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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the final Office Action dated October 31, 2025 was submitted with the request for continued examination on February 2, 2026. Claims 28 and 29 were added. Claim 14 and 15 were canceled. Claims 3, 17, 21 and 24-26 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 2 and 4-13, 16, 18-20, 22, 23 and 27-29 are currently pending. Claims 9-13 and 16 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The Amendment to claim 27 has overcome the prior art rejection of this claim (¶ 26 of the Office Action). This rejection has therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 18-20, 22 and 23 (¶¶ 8-15 and 27-30 of the Office Action) have been considered but they are not persuasive. These rejections have therefore been maintained as detailed below. New claims 28 and 29 have also been addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0315008 A1) in view of Francis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0038065 A1, cited in previous Office Action), Stuart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0186870 A1, cited in previous Office Action) and either of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,323,268 B1, cited in previous Office Action), Dow Corning (“Dow Corning® MH 1107 Fluid”, October 16, 2006) or Power Chemical (“SiSiB® PF 2020 Fluid”, Power Chemical Corp. Ltd., 2008).
Regarding claim 1, Francis ‘008 discloses a method of making a gypsum panel (Abstract, [0067] of Francis ‘008, method of making gypsum wallboard); the method comprising: providing a first nonwoven facing material (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, lower facing sheet #24; [0049] of Francis ‘008, facing material can be nonwoven fibrous mat), providing a board slurry on the first nonwoven facing material (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, gypsum slurry applied to lower facing sheet #24), the board slurry comprising a binder, the binder comprising starch (Abstract of Francis ‘008, board slurry comprises starch binder), the board slurry penetrating the first nonwoven facing material ([0044] of Francis ‘008, slurry penetrates into fibrous mat facers), the board slurry forming a board core, the board core being free of polyvinyl alcohol ([0044] of Francis ‘008, slurry forms set gypsum core; Francis ‘008 does not disclose polyvinyl alcohol as an additive for gypsum core), and providing a second facing material on the board slurry (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, upper facing sheet #22 provided on the slurry).
Francis ‘008 does not specifically disclose applying a hydrophobic material to the first nonwoven facing material prior to providing the first nonwoven facing material, wherein the hydrophobic material is applied on a side of the first nonwoven facing material opposite a side adjacent the board slurry and forms a coating thereon, wherein the hydrophobic material penetrates the first nonwoven facing material or that the panel has “improved air and water barrier performance”. Francis ‘065, however, discloses a method of making a gypsum board (Abstract of Francis ‘065, method of making mat faced gypsum board) comprising: applying a hydrophobic material to the first nonwoven facing material prior to providing the first nonwoven facing material ([0031] of Francis ‘065, moisture-resistant coating applied to either or both facer sheets; pre-coated fibrous mat can be used); wherein the hydrophobic material is applied on a side of the first nonwoven facing material opposite a side adjacent the board slurry ([0031] of Francis ‘065, fibrous mat may be coated after fabricating the gypsum board; coating would therefore be on surface opposite core) wherein the hydrophobic material penetrates the first nonwoven facing material ([0051] of Francis ‘065, water-resistant coating applied onto surface of fibrous mat as an aqueous coating composition including up to 45% of water; coating would necessarily at least partially penetrate into nonwoven facer). According to Francis ‘065, the coating makes to facing resistant to moisture or impervious to liquid water ([0031] of Francis ‘065). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a hydrophobic material to the facings in the method of Francis ‘008. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to render the facings resistant to moisture or impervious to liquid water as taught by Francis ‘065 ([0031] of Francis ‘065). Since the resulting mat is rendered moisture resistant or impervious to liquid water, the coating of hydrophobic material would necessarily “improve” both air and water barrier performance of the panel compared to an uncoated panel.
Francis ‘065 does not specifically disclose that the coating consists essentially of a polysiloxane comprising methylhydrogen polysiloxane or a polydialkylsiloxane. Fisher, however, discloses a composition for rendering surfaces water repellent comprising a methylhydrogensiloxane polymer or copolymer (Abstract of Fisher). According to Fisher, the compositions can be applied to the surface of gypsum wallboards (1:27-34 of Fisher). Fisher also discloses that the compositions are low VOC penetrating water repellent compositions which improve the water repellency performance of inorganic building material (1:64-2:2 of Fisher). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compositions of Fisher as the moisture-resistant coating in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the water repellency performance of the gypsum panel while utilizing a low VOC coating composition as taught by Fisher (1:64-2:2 of Fisher). Regarding the “consisting essentially of” limitation, the hydrophobic material of Fisher can contain 99 percent by weight of the methylhydrogen polysiloxane and as little as 0.1 wt% of the alkoxy silane and 0.1 wt% of the silicone resin (6:64-7:24 of Fisher) which amounts to about 0.2 wt% of the total composition for these additional components. Such small amounts of these additional components would necessarily have a negligible effect on water repellency. Alternatively, Dow Corning and Power Chemical each disclose compositions consisting of polymethylhydrogensiloxanes for hydrophobing treatment of plasterboard (pg. 1 of Dow Corning; pg. pg. 7 of Power Chemical). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a composition consisting of polymethylhydrogensiloxanes for the hydrophobing treatment in the modified method since these references establish that it was known to use such compositions for the hydrophobing treatment of plasterboard (pg. 1 of Dow Corning; pg. pg. 7 of Power Chemical). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fisher does not specifically disclose that the hydrophobic material is present in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 10 wt% based on the weight of the first nonwoven facing material. Fisher, however, discloses that the amount of water repellant composition employed will vary depending on the nature of the substrate being treated (7:58-60 of Fisher). Fisher therefore establishes that the amount of coating/hydrophobic agent applied to the substrate is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., providing a substrate with a desired degree of hydrophobicity/water resistance) (7:58-60 of Fisher). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of hydrophobic agent applied to the facer in the method of Francis, including providing an amount as recited in claim 1. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Francis ‘008 does not specifically disclose the board slurry comprising a wetting agent, the wetting agent being present in the board slurry in an amount from 0.01 wt.% to 4 wt.%. Stuart, however, discloses gypsum slurry mixtures used in the manufacture of gypsum wallboard comprising a gypsum slurry and an additive comprising one or more wetting agents (Abstract, [0019] of Stuart). According to Stuart, the ratio of wetting agents to gypsum in the gypsum slurry are is about 0.01:100 to about 2.0:100 by weight ([0049] of Stuart). Also according to Stuart, the provision of the additive lowers the water content of the slurry while maintaining the desired viscosity which reduces the amount of water that needs to be removed during drying thereby resulting in reduced energy consumption and an improved manufacturing process for gypsum products ([0023] of Stuart). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 0.01 to 2.0 percent by weight of a wetting agent in the slurry in the method of Francis. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce energy consumption during drying as taught by Stuart ([0023] of Stuart).
Regarding claim 2, Francis ‘065 discloses that the hydrophobic material is applied to the second facing material after being placed on the board slurry wherein the hydrophobic material is applied on a side of the second facing material opposite a side adjacent the board slurry ([0031] of Francis ‘065, water-resistant coating applied to either or both facer sheets after fabrication of board; application of coating after fabrication of board would necessarily require applying coating to surface of facer opposite the core).
Regarding claim 5, Fisher discloses that the hydrophobic material includes a methylhydrogen polysiloxane (2:33-35 of Fisher, coating composition includes a polymethylhydrogensiloxane).
Regarding claim 6, Fisher discloses that the hydrophobic material comprises a polydialkylsiloxane (2:36-39 of Fisher, coating composition can include a polydimethylsiloxane).
Regarding claim 7, Fisher discloses that the hydrophobic material comprises polydimethylsiloxane (2:36-39 of Fisher, coating composition can include a polydimethylsiloxane).
Regarding claim 8, Francis ‘065 discloses that the first facing material, the second facing material, or both have hydrophobic properties ([0031] of Francis ‘065, water-resistant coating applied to either or both facer sheets) and further wherein a hydrophilic facing material is positioned between the first facing material, the second facing material, or both and the board slurry (FIG. 1, [0055] of Francis ‘065, thin coating of slurry including polyvinyl alcohol binder applied to inner surfaces of facer sheets; polyvinyl alcohol slurry would render region of facer in contact with core hydrophilic).
Regarding claim 18, Francis ‘008 discloses that the first nonwoven facing material is a fiberglass mat facing material ([0049] of Francis ‘008, facer can be fiberglass mat).
Regarding claim 19, Francis ‘008 discloses that the second facing material is a nonwoven facing material ([0049] of Francis ‘008, facer sheets can be non-woven mats).
Regarding claim 22, Francis ‘008 discloses a method of making a gypsum panel (Abstract, [0067] of Francis ‘008, method of making gypsum wallboard), the method comprising: providing a first nonwoven facing material (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, lower facing sheet #24; [0049] of Francis ‘008, facing material can be nonwoven fibrous mat), providing a board slurry on the first nonwoven facing material (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, gypsum slurry applied to lower facing sheet #24), the board slurry forming a board core, the board core being free of polyvinyl alcohol ([0044] of Francis ‘008, slurry forms set gypsum core; polyvinyl alcohol not disclosed as additive for gypsum core), and providing a second facing material on the board slurry (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, upper facing sheet #22 provided on the slurry).
Francis ‘008 does not specifically disclose: applying a hydrophobic material to the first nonwoven facing material and forms a coating thereon, wherein the hydrophobic material is applied on a side of the first nonwoven facing material opposite a side adjacent the board slurry; wherein the hydrophobic material penetrates the first nonwoven facing material; wherein a polymeric coating is not applied on the side of the first nonwoven facing material adjacent the board slurry; or that the panel has “improved air and water barrier performance”. Francis ‘065, however, discloses a method of making a gypsum board (Abstract of Francis ‘065, method of making mat faced gypsum board) wherein: a hydrophobic material is applied to the first nonwoven facing material ([0031] of Francis, moisture-resistant coating applied to either or both facer sheets) wherein the hydrophobic material is applied on a side of the first nonwoven facing material opposite a side adjacent the board slurry ([0031] of Francis, fibrous mat may be coated after fabricating the gypsum board; coating would therefore be on surface opposite core) wherein the hydrophobic material penetrates the first nonwoven facing material ([0051] of Francis, water-resistant coating applied onto surface of fibrous mat as an aqueous coating composition including up to 45% of water; coating would necessarily at least partially penetrate into nonwoven facer), wherein a polymeric coating is not applied on the side of the first nonwoven facing material adjacent the board slurry ([0036] of Francis, mat may be pre-coated on outer surface; polymeric coatings not disclosed on surface of mat adjacent slurry), wherein the application of the hydrophobic material to the first nonwoven facing material forms a hydrophobic facing material ([0031] of Francis). According to Francis ‘065, the coating makes the facing resistant to moisture or impervious to liquid water ([0031] of Francis ‘065). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a hydrophobic material to the facings in the method of Francis ‘008. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to render the facings resistant to moisture or impervious to liquid water as taught by Francis ‘065 ([0031] of Francis ‘065). Since the resulting mat is rendered moisture resistant or impervious to liquid water, the coating of hydrophobic material would necessarily “improve” both air and water barrier performance of the panel compared to an uncoated panel.
Francis ‘065 does not specifically disclose that the coating consists essentially of a polysiloxane comprising methylhydrogen polysiloxane or a polydialkylsiloxane. Fisher, however, discloses a composition for rendering surfaces water repellent comprising a methylhydrogensiloxane polymer or copolymer (Abstract of Fisher). According to Fisher, the compositions can be applied to the surface of gypsum wallboards (1:27-34 of Fisher). Fisher also discloses that the compositions are low VOC penetrating water repellent compositions which improve the water repellency performance of inorganic building material (1:64-2:2 of Fisher). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the compositions of Fisher as the moisture-resistant coating in the modified method. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the water repellency performance of the gypsum panel while utilizing a low VOC coating composition as taught by Fisher (1:64-2:2 of Fisher). Regarding the “consisting essentially of” limitation, the hydrophobic material of Fisher can contain 99 percent by weight of the methylhydrogen polysiloxane and as little as 0.1 wt% of the alkoxy silane and 0.1 wt% of the silicone resin (6:64-7:24 of Fisher) which amounts to about 0.2 wt% of the total composition for these additional components. Such small amounts of these additional components would necessarily have a negligible effect on water repellency. Alternatively, Dow Corning and Power Chemical each disclose compositions consisting of polymethylhydrogensiloxanes for hydrophobing treatment of plasterboard (pg. 1 of Dow Corning; pg. pg. 7 of Power Chemical). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a composition consisting of polymethylhydrogensiloxanes for the hydrophobing treatment in the modified method since these references establish that it was known to use such compositions for the hydrophobing treatment of plasterboard (pg. 1 of Dow Corning; pg. pg. 7 of Power Chemical). Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fisher does not specifically disclose that the hydrophobic material is present in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 10 wt% based on the weight of the first nonwoven facing material. Fisher, however, discloses that the amount of water repellant composition employed will vary depending on the nature of the substrate being treated (7:58-60 of Fisher). Fisher therefore establishes that the amount of coating/hydrophobic agent applied to the substrate is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., providing a substrate with a desired degree of hydrophobicity/water resistance) (7:58-60 of Fisher). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of hydrophobic agent applied to the facer in the method of Francis, including providing an amount as recited in claim 1. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, once a parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2144.05 II B).
Regarding claim 23, Fisher discloses that the coating is the only coating present on the side of the first nonwoven facing material opposite the side adjacent the board slurry ([0031] of Francis, fibrous mat may be coated after fabricating the gypsum board; coating would therefore be on surface opposite core; [0031] of Francis, no other coatings are disclosed on the outer surface of the fibrous mat).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, either of Dow Corning or Power Chemical discloses that the coating consists of the polysiloxane comprising methylhydrogen polysiloxane or the polydialkylsiloxane (pg. 1 of Dow Corning; pg. 7 of Power Chemical).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis ‘008 in view of Francis ‘065, Fisher and Stuart as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Blackburn et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0291844 A1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 4, Francis ‘065 discloses that the hydrophobic material is further provided in the board slurry ([0023] of Francis ‘065, poly(methyl-hydrogen-siloxane) provided in gypsum core). In addition, Fisher discloses adding the water-repellent composition to the gypsum core in addition to the surface of the wallboard (1:27-34 of Fisher). Neither Francis ‘065 nor Fisher specifically disclose that the that the hydrophobic material migrates to the facing materials when added to the gypsum slurry. As disclosed by Blackburn, however, siloxane in the gypsum board core may migrate toward the surface during drying ([0042] of Blackburn). As also disclosed by Blackburn, gypsum boards having higher concentrations of siloxane near the surface of the core have higher water resistance ([0043] of Blackburn). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the siloxane in the board slurry to migrate toward the surfaces of the core during drying. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide boards having higher concentrations of siloxane near the surface of the core and therefore having higher water resistance as taught by Blackburn ([0043] of Blackburn).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis ‘008 in view of Francis ‘065, Fisher and Stuart as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Blackburn as evidenced by Sellers et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,135,805, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 20, Francis ‘065 discloses that the hydrophobic material is further provided in the board slurry ([0023] of Francis ‘065, poly(methyl-hydrogen-siloxane) provided in gypsum core). Neither Francis ‘065 nor Fisher specifically disclose that the hydrophobic material then migrates to the first nonwoven facing material, the second facing material, or both, wherein the hydrophobic material densifies the gypsum of the board slurry such that the board slurry has an increased density at the interface between the first nonwoven facing material and the board slurry, the density at the interface between the first nonwoven facing material and the board slurry being higher than the density of the center of the board slurry. As disclosed by Blackburn, however, siloxane in the gypsum board core may migrate toward the surface during drying ([0042] of Blackburn). As also disclosed by Blackburn, gypsum boards having higher concentrations of siloxane near the surface of the core have higher water resistance ([0043] of Blackburn). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the siloxane in the board slurry to migrate toward the surfaces of the core during drying. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide boards having higher concentrations of siloxane near the surface of the core and therefore having higher water resistance as taught by Blackburn ([0043] of Blackburn). As evidenced by Sellers, siloxane added to the gypsum core would act to break down the foam resulting in higher board density (2:54-62 of Sellers). Sellers therefore establishes that the silicone or siloxane that migrates to the interface in the modified method would break down the foam at the interface thereby resulting in higher gypsum density at the interface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 27, the closest prior art is to Francis ‘008. Francis ‘008 discloses a method of making a gypsum panel (Abstract, [0067] of Francis ‘008, method of making gypsum wallboard); the method comprising: providing a first nonwoven facing material (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, lower facing sheet #24; [0049] of Francis ‘008, facing material can be nonwoven fibrous mat), providing a board slurry on the first nonwoven facing material (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, gypsum slurry applied to lower facing sheet #24), the board slurry comprising a binder, the binder comprising starch (Abstract of Francis ‘008, board slurry comprises starch binder), the board slurry penetrating the first nonwoven facing material ([0044] of Francis ‘008, slurry penetrates into fibrous mat facers), the board slurry forming a board core, the board core being free of polyvinyl alcohol ([0044] of Francis ‘008, slurry forms set gypsum core; Francis ‘008 does not disclose polyvinyl alcohol as an additive for gypsum core), and providing a second facing material on the board slurry (FIG. 1, [0043] of Francis ‘008, upper facing sheet #22 provided on the slurry). While Francis ‘065 provides motivation to apply a hydrophobic material to the first nonwoven facing material prior to providing the first nonwoven facing material, neither Francis ‘008 nor Francis ‘065 teach or reasonably suggest the method of claim 27 wherein the total amount of lignosulfonates in the board slurry is 0.1 wt% or less. Moreover, Francis ‘008 teaches a lignosulfonate range (i.e., as little as 0.13 wt%) significantly higher than that recited in claim 27 (i.e., 0.1 wt.% or less).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the water repellent composition of Fisher comprises a polymethylhydrogensiloxane, an alkoxysilane and silicone resin all of which contribute to water repellency and that the proposed combination of Francis ‘008 and Fisher does not teach or reasonably suggest the method of claims 1 and 22 comprising applying a hydrophobic material consisting essentially of a polysiloxane comprising methylhydrogen polysiloxane (¶ spanning pp. 7-8 of the amendment). The applicant also asserts that the disclosure reflects the improved water barrier performance of the gypsum panels which constitutes the basic and novel characteristics of the invention (¶ spanning pp. 7-8 of the amendment) and that the additional components of Fisher also contribute to water repellency and would therefore impart a measurable change if included in the coating. Fisher, however, discloses that the hydrophobic material can contain 99 percent by weight of the methylhydrogen polysiloxane and as little as 0.1 wt% of the alkoxy silane and 0.1 wt% of the silicone resin (6:64-7:24 of Fisher), amounting to about 0.2 wt% of the total composition. Such small amounts of these additional components would necessarily have a negligible effect on water repellency. Fisher also discloses that the composition renders surfaces water repellent (Abstract of Fisher) which would necessarily improve the water barrier performance of gypsum panels to which it is applied. The Office Action is also relying alternatively upon the newly cited Dow Corning and Power Chemical references to address this limitation.
Regarding new claims 28 and 29, the applicant asserts that the cited references are silent to a coating consisting of the polysiloxane comprising methylhydrogen polysiloxane or polydialkylsiloxane (pg. 9, 1st full ¶ of the amendment). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Dow Corning and Power Chemical references to address this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571)270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746