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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-2, 7, 9 and 11-14 are pending in the application. Claims 3-6, 8 and 10 have been cancelled.
The amendment to claim 2, filed on 2/2/2026, has been entered in the above-identified application.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-2, 7, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giesemann (US Patent No. 5,431,996) in view of Leclercq (US 2003/0175478 A1), further in view of Carbo et al. (US 2011/0319543 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Giesemann teaches a composite material of one or more preformed reinforcement materials co-influencing the final shape and made of tension-resistant organic and/ or inorganic material, a second material of alkali water glass and a finely disperse mineralic filler, with hardening having been effected by drying at 80° to 120° C., or by drying at 80° to 120° C. and subsequent tempering at 400° to 700° C (Abstract). Coating and/or impregnating the preformed reinforcement materials is effected using an alkali water glass solution, or a suspension (col. 3 lines 60-65). As the reinforcement materials being coated and/or soaked with the inorganic medium, not only aluminum sheets, steel sheets, fiber mats of glass fiber or mineral fiber, nonwovens of glass fiber, steel fiber or plastic fiber, but also fabrics such as cloths, tarpaulin sheets, alkali resistant plastic fabrics, plastic-coated fabrics, or carbon fiber fabrics can be used (col. 2, lines 37-47).
The final shape of the composite material is also influenced by the form of the reinforcement material and ranges from flat slabs (a fibrous panel that is a ceiling tile), via distorted, folded or twisted surfaces, to round or special section pipes (col. 4, lines 51-54). The large surface construction elements manufactured according to Giesemann’s invention may be used as lowered ceilings in rooms for business and industry (col. 4, lines 61-66). Depending on intended use, the coating may be effected on one or on all sides (col. 3 lines 67-68). The examiner notes that a slab (a fibrous panel) of the reinforcement material with a coating on one or all sides would be capable of being directed to a plenum above the fibrous panel as claimed.
The second component of the composite material is either alkali water glass or alkali water glass mixed with a finely a dispersed mineralic filler such as alumina, silica, zirconia, titanium dioxide, graphite, red mud, quartz flour, clay cement, kaolin or mixtures thereof (col. 2, lines 48-52). The fillers must be free from impurities, and they must be mixed thoroughly with the aqueous alkali water glass solution (col. 2, lines 63-68). As the alkali water glass, sodium and/or potassium water glass (sodium silicate as claimed) having a density of 35-40 degrees Baume is used (col. 2, lines 66-68). The viscosity of these water glasses, or the suspensions of filler in these water glasses, is of great practical importance (col. 3, lines 1-3).
In the solution embodiment, Giesemann teaches a sodium and/or potassium water glass solution having a water level of from 5 to 30% by weight (col. 3, lines 14-20). In the suspension embodiment, Giesemann teaches that composite materials being temperature resistant up to approximately 1,600° C. are obtained when the preformed reinforcement material is coated and/or impregnated using a suspension of from 90 to 10% by weight of aqueous alkali water glass solution and from 10 to 90% by weight of finely dispersed mineralic filler (col. 3 lines 31-36; also see col. 2, lines 63 to col. 3, line 3). Therefore, as calculated by the examiner, the amount of the mineralic filler may range from about 10.5% by weight to about 93% by weight of the dry coated suspension (e.g., 10/{10+[90 x 0.95]} = 10.5%). The examiner notes that because the density of cured silicate is similar to that of a filler such as kaolin, the corresponding volume percent of the sodium silicate binder and inorganic filler in the composition and final coating would roughly be the same as the weight percent distribution in the suspension.
In the alternative, in the event that Giesemann does not explicitly disclose the water level of the aqueous alkali water glass solution in the suspension, as noted above Giesemann teaches that the fillers must be mixed thoroughly with the aqueous alkali water glass solution (col. 2, lines 63-68). As the alkali water glass, sodium and/or potassium water glass having a density of 35-40 degrees Baume is used (col. 2, lines 66-68). The viscosity of these water glasses, or the suspensions of filler in these water glasses, is of great practical importance (col. 3, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a sodium and/or potassium water glass solution having a water level of from 5 to 30% by weight in the suspension of Giesemann in order to ensure that the appropriate viscosity of the suspensions of the fillers is obtained (see col. 2, line 63 to col. 3, line 3).
Giesemann does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler is, in addition to the kaolin clay, calcium carbonate.
However, Leclercq teaches a plasterboard having a plaster-based core, wherein the plasterboard is provided on at least one of its sides with a glass-fiber mat facing, the mat facing being coated on an external face with a coating composition including a mineral filler, with the exception of hydratable calcium sulphates; and an organic or mineral binder (Abstract). The mineral filler may be chosen from the group consisting of mineral fillers which release water (structural water or water of crystallization), such as hydrated alumina, calcium carbonate, white kaolin, clays and mixtures thereof ([0009]). As mineral binder, it is possible to use a binder of the alkali metal silicate type, such as a sodium silicate or a potassium silicate ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used calcium carbonate in combination with kaolin as the filler in the coatings of Giesemann in order to obtain coating compositions for glass-fiber mats that are provided as exterior surfaces of plasterboards in suspended ceiling products, wherein the fillers are known to be capable of releasing water (structural water or water of crystallization), and wherein this type of water release is potentially complementary to the water release of gypsum in the plasterboards (Abstract, [0003], [0009] and [0108]).
Giesemann in view of Leclercq does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibrous panel comprises starch.
However, Carbo teaches fibrous panels and acoustical panels, such as ceiling tiles ([0001]). In one aspect, the panel core comprises a mineral wool fiber and a starch, wherein the mineral wool fiber can include a variety of fibers, such as slag wool, rock wool and/or basalt wool ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated starch into the fibrous panel in order to provide a binder for the mineral fibers during production of the panel core, as suggested by Carbo ([0041]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 2, the examiner notes that Giesemann teaches embodiments in which cured coating layers are free of additional binders (Example 1).
Regarding claim 7, Giesemann teaches that the material should be environmentally compatible and manufacturable from readily available raw materials (col. 1, lines 61-63). In any case, it should be re-usable (recyclable). In particular, it should not emit fibers, especially asbestos fibers, or toxic substances, or toxic gases such as dioxins, furans or formaldehyde, into the environment (col. 1, lines 63-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have made the cured coating layer free of formaldehyde in order prevent the emission of toxic gases such as formaldehyde into the environment (col. 1, lines 63-66).
Regarding claim 11, the examiner notes that Leclercq teaches the plasterboard comprising gypsum ([0025]). Carbo teaches that a panel core can include a calcium sulfate material (such as, stucco, gypsum and/or anhydrite), boric acid and sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) ([0042]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Giesemann teaches, in an embodiment, that a slab of kraft papers can be provided on one or both sides of a predominantly inorganic formed body (Example 4, particularly col. 7, lines 46-53, and FIGS. 10C, D, G and H). Carbo teaches that a coated panel can optionally include a backing layer ([0045). Numerous materials can be employed as the backing layer 35, including unbleached paper, bleached paper, kraft/aluminum foil, and the like ([0045]). A flame resistant back coating optionally can be applied in combination with bleached or unbleached paper backing to improve the products surface burning characteristics ([0045]).
Regarding claims 14, Giesemann teaches that in order to achieve coatings/impregnations of any desired thickness, the steps of coating, impregnating and drying may be repeated once, or several times, without filler or with varying concentrations of filler in the suspension as well (col. 4, lines 1-5). Carbo teaches a curable, formaldehyde free coating composition (a second coating layer) comprising a composition comprising a polyacid copolymer crosslinked with a hydroxyl group-containing compound and calcium aluminosilicate powder (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the following: “Notably, Giesemann does not specifically disclose let alone suggest a ceiling tile panel, let alone coating a fibrous ceiling tile panel comprising a mineral wool fiber and a starch as recited in all claims. Nor does Giesemann specifically disclose a cured coating layer specifically comprising sodium silicate and kaolin clay, let alone remotely suggest a cured coating layer comprising sodium silicate, kaolin clay, and calcium carbonate as recited in all claims.”
