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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 4-6, 9, 11-12 and 16-23 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 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 4-6, 9, 11-12 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchin et al (WO 2014/188168. ‘168 hereafter) in view of Nelson et al (US 7,381,261, ‘261 hereafter).
Regarding claims 4-6, 9, 11-12 and 16-22, ‘168 discloses an panel comprising a gypsum matrix (page 3); fibers embedded in the gypsum matrix in an amount of at least 3 wt% relative to the gypsum (pages 3-4, page 7); a polymeric additive in an amount of at least 3 wt% relative to the gypsum overlapping the range of 0. 8 wt% to 9 wt% as in the present claims 1, 9 and 16-17 (page 8, Example 12, 5 wt % of polyvinyl acetate); wherein the fiber can be a glass fiber with a length range of 4 to 8 mm and diameter being 5 to 50 microns (page 8), wood fiber, cellulose fiber or synthetic polymer fiber with a form of particles of agglomerated fibers (pages 3-4, page 8 and Examples); the polymeric additive can be starch, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol or the like as recited in the present claim 6 (page 7 and Examples). ‘168 does not disclose that the gypsum panel further contains a phosphate additive, however, it is well-known in the art that phosphate additives such as sodium trimetaphosphate is a sag resistance agent in a gypsum board to reduce water absorption and significantly improve dimension stability of gypsum board as evidenced by ‘261 (see C7/L15-L30 of ‘261 and the references as cited in this paragraph), wherein the mount of phosphate additive can be in an range of 0.07% to 2.0 wt% based on the weight of gypsum (C7/L19-L21). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add phosphate as known in the art, to modify the gypsum board of ‘168, in order to render a gypsum board having better sag resistance. ‘168 also discloses that the panel is prepared from gypsum composition containing water being about 73 wt% based on total weight of the composition ([0174], 200/274.8=73 wt%), satisfying present claims 21-22.
Regarding claim 23, modified ‘168 teaches all the limitations of claim 6, ‘168 also discloses the polymer additive including polyvinyl acetal and starch which can be used as a mixture in the gypsum composition, wherein the amount of the polymeric additive preferably higher than 3 wt% with respect to gypsum (page 7), but ‘168 does not specifically set forth that each content of polyvinyl acetal and starch as recited in the claim. However, ‘168 discloses that the polymeric additives are used to adjust the fixing strength of the gypsum board (page 7), thus the content of the polymeric additive is a result effective variable in terms of fixing strength of the gypsum board. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust contents of the polyvinyl acetal and starch within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired fixing strength, without undue experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered and they are moot in view of new ground rejection as set forth above,
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights