DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 11/14/2025:
claims 1-2 and 4-6 are currently pending
claim 1 is amended
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Rennen and Berlioz are presented herein
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RENNEN et al. (EP 0236758) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as RENNEN, in view of Berlioz et al. (EP 2623310 A1), hereinafter referred to as BERLIOZ.
Regarding claim 1, RENNEN teaches a plasterboard comprising a gypsum matrix having wood particles embedded therein in an amount of 2-10 wt% relative to the gypsum (see RENNEN at paragraph [0009]: to design a building board in the manner of a plasterboard, which can also be produced as a pure plasterboard with ground surfaces and which essentially solves the previous problems of mechanical strength, in such a way that the powdered calcium sulfate hemihydrate can be mixed with up to 10 % wood chips), wherein
no backing lamina is attached to either side of the plasterboard (see RENNEN at paragraph [0025]: it is a board with the gypsum mixture according to the invention, which forms the core and which is without any coating or sheathing);
the length of the wood particles is in the range 0.5-25 mm and the thickness of wood particles is less than 4 mm (see RENNEN at paragraph [0010]: thicknesses between 0.2 and 0.5 mm; lengths between 0.2 and 10 mm). RENNEN teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
While RENNEN discloses that the gypsum may also contain a proportion of polyvinyl alcohol (see RENNEN at paragraph [0014]), RENNEN fails to explicitly teach a polymeric additive distributed throughout the gypsum matrix in an amount of at least 1 wt% relative to the gypsum, wherein the polymeric additive is selected from group consisting of polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl acetate-ethylene co-polymer, polyvinyl pyrrolidone crosslinked with polyester sulfonate, methyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose, styrene-butadiene copolymer latex, acrylic ester latex, acrylic copolymer latex, polyester resin, polymethyl methacrylate, polyacrylic acid, cationic starch, ethylated starch, dextrin and mixtures thereof.
However, BERLIOZ teaches a gypsum board (see BERLIOZ at paragraph [0001]). BERLIOZ discloses that although the core of the gypsum board is mainly constituted of gypsum, its properties can be improved by introducing additives; the gypsum composition may include water resistant additives such as poly(vinyl alcohol) or thermoplastic synthetic resins; other additives include the fire-resistant glass fibers (see BERLIOZ at paragraph [0003]). BERLIOZ teaches examples of water-resistant additives including synthetic thermoplastic materials such as polyvinyl acetate, and that the amount of water-resistant additives may vary between 0.05 wt% to about 5 wt% in reference to the total weight of gypsum core (see BERLIOZ at paragraph [0039]). BERLIOZ also teaches that the amount of fire-resistant additives can be from 0.03 wt% to about 10 wt% (see BERLIOZ at paragraph [0040]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the plasterboard of RENNEN by including the additives such as fire-resistant glass fibers in an amount of 0.03 wt% to about 10 wt% and water-resistant polyvinyl acetate in an amount of between 0.05 wt% to about 5 wt% as disclosed by BERLIOZ since BERLIOZ explicitly teaches that the properties of gypsum board can be improved by introducing additives (see BERLIOZ at paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when modifying the plasterboard of RENNEN by adding the additives such as water-resistant polyvinyl acetate and fire-resistant glass fibers as disclosed by BERLIOZ in order to improve the properties of gypsum board.
Regarding claim 2, RENNEN as modified by BERLIOZ teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein the polymeric additive is present in an amount of at least 4 wt% relative to the gypsum (see rejection of claim 1 above and BERLIOZ at paragraphs [0039]: examples of water-resistant additives including synthetic thermoplastic materials such as polyvinyl acetate, and that the amount of water-resistant additives may vary between 0.05 wt% to about 5 wt% in reference to the total weight of gypsum core). BERLIOZ teaches between 0.05 wt% to about 5 wt% of the polymeric additive relative to the gypsum, thus, BERLIOZ teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, RENNEN as modified by BERLIOZ teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein the plasterboard further comprises glass fibres (see RENNEN at paragraph [0020]: it was found that a small proportion of glass fibers, as is known to be added to gypsum boards, provides an additional advantageous increase in the mechanical properties of the boards).
Regarding claim 5, RENNEN as modified by BERLIOZ teaches a plasterboard according to claim 4, wherein the glass fibres are present in an amount of at least 1 wt% relative to the gypsum (see rejection of claim 1 above and BERLIOZ at paragraphs [0003]: other additives include the fire-resistant glass fibers; and [0040]: the amount of fire-resistant additives can be from 0.03 wt% to about 10 wt%).
Regarding claim 6, RENNEN as modified by BERLIOZ teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein the polymeric additive is polyvinyl acetate (see rejection of claim 1 above and BERLIOZ at paragraph [0039]: examples of water-resistant additives including synthetic thermoplastic materials such as polyvinyl acetate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 received on 11/14/2025 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gypsum/wood fiber board comprising polymeric additive is known in the art, as evidenced from disclosures of:
Englert et al. (US 6531210 B1)
Englert et al. (US 5817262 A).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731