Regarding these contentions, Giesemann teaches molded composite materials that find application in various fields such as fire and bending tension resistant construction elements, which may be used as lowered ceilings in rooms for business and industry (col. 4, lines 61-66). The composite material contains preformed reinforcement materials which may be fiber mats of glass fiber or mineral fiber, and non-wovens of glass fiber (col. 2, lines 37-45). Giesemann does not explicitly disclose starch. However, as applied above, Carbo teaches fibrous panels such as ceiling tiles, wherein the panels comprise a panel core comprising a mineral wool fiber and a starch ([0001] and [0041]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have incorporated starch into the fibrous panel of Giesemann and Leclercq in order to provide a binder for the mineral fibers during production of the panel core, as suggested by Carbo ([0041]-[0043]). Giesemann teaches sodium silicate and mineralic fillers such as alumina, silica, zirconia, titanium dioxide, graphite, red mud, quartz flour, clay cement, kaolin or mixtures thereof, but does not explicitly disclose calcium carbonate (col. 2, lines 48-52). However, Leclercq teaches plasterboards with a mat facing, wherein the mat facing is coated on an external face with a coating composition that includes mineral fillers such as hydrated alumina, calcium carbonate, white kaolin, clays and mixtures thereof (Abstract and [0009]). Leclercq also teaches that it is well known to use plasterboards for producing partitions, coverings for vertical or inclined elements or for producing ceilings, whether suspended or not ([0003]). Therefore, as applied above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have used a mineral filler including a mixture of calcium carbonate and kaolin as the mineral filler of Giesemann in order to provide the coated fiber mats with fillers that may be used in a complementary fashion with plasterboards, as the use of plasterboards in suspended ceilings is well known.
Applicant contends the following: “However, Giesemann does not teach or suggest a suspended ceiling tile system wherein a cured coating layer is disposed specifically on the backing side of a fibrous panel that is a ceiling tile, with the backing side directed to a plenum above the fibrous panel, and with the facing side not including the cured coating layer. The Examiner has alleged that "a slab (a fibrous panel) of the reinforcement material with a coating on one or all sides would be capable of being directed to a plenum above the fibrous panel as claimed." Office Action, page 5. However, this reasoning improperly relies on a perceived capability of the disclosed slab structure rather than establishing that Giesemann teaches or suggests the specific orientation and configuration of the ceiling tile panel recited in claim 1.”
Regarding these contentions, as applied above, Giesemann teaches that, depending on intended use, the coating of the reinforcement materials may be effected on one or on all sides (col. 3 lines 60-68). When the coating is effected on one side, the coating layer would be disposed on a backing side of a panel as claimed. The examiner also notes that the claim 1 limitation “the backing side is directed to a plenum above the fibrous panel in the suspended ceiling tile system” is interpreted as an intended use limitation. It is the examiner’s position that Giesemann meets this limitation because the side of Giesemann’s reinforcement material with a coating (i.e., the backing side of the fibrous panel) would be capable of being directed to a plenum above the fibrous panel as claimed.
Applicant contends the following: “Furthermore, Leclercq is directed to plasterboard with a glass-fiber mat facing, not to suspended ceiling tile systems with fibrous panels comprising mineral wool fiber and starch. The motivation provided by the Examiner to combine Giesemann with Leclercq relates to obtaining coating compositions for glass-fiber mats provided as exterior surfaces of plasterboards, which is a different application than the building slabs of Giesemann let alone the claimed suspended ceiling tile system.”
Regarding this contention, Leclercq teaches that it is well known to use plasterboards for producing partitions, coverings for vertical or inclined elements or for producing ceilings, whether suspended or not ([0003]). Therefore, as applied above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have used a mineral filler including a mixture of calcium carbonate and kaolin as the mineral filler of Giesemann in order to provide the coated fiber mats with fillers that may be used in a complementary fashion with plasterboards, as the use of plasterboards in suspended ceilings is well known.
Applicant contends that, while Giesemann teaches alkali water glass with various fillers including kaolin, and Leclercq mentions calcium carbonate as a possible filler, neither reference teaches using both kaolin clay and calcium carbonate together as the inorganic filler in a sodium silicate coating for a ceiling tile comprising mineral wool fiber and starch.
Regarding this contention, Leclercq teaches plasterboards with a mat facing, wherein the mat facing is coated on an external face with a coating composition including mineral fillers such as hydrated alumina, calcium carbonate, white kaolin, clays and mixtures thereof (Abstract and [0009]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have selected a filler including a combination of calcium and carbonate from this list in order to obtain the benefits taught by Leclercq for use of these fillers in glass fiber mats in suspended ceilings.
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 Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 on 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789