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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, and 14-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 3 and 5 were previously cancelled. Claim 13 is newly cancelled. Claims 1-2, and 15-16 were amended and support for amendments are found in the original claims and Specification. Applicant’s amendment to Claim 16 has overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed October 22, 2025. The claim objection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed October 22, 2025 has been withdrawn in light of Applicant Remarks filed on February 18, 2026.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargrove et al. (WO 2016/200677; hereafter as “Hargrove”) in view of Podlas (US 7,108,744; hereafter as “Podlas”) and Johnstone et al. (US 4,853,085; cited in the IDS filed on 12/15/2023).
For the purposes of examination, the “ready-mixed” joint compound of the Claim 1 preamble is interpreted to mean pre-mixed with water during manufacturing and requiring little or no addition of water at the job site, as defined by the instant application [Specification; Paragraph 0004].
For the purposes of examination, the “drying-type” joint composition of the Claim 1 preamble is interpreted to mean joint compounds that harden when the water evaporates and the compound dries, as defined by the instant application [Specification; Paragraph 0004].
For the purposes of examination, the term “optionally” of Claims 1, 10 and 11 is interpreted to mean non-essential, and that any claims with optional limitations may be considered whole and complete without the optional limitations.
As to Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 12, and 16-21, Hargrove teaches a drying-type joint compound [Abstract], which is prepared from a pre-mixture of ingredients (see Example 1 below), thereby corresponding to the claimed ready-mixed, drying-type joint compound.
Hargrove also teaches that the joint compound [Example 1; Paragraphs 00157-00160] comprises:
0.6 wt. % methylacrylate-based emulsion copolymer [Example 1; Table 2] which according to paragraph 0086 of applicants’ published application US PG PUB 20220388905 corresponds to the claimed binder and encompassed by the claimed up to about 15 wt. %, up to about 8 wt. %, and up about 4 wt. % binder of the joint compound on a dry basis of Claims 1, 10 and 11, respectively;
0.2 wt. % hydroxyethyl cellulose [Example 1; Table 2] which according to paragraph 0091 of applicants’ published application US PG PUB 20220388905 corresponds to the claimed polymeric thickener and encompassed by the claimed up to about 3 wt. %, up to about 2 wt. %, and about 0.1 wt. % to about 2 wt. % polymeric thickener of the joint compound on a dry basis of Claims 1, 10 and 11, respectively;
1.4 wt. % ethylene glycol [Example 1; Table 2] which according to paragraphs 0094 and 0097 of applicants’ published application US PG PUB 20220388905 corresponds to the claimed additive and encompassed by the claimed up to about 10 wt. % of the joint compound on a dry basis of Claims 1 and 10, and about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of Claim 11.
Hargrove further teaches using a rheologically modified associative thickener system, corresponding to the rheology modifier (i.e., a type of additive), which generally performs best under alkaline conditions [Specification; Paragraph 00106], corresponding to the alkali sensitive joint compound component comprising rheology modifier recited in Claims 1 , 6-7, and 9. Additionally, Hargrove teaches a method by which a joint between abutted sheets of gypsum wallboard is treated with the present joint compound [Specification; Paragraphs 0044-0046] as required by present Claim 19. Finally, Example 1 of Hargrove further teaches a method of preparation of the joint compound [Specification; Paragraphs 00157 - 00160] involving the step of combining all the liquid materials and all the dry materials to a mixer [Description; Paragraph 00158], the combination of all liquid and dry materials corresponding to the claimed filler, binder, polymeric thickener, pH buffer system and additive of the claimed joint compound as required by instant Claim 20.
However, Hargrove is silent to the use of:
about 50 wt. % to about 98 wt. %, about 65 wt. % to about 93 wt. %, and about 65 wt. % to about 93 wt. % filler of the joint compound on a dry basis of Claims 1, 10, and 11, respectively;
about 0.01 wt. % to about 1.0 wt. %, about 0.025 wt. % to about 0.15 wt. %, about 0.05 wt. % to about 0.10 wt. %, 0.01 wt. % to about 0.25 wt. %, and about 0.025 wt. % to about 0.5 wt. % pH buffer system comprising sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate of Claims 1, 10, 11, 17 and 18, respectively;
wherein weight ratio of the water to the dry joint compound components is about 1:6 to about 3:1 of Claim 1and 10, and about 1:3 to about 1:1 of Claims 10-11;
wherein the joint compound has a pH of 8-10.5 for 120 days or more at 75˚F (23.9˚C) in a sealed container of Claim 1, and wherein the joint compound has a pH of 9.5-10.5 of Claim 2, and wherein the joint compound has a pH of 9-11 of Claim 4.
Regarding the filler, Hargrove, nevertheless, teaches the use of filler such as calcium carbonate and kaolin clay [Paragraph 0009], corresponding to the claimed filler of Claims 1, 10-12, 15 and 20, to tailor the joint compound for the subjective feel desired by the ender user [Paragraph 00103].
Regarding the pH range, Hargrove also teaches that the joint compound composition preferably has a pH of at least about 8.0 [Paragraph 00103] which overlaps with the claimed pH of 8-10.5 of Claim 1, pH of 9.5-10.5 of Claim 2, pH of 9-11 of Claim 4, and pH of 9.9-10.5 of Claim 16. Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05.
Regarding the amount of filler, Podlas teaches a joint compound formulation [Table 1 and Abstract], comprising:
30-42 wt. % water [Table 1];
49 – 64 wt. % ground calcium carbonate [Table 1];
0 - 3.2 wt. % attapulgite clay [Table 1];
0 – 8 wt. % mica [Table 1]; and
0-8 wt. % perlite [Table 1],
totaling 49 – 83.2 wt. % total filler of the joint compound which are inclusive of the claimed about 50 wt. % to about 98 wt. %, about 65 wt% to about 93 wt. %, and about 65 wt. % to about 93 wt. % filler of the joint compound on a dry basis of Claims 1, 10, and 11, respectively.
Podlas also teaches that these fillers are an important ingredient that serve to add body to the joint compound, making the compound more economical [Description; Column 4, Lines 25-29]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the claimed amounts of filler suggested by Podlas in the joint compound of Hargrove for the purposes of obtaining joint compounds that are more economical.
Regarding the pH buffer system recited in claims 1, 10 and 17-18: Podlas teaches that, if necessary, a pH modifier including pH buffering salts, corresponding to the pH buffering system of Claims 1, 10, 11, 17 and 18 may also be added to increase the alkalinity of the composition [Description; Column 4, Lines 36-49]. In other words, the amount of pH buffering salts added is a known results-effective variable, i.e., affecting the alkalinity properties of the final product.
Regarding sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbaonte, Johnstone et al. teach the addition of pH buffering salts including a strong base and a weak acid such as sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate, corresponding to the sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate of Claim 1, to provide gypsum wallboard with benefits including high strength [Column 1, Lines 5-10 and Column 4, Lines 50-65]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add optimum or workable amounts of the claimed sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate as suggested by Podlas and Johnstone et al. in the joint compound of Hargrove for the purposes of increasing its alkalinity and obtaining benefits including high strength. See also MPEP section 2144.05, IIB.
Regarding the weight ratio of the water to the dry joint compound components recited in the instant Claims 1, 10 and 11, as mentioned above, Hargrove teaches the claimed amounts of binder, thickener, and additive (corresponding to the claimed joint compound components). However, Hargrove is silent to the claimed particular amounts of filler and pH buffer system (corresponding to the claimed joint compound components), and water content. Nevertheless, Podlas teaches employing 49 – 83.2 wt. % total filler, pH buffering salts, and 30-42 wt. % water to obtain joint compounds that are more economical and have increased alkalinity [Description; Column 4, Lines 25-29, Lines 36-49]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the claimed amounts of filler and pH buffering salts (corresponding to the claimed joint compound components) and water content as suggested by Podlas to the joint compound of Hargrove for making the same more economical and increasing its alkalinity. Since the collective teachings of Hargrove and Podlas suggest the claimed joint compound components and amounts, the collective teachings would also suggest the claimed joint compound component amounts and water content (corresponding to the claimed weight ratio) for the purpose of preparing a more economical joint compound with increased alkalinity.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ optimally or workable amounts of the claimed joint compound components and water content, corresponding to the claimed weight ratio, in the joint compound composition, with a reasonable expectation of successfully formulating a joint compound with low shrinkage levels while also exhibiting good compressive strength and flexural strength as suggested by Hargrove and Podlas. See MPEP section 2144.05, IIB.
Regarding the pH of Claim 1: As mentioned above, Hargrove teaches that the joint compound composition preferably has a pH of at least about 8.0. Moreover, since the joint compound suggested by Hargrove, Podlas, and Johnstone et al. are substantially identical or identical to those claimed, there is a reasonable expectation that the joint composition suggested by Hargrove, Podlas, and Johnstone would also be capable of having a pH of 8-12 for 120 days or more at 75°F (23.9°C) in a sealed container as required by the claims. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP sections 2145 and 2113.01.
Regarding the biocide in Claims 14 and 21: Hargrove teaches the use of MERGAL 174TM corresponding to the claimed biocide1 in a joint compound [Table 2; Example 1] corresponding to the claimed additive. Hargrove further teaches the use of 0-3 wt. % biocide in the joint compound [Paragraph 00107], which overlaps with the claimed up to 0.1 wt. % biocide of Claim 14 and up to 10 wt. % biocide of Claim 21. Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicants has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP section 2144.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargrove et al. (WO 2016/200677; hereafter as “Hargrove”) in view of Podlas et al. (US 7,108,744; hereafter as “Podlas”) and Johnstone et al. (US 4,853,085; cited in the IDS filed on 12/15/2023) as applied to the claims 1-2, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 above, and in further view of Voronova et al. (”Properties of polyacrylamide composites reinforced by cellulose nanocrystals”, Heliyon, Published 2020; hereafter as “Voronova”).
The disclosures with respect to Hargrove, Johnstone et al. and Podlas mentioned above are incorporated here by reference.
However, Hargrove, Johnstone et al. and Podlas, are silent to the joint compound comprising the alkali sensitive binder of the instant claim.
The instant Specification describes polyacrylamide as a suitable alkali sensitive binder [Specification; Paragraph 0048].
Nevertheless, Voronova teaches the use of polyacrylamide polymers, corresponding to the claimed alkali sensitive binder component, that impart superior strength properties [Page 2; Column 1; Lines 1-2, and abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the claimed alkali sensitive binder, i.e., polyacrylamide, taught by Voronova in the joint compound suggested by Hargrove, Podlas, and Johnstone et al., with a reasonable expectation of successfully imparting superior strength properties.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargrove et al. (WO 2016/200677; hereafter as “Hargrove”) in view of Podlas et al. (US 7,108,744; hereafter as “Podlas”) and Johnstone et al. (US 4,853,085; cited in the IDS filed on 12/15/2023) as applied to the Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 above, and in further view of Aramsco (Aramsco Blog; hereafter as “Aramsco”).
The disclosures with respect to Hargrove, Johnstone et al. and Podlas discussed supra are incorporated here by reference.
Hargrove further teaches the use of the following in joint compounds:
calcium carbonate [Paragraph 0084];
0.1-5 wt. % kaolin clay [Paragraph 0084], corresponding to up to 10 wt. % clay;
hydroxyl ethylcellulose [Paragraph 00102];
hydroxyl propyl methyl cellulose [Paragraph 00102];
latex-based joint compound [Paragraph 00104];
water content [Paragraph 00108].
However, Hargrove is silent to the use of the following in joint compounds: the amount of 65 to 93 wt. % calcium carbonate; At least 5 wt. % perlite; starch; polyvinyl alcohol; bleach solution; preservative; plasticizer; PEG 750; and the pH buffer system.
Nevertheless, Podlas teaches:
50-65 wt. % calcium carbonate [Column 4, Lines 37-42], which overlaps 65 to 93 wt. % calcium carbonate,
5-8 wt. % perlite [Example 1; Table 1], which corresponds to at least 5 wt. % perlite,
starch [Column 3],
polyvinyl alcohol [Example 1; Table 1],
preservative [Description; Column 3],
plasticizer [Description; Column 3] and
pH buffer salts [Description; Column 6], which correspond to the pH buffer system.
Regarding the amount of calcium carbonate, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Podlas for the amount of calcium carbonate (50-65 wt. %) overlaps the instantly claimed range (65-93 wt. %) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the biocide, Podlas also teaches the use of biocide in the joint compound [Example 1; Table 1] and that said biocide is an important ingredient in joint compound compositions as they increase the shelf life and prevent the composition from spoiling [Description; Column 4]. Moreover, Aramsco teaches different types of biocides including bleach [Paragraph 17]. Aramsco further teaches that since bleach is inexpensive and readily available, bleach solutions are a recommended biocide [Paragraph 18].
Regarding the bleach solution, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hargrove by adding a biocide such as a bleach solution as taught by Podlas, Johnstone et al. and Aramsco because of the expectation of successfully and inexpensively prolonging the shelf life and preventing spoiling of the final joint compound, thereby improving the final product.
Regarding the PEG750, Donovan teaches polyethylene glycol (PEG, that is approximately 800 g/mol or less molecular weight), inclusive of the claimed PEG750, to obtain an advantageous joint compound formulation [Description; Paragraph 00258].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the claimed PEG750 taught by Donovan to the joint compound suggested by Hargrove, Podlas, and Johnstone et al., to obtain a joint compound having advantageous properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) that Hargrove only teaches an initial pH of 8.0, whereas the Applicant’s invention maintains a pH over 120 days or more at 75˚F in a sealed container. However, Hargrove does not explicitly teach any initial pH. Rather, Hargrove teaches pH modifiers in that the rheologically modified associative thickener generally performs best under alkaline conditions and it is generally advisable to give the final joint compound a pH of at least about 8.0 [¶ 0106]. While Hargrove does not explicitly teach maintenance of the pH over 120 days or more, Hargrove adds a rheological thickener while acknowledging it generally functions best under alkaline conditions such that Hargrove gives the final joint compound a pH of at least 8.0. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the joint compound of Hargrove would maintain said alkaline conditions in order to allow the rheological thickener to perform best over time. Since Hargrove discloses the problem in joint compounds, one of ordinary skill would not expect the joint compound of Hargrove to only perform well immediately after manufacture and it would not make sense for Hargrove to do so. Thus, Hargrove identified the same problem as the Applicant (joint compound additive efficacy reduces over time in acidic conditions), the same motivation as the Applicant (to maintain pH of the joint compound), and the same solution as the Applicant (modify and maintain the pH to maintain joint compound efficacy) which renders the instant claims obvious. Thus, applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Applicant argues (2) Podlas only teaches a pH modifier to increase alkalinity of the composition, not Applicant’s pH buffer system which results in long term stability of a joint compound. However, Podlas is not relied upon to teach the claimed pH buffer system, Johnstone is [Column 1, Lines 5-10 and Column 4, Lines 50-65]. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (3) Podlas does not make up for the deficiencies of Hargrove because Podlas has two different ingredients performing two different functions, rather than a pH buffering system of a weak acid and conjugate base of the weak acid, as claimed by Applicant. However, 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. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (4) that Johnstone is non-analogous art. However, according to the MPEP 2141.01(a):
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (i) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (ii) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
In this case, Johnstone is (i) also in the field of construction materials, and (ii) is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., pH instability resulting in inferior composition properties). Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (5) that Johnstone does not disclose sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate. However, Johnstone does disclose sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate [Column 4, Lines 50-65]. More specifically, Johnstone teaches “buffer material may be … salts of a cation of a strong base and an anion of a weak acid… such as sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate.” Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (6) that Johnstone teaches away from a pH of 8-10.5. However, as outlined in the disclosure above, Johnstone is not relied on to teach the claimed pH, Hargrove is. Hargrove teaches a pH of above 8 [Paragraph 00103], which overlaps the claimed range of 8-10.5. Johnstone is relied on to teach the buffer system, such as sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate [Column 1, Lines 5-10 and Column 4, Lines 50-65], which corresponds the claimed buffer system. The goal of the buffer system of Johnston, similar to any buffer system, is to maintain pH, irrespective of the pH that is maintained in said system. In this case, the proposed modification (the addition of a buffer system) does not render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose but it rather is now the prior art carries out its intended purpose. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (7) Hargrove’s Claim 2 recites the composition is substantially free of the claimed fillers. However, while one of Hargrove’s claims recites the composition may be substantially free of fillers [Claim 2], Hargrove teaches other embodiments that include fillers [Claim 1] such as those claimed in the present application. “The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives." In this case, Hargrove’s independent Claim 1 does not absorb the limitations of its dependent claims (such as the requirement to exclude fillers of Hargrove’s Claim 2). Hargrove even teaches bulk filler, such as calcium carbonate or kaolin clay may be added to tailor the subjective feel desired by the end user [Paragraph 0084]. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (8) that the unexpected results are not just pH stability but that components in the joint compound that are pH sensitive work better for longer. The crux of applicant's argument seems to be that (Point 1) the present invention has unexpected pH stability over time and (Point 2) there is an unexpected synergy between the pH buffering system, which confers the pH stability, and components that are sensitive. Regarding Point 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the main purpose of pH buffers is to buffer pH, that is to stabilize the pH over time. Thus, it is not unexpected that a pH buffer confers pH stability over time. Further, in review of the data presented in the instant specification, Table 2 lists the compounds that are present in the formulation. The compounds include calcium carbonate, clay, perlite, hydroxy ethyl cellulose, sodium nitrite, starch, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. These ingredients were tested in the formulation at one singular data point (calcium carbonate was tested at an amount of 865 Kg, clay at 39.3 kg, etc.) However, the claim is drawn to “a filler at about 50 wt% to about 93 wt%”, “a binder at up to about 15 wt%”, “a polymeric thickener at up to about 3 wt%”, etc. The claim language is not commensurate in scope with the purported unexpected results. There is no evidence on the record that all claimed fillers will perform the same way as the specific fillers that were tested. Additionally, there is no evidence that all fillers within the broad range of 50 to 93 wt% would perform the same way as the one singular amount that was tested. As to Point 2, describing the invention as having a synergy implies the pH buffer does more than buffer the pH and the joint compound functioned better over time before the pH required stabilizing. The data provided by the applicant does not demonstrate such "synergy." In sum, it is unclear from Applicant's Remarks and the presented data what is unexpected about how preventing pH changes would affect things, such as the claimed additives, that are sensitive to changes in pH.
In sum, (a) the presented data was not found to be convincing so the burden shifted to the Applicant to provide more data demonstrating these unexpected results but no more were provided, and (b) it is not unexpected that things that do not work well in acidic conditions would function better if the pH was maintained at basic conditions. In fact, the prior art, such as Hargrove, teaches so. Hargrove specifically teaches that rheological modifiers in joint compounds perform best under alkaline conditions and is thus, advisable to give the final joint compound a pH of at least about 8.0 [¶ 0106]. This teaching from Hargrove discloses the same information that the Applicant proports are the unexpected results of the instant invention. Hargrove teaches the same problem in the same field of art and solves said problem with the same motivation and the same solution. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (9) Voronova is non-analogous art. However, as mentioned above, the test of analogous art is that the prior art needs to (i) be from the same field of endeavor, or (ii) solve the same problem. In this case, Voronova is (i) in the same field of polymer compositions that can respond to changes in medium pH [Section 1], and Voronova is (ii) solving a similar problem of composition properties polymer chains being sensitive to pH changes [Section 1]. Voronova also teaches that polyacrylamide compositions made from high pH conditions exhibited superior mechanical strength to those made from low pH conditions [Abstract] which would further motivate one of ordinary skill to look to Voronova. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (10) Voronova teaches away from a pH of 8-10.5. However, similar to argument (6) above, Johnstone is not relied on to teach the claimed pH range, Hargrove is. Piecemeal analysis is inappropriate. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (11) that none of Hargrove, Podlas and Johnstone teach or suggest the filler comprising 65 to 93 wt. % Calcium carbonate of the joint compound on a dry basis, up to 10 wt. % Clay of the joint compound on a dry basis, and at least 5 wt. % Perlite of the joint compound on a dry basis, as claimed by Applicant. However, attention is directed to the disclosure above wherein Hargrove teaches 0.1-5 wt. % kaolin clay [Paragraph 0084], corresponding to up to 10 wt. % clay, and Podlas teaches 50-65 wt. % calcium carbonate [Column 4, Lines 37-42], which overlaps 65 to 93 wt. % calcium carbonate and 5-8 wt. % perlite [Example 1; Table 1], which corresponds to at least 5 wt. % perlite. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/D. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
1 According to Swindell (NPL), MERGAL 174TM is known to be a biocide (see attachment).