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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/25/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 8/25/25. Claims 8-10, 13, 14, and 16-18 have been withdrawn. Claims 11, 12, 15, 19, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5-8, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28 have been amended. Claims 1-7 and 21-28 are pending rejection. Due to the amendments made, the ODP rejection previously filed has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the back cover sheet comprising paper having a bond side Cobb value of at least 2.1 g/100 cm2 according to the Cobb test” appears twice in instant Claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-7, 21-24, 27, and 28, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu USPN_6342284_B1 in view of Johnstone USPN_4372814 and Li USPA_20190352232_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 2, 7, and 27, Yu discloses a gypsum board comprising a core of set gypsum and at least one trimetaphosphate compound (corresponds to claimed high salt impurity content), wherein the core material is sandwiched between paper cover sheets made from Manila and Newsline (corresponds to claimed back and face cover high absorption paper sheets) (Claims 5-7 and Example 4). Wherein said gypsum board further comprises starch that can be placed between said gypsum core and at least one of its cover sheets (column 5, lines 17-35) (corresponding to claimed “(b)” in instant Claim 1). Furthermore, Yu discloses set gypsum-containing products prepared from mixtures of calcium sulfate (corresponds to claimed stucco) materials and water (corresponds to claimed water limitation) containing high concentrations of chloride ions or salts thereof (i.e., at least 0.015 weight percent, based on the weight of calcium sulfate materials in the mixture, as is claimed in instant Claim 2). The chloride ions or salts thereof may be “impurities” (column 7, lines 26-30) in the calcium sulfate material itself including stucco employed in the mixture. Thus, the chloride ions are not added and rather arise from the source synthetic gypsum material. Also, Yu discloses that said gypsum can then be calcined (Claim 10). Additionally, Yu discloses that its calcined gypsum can be a synthetic gypsum (corresponds FGD gypsum) (column 9, lines 6-12). Moreover, Yu discloses that said calcined gypsum can mean a calcium sulfate hemihydrate (column 4, lines 26-33) which is known to form stucco.
2. However, Yu does not disclose the claimed Cobb value. Yu also does not disclose the claimed paper thickness.
3. Johnstone discloses a composite paper adapted for use as a cover sheet in the production of gypsum wallboards; wherein said paper cover sheets has better draining, rapid drying, permits less heat to be utilized in the wallboard thereby saving energy (Abstract). Moreover, Johnstone suggests that the water pickup by the paper expressed in grams would indicate the paper's resistance to water penetration, wherein the lower the Cobb value the greater the resistance (Johnstone: column 15, lines 34-37). Johnstone further discloses examples where the Cobb value falls into the claimed range of between 2.1 and 3.1 grams/100 cm3 (Table X). Finally, Johnstone further discloses the basis weight of said paper cover sheet being 50 lbs./ft2 (column 20, lines 59-60) for its Examples (which also teaches the limitation of instant Claim 27).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the back cover sheet’s water pickup, of Yu, by trying the Cobb values obtained for the water pickup and basis weight found in the cover sheets of Johnstone. It would have been obvious to achieve a desirable resistance to water penetration.
5. Li discloses a gypsum board and related method (Title) and uses front and back cover sheets (paragraph 0011) made of Manila and/or Newsline paper (paragraphs 0051, 0100) that can have any suitable thickness, such as 0.007 inches to 0.015 inches each (paragraph 0111).
6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the paper cover sheets, of Yu, by trying the thickness disclosed by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in trying thicknesses mentioned by prior art for Manila and Newsline paper cover sheets in gypsum boards since Yu uses the same for the same purpose, this is especially so when Li discloses that its gypsum board leads to good strength properties (paragraph 0028).
7. Therefore, limitation “b” has been suggested by Yu in view of Johnstone and Li, and as such, meets the “at least of the following” limitation of instant Claim 1. It would be expected that this would be effective to enhance adhesion of said cover sheet despite the presence of the chloride ions in the stucco. This is alluded to by Yu: “In some embodiments of the invention the set gypsum-containing product of the invention contains relatively high concentrations of chloride salts yet avoids detrimental effects of such salt concentrations in gypsum-containing products in general” (column 1, lines 34-39). And so, it would be expected for it to inherently enhance adhesion of its cover sheet despite the presence of its chloride ions in the stucco.
8. Regarding Claim 3, Yu in view of Johnstone and Li suggests including boric acid in its slurry in the claimed concentration (Yu: Table 2).
9. Regarding Claim 4, Yu in view of Johnstone and Li suggests using clay in the claimed concentration too (Yu: column 12, lines 13-16).
10. Regarding Claims 5, 21-24, and 28, Yu in view of Johnstone and Li suggests perforating its back cover sheet (Li: paragraph 0100), while no mention is made of perforating the core either; thereby corresponding to also “(a)” limitation of instant Claims 21-24. Also, as mentioned above, Yu discloses said gypsum board can comprise starch that can be placed between said gypsum core and at least one of its cover sheets (column 5, lines 17-35) (corresponding to claimed “(b)” in instant Claims 21, 22, and 24). Li discloses using back and face skim coat layers (Li: paragraphs 0003, 0152) which corresponds to limitation “(b)” of instant Claim 23 and limitation “(c)” of instant Claim 24. Finally, the perforations, of Li, will also meet the limitation found in instant Claim 28. All other limitations of instant Claim 28 have been already rejected above under the rejection of instant Claim 1.
11. Regarding Claim 6, Yu in view of Johnstone and Li using back and face skim coat layers (Li: paragraphs 0003, 0152).
Claims 25 and 26, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu USPN_6342284_B1 in view of Johnstone USPN_4372814 and Li USPA_20190352232_A1, as applied to Claims 1-7, 21-24, 27, and 28, and further in view of Shubert USPA_20180065336_A1.
12. Regarding Claim 25, Yu in view of Johnstone and Li does not suggest the claimed range of perforations.
13. Shubert discloses a gypsum board comprising a gypsum core, a first cover sheet, and second cover sheet (corresponds to claimed face and back cover sheets, with said gypsum core therebetween (paragraph 0009). Shubert discloses said back cover sheet to be configured with perforation that facilitate the drying of excess water remaining in the gypsum board in a kiln while helping to prevent the formation of steam within the board during the drying process which leads to drying in an effective manner (paragraphs 0007, 0027). Yet, the core does not contain perforations. Shubert discloses its cover sheet perforations can be configured to produce perforation hole patterns with different perforation hole densities (holes per unit area) (Shubert: paragraph 0096). Although the claimed density is not disclosed, it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary this based on end-user product specifications for drying of excess water remaining.
14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the perforated back cover sheet, of Yu in view of Johnstone and Li, by having a perforation density sufficient to lead to drying in an effective manner, as disclosed by Shubert. Applicants have not explained how this claimed feature specifically leads to unexpected and surprising properties.
15. Regarding Claim 26, Yu in view of Johnstone and Li and further in view of Shubert suggests perforating its back cover sheet (Li: paragraph 0100), while no mention is made of perforating the core either. Also, as mentioned above, Yu discloses said gypsum board can comprise starch that can be placed between said gypsum core and at least one of its cover sheets (column 5, lines 17-35). Li discloses using back and face skim coat layers (Li: paragraphs 0003, 0152).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state that Johnstone does not teach the claimed paper basis weight. The Examiner respectfully submits that Johnstone further discloses the basis weight of said paper cover sheet being 50 lbs./ft2 (column 20, lines 59-60) for its Examples.
All other remarks have been overcome by the new applied art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights