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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/11/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are presently pending; claim 7 is canceled; claims 9-15 are withdrawn; claims 1-6 and 8 are amended; claims 1-6 and 8 are under examination.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
The objections to claims 1, 6 and 8 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the objection to claim 7 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
The rejections of claims 1-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the rejection of claim 7 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8 over LI and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5 over LI are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the rejection of claim 7 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 12/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “layer A comprises a surface layer” as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1 at lines 4-5) is interpreted as meaning that it forms an outermost layer in the plasterboard relative to other calcium sulfate based layers, i.e., it may only be further covered by a non-gypsum layer, e.g., a liner, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the Specification at pg. 3, lines 25-28.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0352232-A1) (hereinafter, “LI”) in view of Soane, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0128352-A1) (hereinafter, “SOANE”).
Regarding claim 1, LI teaches a plasterboard comprising at least one layer A and at least one layer B of different composition (see LI at generally at Abstract, teaching a plasterboard comprising a concentrated layer, i.e., “layer A”, and a board core, i.e., “layer B”), wherein
the at least one layer A comprises a calcium sulfate binder and a synthetic polymer foam (see LI at paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0025], [0056]-[0057], [0080] and [0132]-[0133], teaching that the concentrated layer is formed from mixing an aqueous slurry comprising stucco (gypsum, calcium sulfate), water, polyvinyl alcohol as an enhancing additive, and a foaming agent which introduces air and causes foaming, i.e., the slurry comprises synthetic polymer foam)
and layer B comprises a calcium sulfate binder and a surfactant foam (see LI at paragraphs [0009], [0025], [0056]-[0058], teaching that the board core is formed from mixing an aqueous slurry comprising stucco (gypsum, calcium sulfate), water, and a surfactant foaming agent),
and wherein at least one layer A comprises a surface layer (see LI at paragraphs [0002] and [0051]-[0052] and Fig. 1).
However, LI does not explicitly mention that the at least one layer A is not formulated with a surfactant foam.
SOANE teaches a plasterboard comprising at least one surface layer comprising gypsum and a polymer which can contain a little foam, and a second layer of different composition which comprises gypsum and foam (see SOANE at Abstract and paragraphs [0009], [0015]-[0016]), wherein the foam of both layers can be produced by a surfactant foam, or by addition of blowing agents or expandable microspheres or gas evolution by decomposition (see SOANE at paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0013]-[0014]). SOANE teaches that all of these methods of introducing pores into the wallboard can be used interchangeably (see SOANE at paragraph [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the plasterboard of SOANE by simply substituting the surfactant foaming agent in the concentrated layer with another foaming agent, such as a non-surfactant blowing agent or expandable microspheres, as SOANE teaches that it is known in the art that these methods of introducing the pores can be used interchangeably for the same purpose (see SOANE at paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0013]-[0014]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of introducing voids to the concentrated layer.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, LI in view of SOANE teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein the synthetic polymer foam comprises at least one selected from vinyl polymers and/or melamine polymers (see LI at paragraphs [0132]-[0133], teaching polyvinyl alcohol).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, LI in view of SOANE teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein at least one layer A comprises 0.2 to 5 wt.-% of the synthetic polymer on a dry basis, relative to the calcium sulfate binder (see LI at [0133], teaching 1 to 5% of polyvinyl alcohol by weight of the stucco, i.e., calcium sulfate binder).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, LI in view of SOANE teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein at least one layer A makes up 40 % or less of the thickness of the plasterboard (see LI at paragraph [0054], teaching that the board core can be 5 to 10 times as thick as the concentrated layer, i.e., layer A makes up approximately 9% to 17% of the thickness of the plasterboard (1/11 to 1/6)).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, LI in view of SOANE teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein the density of at least one layer A and the density of at least one layer B differ by an amount overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of at most 100 kg/m3 (see LI at paragraphs [0078], [0095]-[0096] and [0098], teaching density ranges of the two layers and that the board core can have a density of 352 to 641 kg/m3, and teaching that the density of the concentrated layer can be 1.1 to 1.3 times the density of the board core; this results in density differences which fall within the claimed range, e.g., for a board core density of 400 kg/m3 and a concentration layer density of 1.2 times the board core density, i.e., 480 kg/m3, the difference is 80 kg/m3).
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, LI in view of SOANE teaches a plasterboard according to claim 1, wherein at least one layer A and/or at least one layer B has a density in the range of 350 to 1200 kg/m3 (see LI at paragraphs [0078] and [0098], teaching a concentrated layer density of about 28 to 70 pcf, i.e., about 449 to 1121 kg/m3, and the board core has a density of about 222 to 40 pcf, i.e., about 352 to 641 kg/m3).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, LI in view of SOANE teaches a wall structure comprising at least one plasterboard according to claim 1, and comprising at least one stud (see LI at paragraphs [0002], [0049] and [0053]), wherein the plasterboard is mounted to at least one stud (see LI at paragraph [0053]), and wherein the plasterboard is positioned within the wall structure such that the at least one layer A of the plasterboard faces the interior of a room that comprises the wall structure (see LI at paragraphs [0051]-[0053] and Fig. 1, teaching that the bottom or back cover sheet faces the studs and the top or face coversheet, which is bonded to the concentrated surface layer, faces out and is generally decorated, e.g., with paint, wallpaper, etc.; i.e., layer A faces the interior of the room).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/11/2026 with respect to claims 1-6 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references as set forth in the grounds of rejection above.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1-6 and 8 over LI in view of SOANE as set forth 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 on 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights