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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Aug. 11, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 is not clear as there is a period missing at the end of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-13, 15-17, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2016/0222647 A1) (“Thomas”), in view of Chevalier (US 2008/0286474).
With respect to claim 1, Thomas discloses a glass mat faced gypsum board (abstr.) comprising a gypsum core sandwiched between a first glass mat facing material and a second glass mat facing material (0008, 0009, 0039, Fig. 2), wherein the gypsum core is formed from a gypsum slurry comprising stucco (0061, 0098, Table 1, 0108, Table 2,), water (0040), wherein the gypsum core penetrates the glass mat facing materials in a percentage range of the thickness that overlaps the range recited in claim 1 – as the coating penetrates from about 5 to about 60% of the thickness, the remainder of the thickness is provided with the gypsum slurry (0026, 0027, 0034). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Thomas implies that the gypsum penetrates the glass mat facing materials for a percentage range of the length of the gypsum board overlapping the recited range as Thomas discloses that the coating is continuously applied on the surfaces of the mats, the gypsum slurry penetrating the remaining part of the thickness (0026).
Thomas is silent regarding a phosphorus containing compound comprising a phosphate as recited in the claim.
Chevalier discloses a gypsum material (abstr.) comprising fluorophosphate – wherein n is 3 and m is 1 (0030), added to the slurry as a catalyst (0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the gypsum slurry of Thomas fluorophosphate as it is known in the art to include fluorophosphates in gypsum compositions. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Chevalier discloses fluorophosphate, thus, X includes fluorine.
As to claim 5, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Chevalier discloses n is 3 (0030).
With respect to claim 6, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Chevalier discloses m is 1 (0030).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Chevalier discloses a monohalophosphate (0030).
As to claim 11, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Chevalier discloses the amount of phosphorus containing compound in an amount of from 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. % based in the weight of the stucco slurry (0030).
With respect to claim 12, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Thomas discloses the weight ratio of water to the stucco that overlaps the recited range (0098, Table 1). Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Thomas discloses the slurry comprises a dispersant (0040, 0042, 0049, 0083).
As to claim 15, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. The references are silent regarding the gypsum slurry having a set time as recited in the claim, however, since the references disclose the board of claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the gypsum slurry of Thomas and Chevalier has the characteristic as recited in the claim.
With respect to claim 16, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. The references are silent regarding the gypsum board exhibiting an absorption as recited in the claim, however, since the references disclose the board of claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the gypsum board of Thomas and Chevalier has the absorption satisfying the range recited in the claim.
With respect to claim 17, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. The references are silent regarding the gypsum board exhibiting a Z-direction tensile strength as recited in the claim, however, since the references disclose the board of claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the gypsum board of Thomas and Chevalier exhibits a Z-direction tensile strength satisfying the range recited in the claim.
As to claim 25, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1. Chevalier discloses the amount of phosphorus containing compound in an amount of from 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. % based on the weight of the stucco slurry (0030). The percentage range overlaps the range recited in claim 25; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, in view of Chevalier, and further in view of Finch et al. (US 2009/0156080 A1) (“Finch”).
With respect to claim 2, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the phosphorus containing compound comprising a phosphite. Finch discloses a binder used in gypsum boards (abstr., 0002-0006), the binder including phosphates and phosphites as accelerators (0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a phosphite in the gypsum slurry of Thomas and Chevalier as it is known in the art of gypsum boards to include in them phosphites as accelerators. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, in view of Chevalier, and further in view of Staffel et al. (US 2008/0264293 A1) (“Staffel”).
With respect to claim 9, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the phosphorus containing compound comprising a salt as recited in claim 9. Staffel discloses that alkali monofluorophosphates and alkaline earth monofluorophosphates provide for substantial improvement of adhesion of gypsum plasters (abstr., 0003, 0015-0017, 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the gypsum slurry of Thomas and Chevalier alkali monofluorophosphates and/or alkaline earth monofluorophosphates to provide for improvement of adhesion of gypsum.
With respect to claim 10, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the phosphorus containing compound comprising sodium monofluorophosphate. Staffel discloses that sodium monofluorophosphate provides for substantial improvement of adhesion of gypsum plasters (abstr., 0003, 0015-0017, 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the gypsum slurry of Thomas and Chevalier sodium monofluorophosphates to provide for improvement of adhesion of gypsum.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, in view of Chevalier, and further in view of Sulser et al. (US 2010/0137476 A1) (“Sulser”).
With respect to claim 14, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 13, but are silent regarding the dispersant as recited in the claim. Sulser discloses a dispersant for gypsum compositions (abstr.), comprising a polycarboxylate ether (0121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a polycarboxylate ether as a dispersant in the gypsum composition of Thomas and Chevalier, as Thomas discloses use of dispersants. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 19-21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 2016/0222647 A1) (“Thomas”), in view of Chevalier (US 2008/0286474).
With respect to claim 19, Thomas discloses a glass mat faced gypsum board (abstr.) comprising a gypsum core sandwiched between a first glass mat facing material and a second glass mat facing material (0008, 0009, 0039, Fig. 2), wherein the gypsum core comprises gypsum (0034), and wherein the gypsum penetrates the glass mat facing materials in a percentage range of the thickness that overlaps the range recited in claim 19 – as the coating penetrates from about 5 to about 60% of the thickness, the remainder of the thickness is provided with the gypsum slurry (0026, 0027, 0034). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 19; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Thomas implies that the gypsum penetrates the glass mat facing materials for a percentage range of the length of the gypsum board overlapping the recited range as Thomas discloses that the coating is continuously applied on the surfaces of the mats, the gypsum slurry penetrating the remaining part of the thickness (0026).
Thomas is silent regarding a phosphorus containing compound comprising a phosphate as recited in the claim.
Chevalier discloses a gypsum material (abstr.) comprising fluorophosphate – wherein n is 3 and m is 1 (0030), added to the slurry as a catalyst (0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the gypsum slurry of Thomas a fluorophosphate as it is known in the art to include fluorophosphates in gypsum compositions. It has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 21, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 19. Chevalier discloses monohalophosphate (0030).
Regarding claim 23, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 19. Thomas discloses the composition of the board (0098, Table 1), while Chevalier discloses the amount of phosphorus compound of 0.01-5 wt. % of the gypsum slurry (0030), thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of phosphorus containing compound with respect to the board weight is satisfied.
With respect to claim 24, Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 19. The references are silent regarding the gypsum board exhibiting characteristics as recited in the claim, however, since the references disclose the board of claim 19, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the gypsum board of Thomas and Chevalier exhibits a nail pull resistance and a compressive strength satisfying the range recited in the claim.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, in view of Chevalier, and further in view of Staffel et al. (US 2008/0264293 A1) (“Staffel”).
With respect to claims 22. Thomas and Chevalier teach the board of claim 20, but are silent with respect to the phosphorus containing compound comprising a salt as recited in claim 22. Staffel discloses that alkali monofluorophosphates and alkaline earth monofluorophosphates provide for substantial improvement of adhesion of gypsum plasters (abstr., 0003, 0015-0017, 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the gypsum slurry of Thomas and Chevalier alkali monofluorophosphates and/or alkaline earth monofluorophosphates to provide for improvement of adhesion of gypsum.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Aug. 11, 2026 have been fully considered.
In the instant Office Action the examiner undertook a different approach, as discussed above. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights