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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 28-30, 32-35, 37, and 40 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art cited does not teach the amended claims. This is not found persuasive because it is required that the prior art discloses the special technical feature of the claimed invention, not the amended claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16, 17, 19-24 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
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.
Claims 28-30, 32-35, 37, and 40 are 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. Regarding claims 28, the word "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 28-30, 32, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (2015/0045512).
Regarding claims 28 and 37: Ikeda et al. teach a gypsum composition comprising gypsum as a binder [Examples] comprising a comb polymer that is a copolymerized material of (A1) a methacrylic acid ester of polyethylene glycol (46 mol) monomethylether and (b1) a methacrylic acid ((a1):(b1)=9:1; the weight-average molecular weight was 25,000) [0047; Examples]; and a plasticizer that is compound (B) a polymer of amine and epihalohydrin [Examples]. It is noted that paragraph [0040] teaches that component (B) improves fluidity, and is therefore considered a plasticizer. The polymer (A) of Ikeda et al. is capable of functioning in the claimed capacity.
Regarding claim 29: Ikeda et al. teach 0.06 % by mass of (A1) comb polymer and greater than 30 wt% gypsum [0071-0074; Examples; Tables].
Regarding claim 30: a methacrylic acid ester of polyethylene glycol (46 mol) monomethylether [0047; Examples] has the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
180
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 32: The methacrylic acid in Ikeda et al. [0047; Examples] is the claimed anionic monomer MA.
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 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.
Claim(s) 33-35 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (2015/0045512) as applied to claim 28 above.
Regarding claim 33: Ikeda et al. teach that their polycarboxylic acid polymer also includes monomer (c), which is methyl methacrylate (claimed M3) [0028], and that the ratio of (a) to (c) is 70 to 90:0 to 20 [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the amount taught of methyl methacrylate as an additional copolymerizable monomer to the material of polymer A1 [0047] of Ikeda et al.
Regarding claim 34: Ikeda et al. teach a copolymerization ratio of (a):(b) of 95:5 [0029], which is equivalent to a copolymerization ratio of M1:MA.
The mol% of Ikeda is very close to the claimed mol%.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 35: Ikeda et al. teach a copolymerization ratio of (a):(b):(c) of 50 to 95:5:0 to 40 [0029], which is equivalent to a copolymerization ratio of M1:MA:M3.
The amounts of (a) and (c) overlap the claimed ranges.
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that choosing the overlapping portion, of the range taught in the prior art and the range claimed by the applicant, has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976) and MPEP 2144.05.
The mol% of (b) is very close to the claimed mol%.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 40: Ikeda et al. teach different polycarboxylate ether than used in the rejection [0048]. It would have been obvious to use a mixture of polycarboxylic acid polymers A1 and A2 in Ikeda et al. It is obvious to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function; it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. In re Crockett 126 USPQ 186. See MPEP 2144.06.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763