder on the fibers is in the claimed range by weight of the fibrous insulation product (2-20% is taught in 0026). The R-value of the fibrous insulation product is in the claimed range (R-19 is taught in Example 1). The glass fibers have an average fiber diameter in the claimed range (3-6micrometers is taught in 0025). The fibrous insulation product has a density when uncompressed in the claimed range (0033 teaches 0.2-10 pcf and further 0034 teaches the density as a results effective variable that is selected to tailor the product to the end use application and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed density in order to tailor the product to the end use application and arrive at the claimed invention). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hernandez-Torrez does not teach the monomeric polyol having at least four hydroxyl groups based on the total solids content of the aqueous binder composition and admits the Hernandez-Torrez teaches monomeric polyols having at least four hydroxyl groups including pentaerythritol in an amount of 1-99% in paragraphs 0055 and 0057. Applicant argues none of the examples of Hernandez-Torrez include monomeric polyol with four hydroxyl groups and therefore the limitations are not met. Applicant further argues the claimed properties are therefore not inherent to Hernandez-Torrez. Applicant argues the claimed properties depend on fiber diameter, fiber orientation and LOI.
As Applicant has admitted, Hernandez-Torrez does in fact teach monomeric polyol including at least four hydroxyl groups including pentaerythritol. Hernandez-Torrez is not limited to specific embodiments and is relied upon for all that is taught, therefore Hernandez-Torrez does meet the present limitations. Further, given Hernandez-Torrez teaches using monomeric polyol including at least four hydroxyl groups, motivation existed to use such in order to increase branching, raise molecular weight, and improve properties as is known in the art. Moreover, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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). As admitted by Applicant and shown by the examples of the present specification, insulation with monomeric polyol with four hydroxyl groups in binder yield the claimed properties and insulation that lacks monomeric polyol with four hydroxyl groups in binder fails to yield the claimed properties. Since Hernandez-Torrez teaches the claimed monomeric polyol with four hydroxyl groups in binder, the claimed properties are necessarily inherent to the insulation of Hernandez-Torrez.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art Not Used but Relevant
EP 1517959 teaches a fibrous insulation product with glass fibers and a formaldehyde free binder with the claimed monomeric polyol with the claimed number of hydroxyl groups.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789