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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 24 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 24 recites an amount of silica in the non-intumescent material that is broader than the amount recited in dependent claim 15. Therefore, the scope of the end product produced in claim 24 is ambiguous because it may allow 40 wt% silica or require 59 wt% silica in in the non-intumescent additive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 15-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Green et al. (US 3,616,173).
As to claim 15 and 24, Green et al. discloses a wallboard containing 1.0, 3.0 or 5.0 wt% ball clay. See the title and Examples 54-56 in table 5. The wallboard includes paper cover sheets (i.e., mat facing materials). See col. 11, lines 70-75.
Ball clay inherently contains 59 wt% SiO2, 0.3 wt% MgO, 0.3 wt% CaO, 0.9 wt% K2O and 0.4 wt% Na2O. See Table 1, page 21, of the specification as originally filed. MgO, CaO, K2O and Na2O are ceramic flux agents and the total is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 5 wt% of the non-intumescent additive.
The fire rating and expansion properties recited in instant claims 16, 19 and 23 are presumed to be inherent to the panels formed Examples 54-56 of Green et al. because the panels have a composition identical to the presently claimed composition.
Green et al. discloses amounts of ball clay that are the same as recited in claim 15 in terms of weight percent. Therefore, Examples 54-56 are presumed to have the same amount in terms lbs/msf as recited in claim 17.
As to claim 20, Examples 54-56 of Green et al. do not contain any intumescent materials. See Examples 54-56 in table 5.
As to claim 21, ball clay inherently contains MgO, CaO, K2O and Na2O as evidenced by Table 1 of the as-filed specification.
As to claim 22, Examples 54-56 include glass fibers in the gypsum boards. See the note marked * at the top of col. 16. These fibers can be considered to be a structural reinforcing material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment with respect to the rejection made in the previous action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection have been made above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights