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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 11, 13, 18-22 are pending. Claim 11 is independent.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 11, 13 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampson et al. (WO2017/072184A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampson et al. (WO2017/072184A1) in view of Izawa et al. (WO 2022244634A1) is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge that Hampson et al. (WO2017/072184A1) do not teach a degraded starch product of claim 11 as encompassed by Applicants unpublished specification [0017] and [0023]. In response, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Upon careful consideration of Applicant’s arguments and Applicant’s specification [0044] US20260002058A1 - Fiber product with adhesive, adhesive, method of manufacturing fiber product with adhesive, and method of manufacturing fiber product - Google Patents copied herein below:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(which coordinates to [0021] on page 10 of the unpublished specification filed 3/27/2025 having DAV PTO Doc Code SPEC); BRI of claim 11 language to the “alkenyl succinate ester of a starch decomposed product” includes hydrolysis of starch with an acid or enzyme, dextrin, glucose, etc. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because Hampson WO2017072184A1 page 2,ln.25-30 copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
178
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
teach starch derivatives including acid modified starch, partially hydrolyzed starch, including dextrins, starch octenyl succinate which encompasses BRI claim 11 limitation to “alkenyl succinate ester of a starch decomposed product”. Accordingly the rejections are maintained below.
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampson et al. (WO2017/072184A1).
Hampson et al. teach a fiber product with a curable binder (see abstract). Hampson et al. teach the curable binder adhesive composition comprises starch ethers such as carboxymethyl starches, hydroxyalkyl starches, cationic starches, amphoteric starches, starch esters such as starch acetates, starch phosphates, starch octenyl succinate, acid modified starch, oxide modified starch, and partially hydrolysed starch, including but not limited to dextrins (see page 2,ln.25-30) which teaching encompassing the claim 11 alkenyl succinate ester of a starch decomposed product as claimed.
Hampson et al. does not use the term adhesive as required by claim 11. It is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the curable binder of Hampson et al. comprising the same starch ethers as claimed encompasses the claim language to adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claim 11 fiber product and adhesive because Hampson et al. teach the same fiber product with adhesion binder in general.
Claim 13 limitation to 5 to 50 wt% alkenyl succinate is met by Hampson et al. teaching one of ordinary skill 5 to 25 wt% of solid content in the aqueous binder composition. See page 10,ln.9 and page 2,ln.25-30 teaching the curable binder adhesive composition comprises starch ethers such as carboxymethyl starches, hydroxyalkyl starches, cationic starches, amphoteric starches, starch esters such as starch acetates, starch phosphates, starch octenyl succinate, acid modified starch, oxide modified starch, and partially hydrolysed starch, including but not limited to dextrins.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampson et al. (WO2017/072184A1) as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, further in view of Izawa et al. (WO 2022244634A1) cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Hampson et al. is relied upon as set forth above for teaching a fiber product with a curable binder adhesive composition comprises starch ethers such as carboxymethyl starches, hydroxyalkyl starches, cationic starches, amphoteric starches, starch esters such as starch acetates, starch phosphates, starch octenyl succinate, acid modified starch, oxide modified starch, and partially hydrolysed starch, including but not limited to dextrins (see abstract and page 2,ln.25-30).
However, Hampson et al. do not teach the claim 18 method of manufacturing the fiber product with an adhesive comprising a step of bringing a fluid including the adhesive and a fiber product into contact with each other, and performing sizing on the fiber product. With respect to claim 18 limitation wherein the alkenyl succinate ester of the starch decomposed product content in the fluid including the adhesive is 0.1 to 10 wt% is suggested by Hampson et al. page 10,ln.9 teaching 5-20 wt%.
In the analogous art of fiber and binder compositions, Izawa et al. teach the claim 18 method for applying a sizing agent to a textile product by contacting the textile with a fluid containing the sizing agent and supercritical carbon dioxide to size the textile. See claim 1 and abstract also teaching a method for removing a sizing agent from a textile product with a sizing agent, comprising: the step of contacting a fluid containing supercritical carbon dioxide with the sizing textile product to desize the sizing in textile product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hampson et al. with the method of manufacturing the fiber product with an adhesive comprising a step of bringing a fluid including the adhesive and a fiber product into contact with each other, and performing sizing on the fiber product as required in claim 18 because Hampson et al. teach the same fiber product with the same starch octenyl succinate adhesion binder in general and Izawa et al. teach the claim 18 method for applying a sizing agent to a textile product by contacting the textile with a fluid containing the sizing agent and supercritical carbon dioxide to size the textile is commonly known. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings because both references use starch paste binder adhesives on fiber products in general.
Izawa et al. teach the claim 19 method for applying a sizing agent to a textile product by contacting the textile with a fluid containing the sizing agent and supercritical carbon dioxide to size the textile. See claim 1 and abstract.
With respect to claim 20 limitation to wherein the step of performing desizing is by a batch treatment or a continuous treatment is taught by Izawa et al. See page 4, paragraph 3 from the top.
Claim 21 limitation to wherein the fluid including the adhesive further includes a glycol ether is taught in Example 1 and Table 1. Claim 21 limitation to 50 to 99 wt% solvent content in the fluid including the adhesive is suggested by Hampson et al. page 10,ln.9 teaching 5-20 wt%.
Claim 22 limitation to ethylene glycol monobutyl ether is taught by Hampson et al. page 7, 1-2.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights