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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 28-30, 33-35, 37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN 101333091A).
Regarding claims 28, 30, 33-35, 37: Luo et al. teach a composition comprising gypsum [0032] and a polycarboxylate superplasticizer comprising 5-50 wt% of an unsaturated carboxylic acid and its derivative and 45-95 wt% of polyoxyethylene acrylate and its derivative and 0 wt% of other monomers [0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select methyl methacrylate as the unsaturated carboxylic acid [0012]. Luo et al. teach that the polyoxyethylene acrylate derivative is methoxy polyethylene glycol acrylate (n=9) [Examples]. The superplasticizer is also considered to be the claimed plasticizer.
The amount taught in Luo et al. provides an overlapping mole ratio.
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.
Regarding claim 29: Luo et al. teach the claimed amount of cement and polycarboxylate [0038; Examples]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use gypsum in place of cement in the examples of Luo et al. [0032]. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 40: It would have been obvious to use a mixture of polycarboxylate superplasticizers within the composition of Luo 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.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN 101333091A) as applied to claim 28 above further in view of Schwartz et al. (7,261,772).
Luo et al. fail to teach a clay.
However, Schwartz et al. teach adding 0.01 to 10 wt% of a clay to improve the flame retardancy of gypsum compositions (column 2, lines 7-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0.01 to 10 wt% of a clay as taught by Schwartz et al. to the gypsum composition of Luo et al. to improve the flame retardancy of the composition.
Response to Arguments
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
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.
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
Prosecution Insights