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 .
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) 1-17, 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 9840066) in view of (US 2015/0354211), further in view of JP 2003096945 and CN 107032716.
The amended claims are STILL rejected over the art of record.
Yu (US 9840066) teaches a mat and gypsum board sandwiched between glass mat layers (See claims 1 and 25).
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide mats embedded as claimed in order to support and provide strength to the gypsum board.
Yu may not teach all the elements of the gypsum board.
(US 2015/0354211) teaches a wall board comprises a phosphorous including a phosphite for fire retardant properties (See [0005, 0028]). The wall board may be a gypsum board comprising stucco (See figure 3 and [0051-0052]) and water (See table1).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide stochiometric stable materials that are encompassed within the taught phosphite adding materials that maximize fire retardant or strength or other desired properties.
Regarding claims to specific properties, such as claim 24, the art appears to teach the same or overlapping compositions and therefore the combined art would be expected to provide the same properties or it would have been obvious to optimize and provide absent a showing of unexpected results.
The above references may not teach all of the composition of the gypsum wall board.
JP 2003096945 teaches gypsum board and having halophosphates added which would encompass a monohalophosphate or fluorohalophosphate claimed. Other additive including the addition of salts include Sodium acetate (an alkali metal as claimed; see translation).
Regarding claims to dispersants, such as 13, JP 2003096945 teaches the gypsum board may further comprise a solvent and surfactant, considered dispersant(s) (see translation). Regarding claim 14, the claimed dispersant would be obvious to provide as known in the art with known properties absent a showing of criticality.
The manufacturing method can be laminated with face sheets comprising glass fibers that can be in the top sheet or embedded within the board for strength (see translation of manufacturing process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide the claimed embedding at the claimed percentages dependent upon strength desired or other properties given the arts teaching of both surface faces formed from glass fiber (mat) and embedded glass fibers dependent upon the embodiment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide stochiometric stable materials that are encompassed within the taught phosphites and halophosphates adding materials that maximize strength or other desired properties.
CN 107032716 teaches a gypsum wall board formed form a slurry having halophosphates added which would encompass a monohalophosphate claimed for fire retardents (See claims and translation).
CN 107032716 which teaches an overlapping composition to that claimed that would be obvious to provide absent a showing of unexpected results (see translation slurry compsoition).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that the art of record does not recite the specific formula of the phosphate claimed and that the art generally uses a different phosphate as a fire retardant. This argument acknowledges that the art teaches the general class of phosphates that would encompass the claimed phosphate; especially Zhu. Applicant merely argues that the specific formula is not specifically disclosed.
Applicant has made no argument as to criticality and unexpected results of the currently claimed phosphate and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time of filing to provide the claimed phosphate (halogenated for instant) as a fire-retardant material and expect success in that field absent a showing to the contrary.
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 DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1534. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9-6.
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, 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.
/DANIEL H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights