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 Interpretation
The limitation “keratin fibre cellular components” in claims 1-XX is interpreted as meaning keratin fibre cuticle cells, keratin fibre cortical cells or a combination of keratin fibre cuticle and cortical cells, as discussed in para 0055 of the originally field application.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 26, 29-31, 33, and 38 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.
The terms “elevated temperature” and “elevated pressure” in claims 2 and 4 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term elevated temperature” and “elevated pressure” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how elevated the temperature and pressure needs to be in order to be considered elevated temperature” and “elevated pressure”. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret temperature and pressure above standard conditions, above 1 atm and 25C, as elevated pressure and elevated temperature.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “[t]he composite keratin material claim 10,--” However, claim 10 has been cancelled. It is unclear what claim 26 is intended to depend upon. Claim 24 positively recite a cellulose material. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 26 as encompass the keratin material comprising a cellulose material with the recited ratio.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “wherein the composite keratin material has a tensile strength of at least about 35 Nm/g, about 36 Nm/g, about 37 Nm/g, about 38 Nm/g, about 39 Nm/g, about 40 Nm/g, about 41 Nm/g, about 42 Nm/g, about 43 Nm/g, about 44 Nm/g, about 45 Nm/g, about 46 Nm/g, about 47 Nm/g, about 48 Nm/g, about 49 Nm/g, about 50 Nm/g, about 51 Nm/g, about 52 Nm/g, about 53 Nm/g, about 54 Nm/g or about 55 Nm/g.” 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 29 recites the broad recitation at least about 35 Nm/g, and the claim also recites about 40 Nm/g, along with other specific values, 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, claims reciting "at least about" are invalid for indefiniteness where there is close prior art and there is nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term “about.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 29 as encompassing the composite keratin material has a tensile strength of about 35 Nm/g or more.
Similarly, claim 30 recites the limitation, wherein the composite keratin material has an air resistance of at least about 20 s/100 mL, about 30 s/100 mL, about 40 s/100 mL, about 50 s/100 mL, about 60 s/100 mL, about 70 s/100 mL, about 80 s/100 mL, about 90 s/100 mL, about 100 s/100 mL, about 110 s/100 mL, about 120 s/100 mL or about 130 s/100 mL.” 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 29 recites the broad recitation at least about 20 s/100 mL, and the claim also recites about 30 s/100 mL, along with other specific values, 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, claims reciting "at least about" are invalid for indefiniteness where there is close prior art and there is nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term “about.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 30 as encompassing the composite keratin material has an air resistance of at least 20 s/100 mL.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “wherein the composite keratin material has a Cobb30 value below about 90 g/m², about 80 g/m², about 70 g/m², about 60 g/m², about 50 g/m², about 45 g/m² or about 40 g/m².” 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 29 recites the broad recitation below about 90 g/m2, and the claim also recites about 70 g/m², along with other specific values, 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. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 31 as encompassing the composite keratin material has a Cobb30 value below about 90 g/m².
Claim 33 recite the limitation “[t]he composite keratin material claim 16—." However, claim 16 stands cancelled. Therefore, the scope of claim 33 is unclear. Claim 33 recites the limitation of the composite keratin material being in the form of a sheet. 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 33 recites the broad recitation a thickness greater than 100 microns, and the claim also recites greater than 150 microns, along with other specific values, 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.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “[t]he fabric of claim 19, wherein the fabric is a non-woven fabric.” Claim 19 has been cancelled. Additionally, the preamble of the other claims does not recite just a fabric. Claim 35 recites “[a] paper, an artificial leather or a fabric.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 38 as encompassing being dependent upon claim 35.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “Use of the keratin material according to claim 3 as a plastic substitute or a substitute for a chemical binder in the preparation of a synthetic non-woven textile.” It is whether the claim is directed towards the method of using the composite keratin or is directed towards the composite keratin material product capable of being used recited applications. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 39 as being directed towards a product intended to be used as recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim states the “[u]se of the composite keratin material according to claim 3 as a plastic substitute or as a substitute for a chemical binder in the preparation of a synthetic non-woven textile.” It is unclear whether the claim is intended to be a process or to claim a product. The use fails to recite any steps. “Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
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.
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 1-4, 20-23, 29-31, 35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2011/0189479 to Zhang.
Regarding claims 1-4, 20-23, 29-31, 35, and 38-39, Zhang teaches a thermoset binder (thermoset biopolymer) comprising a protein, such as keratin, and a crosslinking compound(s) (Zhang, abstract, para 0004-0008, 0016), reading on a thermoset biopolymer derived from keratin components. Zhang teaches the binder composition being applied to fibrous products (Zhang, para 0022) and teaches the fibers may be arranged as an insulation batt, nonwoven mat (claim 38), or spunbond product (claim 38) (Id., para 0043), reading on a composite keratin material comprising a thermoset biopolymer (claim 3) and a fabric comprises the composite keratin material (claim 35).
The limitation “derived from separated keratin fibre cellular” (claim 1,3) is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Zhang teaches changing the temperature and/or other external conditions to cure the binder composition and product a final product containing the cured binder (Zhang, para 0005, 0037, 0040) and teaches a specific embodiment being pressed in molds then dried and cured in an oven at 204C (Id., par 0054), reading on subjected the keratin components to elevated temperature and elevated pressure. Additionally, the limitation “wherein the thermoset biopolymer is obtained by subjecting the separated keratin fibre cellular components to elevated temperature and elevated pressure” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. As the material is cured, including under heat, the necessarily resultant structure appears to be present. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claims 20-21 and 29-31 and the claimed tensile strength (claim 20-21, 29), air resistance (claims 20-21, 30), and Cobb30 (claims 20-21, 31), in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose these features, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Zhang teaches a composite comprising a thermosetting binder having the claimed components. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 22-23, the limitations “wherein the keratin fibre cellular components are obtained from a source selected from the group consisting of wool, hair, fur, feathers and a combination of any two or more thereof” (claim 22), “wherein the keratin fibre cellular components are obtained from wool” (claim 23) are interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. The thermoset binder is taught as being obtained from keratin. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 39, the limitation “[u]se of the composite keratin material according to claim 3 as a plastic substitute or as a substitute for a chemical binder in the preparation of a synthetic non-woven textile” is interpreted as limitation with regards to the intended use of the composite keratin material. 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. Additionally, Zhang teaches the material being used as a binder (Zhang, para 0022).
Claims 1-5, 20-24, 26, 29-32, 35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over EP 2686381 to Metz.
Regarding claims 1-5, 20-24, 26, 29-32, 35, and 38-39, Metz teaches a composite (claim 3), such as film (sheet, claim 32) or nonwoven (claim 35, 38), comprising cellulose and keratin, wherein the keratin polypeptide is bonded to a cellulose polymer of the cellulose and teaches the inclusion of polypeptide cross-linkers (Metz, abstract, para 0001, 0010-0013, 0015, 0051-0052, 0080-0083), reading on a thermoset biopolymer derived from keratin. Metz teaches the keratin being from nail, hoof, and hair (Id., para 0033), reading on the biopolymer being derived from separated keratin fibre cellular components.
The limitation “derived from separated keratin fibre cellular” (claim 1,3) and “wherein the thermoset biopolymer is obtained by subjecting the separated keratin fibre cellular components to elevated temperature and elevated pressure” (claim 2, 4) are interpreted as a product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. Metz teaches the cellulose and keratin being chemically bonded and the use of a crosslinker. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claims 5 and 24, Metz teaches the cellulose comprising cellulose pulp (cellulose fibre) (Metz, para 0120).
Regarding claims 22-23, Metz teaches the keratin coming from coarse wool (Metz, para 0034), reading on the keratin fibre cellular components being obtained from wool.
Regarding claim 26, Metz teaches the ratio of the cellulose or modified cellulose to keratin polypeptide being between 70:30 and 30:70 by weight of the composite (Metz, para 0041, 0057).
Regarding claims 20-21 and 29-31 and the claimed tensile strength (claim 20-21, 29), air resistance (claims 20-21, 30), and Cobb30 (claims 20-21, 31), in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose these features, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Metz teaches a nonwoven composite and a film composite comprising cross linked keratin and cellulose in weight ratios within the claimed ranges. Additionally, Metz teaches the tenacity of the cellulose/keratin composite fiber being in the range between 0.8 to 10 cN/tex (Metz, para 0110). Metz teaches the film being a membrane with microaperturing and being liquid permeable (Metz, para 0082). Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date adjust the tensile strength, such as within the claimed range, based on the desire application and adjust the microaperturing based on the desired permeability, such as resulting in the claimed air permeability.
Regarding claim 39, the limitation “[u]se of the composite keratin material according to claim 3 as a plastic substitute or as a substitute for a chemical binder in the preparation of a synthetic non-woven textile” is interpreted as limitation with regards to the intended use of the composite keratin material. 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. Metz teaches the use of composite as a film and therefore capable performing as a plastic substitute.
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 1-4, 22-23, 35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2011/0189479 to Zhang, as applied to claims 11-4, 20-23, 29-31, 35, and 38-39 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0210039 to Schrooyen.
Regarding claims 1-4, 20-23, 29-31, 35, and 38-39, in the event that the limitation “derived from separated keratin fibre cellular” impart structural significance, Schrooyen teaches the production of films and coating comprising keratin, such as from hair (cortical cells), feather, hoof, nails (cuticle cells), and horns, by crosslinking and/or polymerization of a modify keratin (Schrooyen, abstract, para 0014, 0022). Schrooyen teaches the film or coating having a tensile strength higher than 15 MPa (Id., para 0048). Schrooyen teaches the keratin being used as coating or binders, general purpose adhesive, binder for wood, paper, paperboard or molded fiber, and as a binder in coatings (Id., para 0085-0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the binder of Zhang, wherein the keratin protein is from hair or nails as taught by Schrooyen and therefore keratin fiber cuticle and/or cortical cells, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known keratin material predictably suitable for crosslinking and polymerizing in adhesive materials and having good strength.
Claims 5, 20-21, 24, 26-27, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2011/0189479 to Zhang, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0210039 to Schrooyen, as applied to claims 1-4, 20-23, 29-31, 35, and 38-39 above, further in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0172165 to Grant.
Regarding claims 5, 20-21, 24, 26-27, and 29-31, Zhang teaches the binder being used in fiber products to make insulation and fiber-reinforced composite and the products may include fiber contained in a cured thermoset binder prepared from a one-part binder solution of a polymer compound, crosslinking agent, and protein crosslinkable with both the polymer compound and crosslinking agent (Zhang, para 0044). Zhang teaches the fibrous products comprising inorganic fiber, such as glass fibers, and/or organic fibers, including organic polymer fibers (Zhang, para 0009, 0043-0044). Zhang teaches the fibrous product being used in insulation applications (Id., para 0015, 0043-0044).
Zhang does not explicitly teach the product comprising cellulose fiber or polyethylene terephthalate.
However, Grant teaches a fibrous insulation product comprising glass fibers and a binder component, including a formaldehyde-free, thermosetting binder system that are bio-based made from nutrient compound such as proteins (Grant, abstract, para 0029). Grant teaches the cured binder imparts strength and resiliency to the insulation layer (Id., para 0023). Grant teach other reinforcing fiber such as natural fiber, such as cotton and bamboo (cellulose) and/or synthetic fibers such as polyethylene terephthalate being present in the insulation product in addition to the glass fibers based on the desired application (Id., para 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the product of the prior art combination, wherein the product further comprises the cotton, bamboo, and/or polyethylene terephthalate fibers of Grant, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known fibers predictably suitable for use in fibrous insulation application comprising glass fiber and protein based thermosetting binder and based on the desired application.
Regarding claims 20-21 and 29-31 and the claimed tensile strength (claim 20-21, 29), air resistance (claims 20-21, 30), and Cobb30 (claims 20-21, 31), in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although the prior art does not disclose these features, the claimed properties are deemed to flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art combination since the prior art reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. The prior art combination teaches a composite nonwoven comprising a thermosetting binder comprising keratin as claimed and comprising cellulose and/or polyethylene terephthalate synthetic fibers as claimed. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust and vary the tensile strength, hydrophilicity (Cobb30), and air permeability, such as by the selection of fibers of the insulation, based on the desired application of the insulation product.
Regarding claim 32-33, the term “sheet” is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation as encompassing “a broad stretch or surface of something” or a portion of something that is thin in comparison to its length and breadth (see Merriam-Webster). Zhang does not explicitly teach the insulation being in the form of a sheet.
However, Grant shows the insulation product encompassing being a sheet (Grant, Fig. 1, para 0014). Grant teaches the thickness being in the range of 2 to 18 inches (Id., para 0086), reading on a thickness greater than 100 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the insulation of Zhang, wherein the insulation is in the form of a sheet such as shown by Grant, motivated by the desire of forming conventionally known nonwoven insulation shape predictably suitable for use as an insulation product comprising glass fibers and a thermosetting binder, including those using proteins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Protein Hydrolysates from Biogenic Waste as an Ecological Flame Retarder and Binder for Fiberboards” to Brenner teaches the use of protein hydrolysates from poultry-feather waste used in a dully sustainable binder for fiberboards and as a flame-retardant in fiberboards and teaches the strength of hot-pressed fiberboard matching commercial one bound with formaldehyde resins. US Pub. No. 2012/0104656 to Kelly reaches a molded article comprising crosslinked keratin proteins, such as from wool, that have been compressed and heated and can be further enhanced by treatment with additional crosslinking agents prior to compression. USPN 2,434,688 to Evans teaches a thermosetting plastic formed from reduced keratin and condensing reagent that can be molded in conventional molding machines and teaches the heat of the mold will accelerate the reaction.
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- 4:00 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
