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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 31, 33-36, 39-40, 43, 45-48, 53-54, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2018/0002233 A1) [hereinafter Yu ‘233] in view of Miller et al. (US 2008/0152945 A1) and Yu et al. (US 2002/0112651 A1) [hereinafter Yu ‘651].
Regarding Claim 31, Yu ‘233 teaches a gypsum panel comprising a gypsum core between two cover sheets (Paragraph 0008). Yu ‘233 teaches the gypsum core comprises a gypsum and a foaming agent (Paragraph 0023), where the gypsum core is formed of a gypsum slurry comprising water and stucco. (Paragraph 0008). Yu ‘233 requires no non-pregelatinized starch; therefore, Yu ‘233 teaches 0 wt% of non-pregelatinized starch. Yu ‘233 teaches the facing material is paper and does not require perforation in the paper. (Paragraph 0046).
Yu ‘233 teaches the gypsum core comprises air voids, where the average void size is greater than about 10 microns. (Paragraph 0022) This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Yu ‘233 teaches the gypsum panel can have a density of 35 pcf or less or approximately 10 to 30 pcf. (Claim 56 of Yu ‘233; Abstract; Paragraph 0046-0047). This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Yu ‘233 teaches gypsum panels are typically made to about ½ inch in thicknesses. (Paragraph 0051-0064). Given Yu ‘233 teaches the thickness is ½ inch and the density of the board is 35 pcf or less or around 10 to 30 pcf, then Yu ‘233 teaches the weight for the panel can be around 1,459 lbs/MSF or less. This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Yu ‘233 does not specifically teach the air voids have an open-cell geometry and interconnected.
Miller teaches a gypsum board, where the gypsum core comprises air voids formed by foam (Abstract; Paragraph 0033). Miller teaches the gypsum core should have the air voids are open cell and interconnect (Paragraph 0033). Miller teaches this improves the acoustic absorption and reduces the overall weight of the resulting panel. (Paragraph 0033). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the voids of Yu ‘233 are interconnected and open to ensure weight reduction and improved acoustical absorption of the gypsum panel of Yu ‘233.
Yu ‘233 does not specifically teach the gypsum panel has an NRC value of 0.2 or more.
Yu ‘651 teaches a gypsum panel, where the gypsum core comprises gypsum, water, starch and foaming agent, and has facers (Paragraph 0042, 0044, 0048, 0085). Yu ‘651 teaches NRC ranges of 0.21-0.63 are suitable allows the gypsum core and panel to be used for acoustical purposes that industrial standards. (Paragraph 0084-0085). Thus, as Yu ‘651 teaches a NRC value that overlaps the claimed range allows the gypsum panel to meet acoustical industrial standards, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the NRC value of Yu ‘233 reaches the claimed range to allow the gypsum panel to be used where acoustic industrial standards are required.
Regarding Claims 33-34, Yu ‘233 teaches the gypsum panel can have a density of 35 pcf or less or approximately 10 to 30 pcf. (Claim 56 of Yu ‘233; Abstract). This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claims 35-36, Yu ‘233 teaches gypsum panels are typically made to about ½ inch in thicknesses. (Paragraph 0051-0064). Given Yu ‘233 teaches the thickness is ½ inch and the density of the board is 35 pcf or less or 10 to 30 pcf, then Yu ‘233 teaches the weight for the panel can be around 1,459 lbs/MSF or less. This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 39, Yu ‘233 teaches the facing material can be paper. (Paragraph 0046).
Regarding Claim 40, Yu ‘233 teaches the facing material can be a glass mat. (Paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 43, Yu ‘233 teaches a flexural strength of at least 36 lb is suitable. (Paragraph 0069; Claim 62 of Yu ‘233) This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 45-46, Yu ‘233 teaches the gypsum core comprises air voids, where the average void size is greater than about 10 microns. (Paragraph 0022) This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 47, Yu ‘233 teaches gypsum core comprises a starch from around 0.5 to 10 wt% based on the gypsum. (Paragraph 0008). This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 48, Yu ‘233 teaches the gypsum core can include glass fiber. (Paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 53, Yu ‘233 teaches the water : stucco ratio is about 0.7 to about 1.3. (Paragraph 0044). This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 54, Yu ‘233 does not require paper fiber in the gypsum slurry.
Regarding Claim 56, Yu ‘233 requires no non-pregelatinized starch; therefore, Yu ‘233 teaches 0 wt% of non-pregelatinized starch.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu ‘233, Miller and Yu ‘651, in further view of Diez et al. (US 5,240,639 A)
Regarding Claim 32, Yu ‘233 does not specifically teach the foaming agent includes an alkyl sulfate.
Diez teaches a foaming agent comprising alkyl sulfates used to foaming gypsum compositions. (Abstract). Diez teaches this alkyl sulfate comprising foaming agent provides the advantage of being able to greatly entrain air within the gypsum air versus conventional foaming agents. (Column 3, 7-8.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed foaming agent taught by Diez in the Yu ‘233 for the improved foaming and lead to more entrained air.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu ‘233, Miller and Yu ‘651, in further view of Williams Brothers (NPL).
Regarding Claim 37, Yu ‘233 does not specifically teach the gypsum panel has a thickness of 5/8 inch.
Williams Brothers teaches drywall, gypsum board, can have a thickness of 5/8 inch. Willaims Brothers teaches 5/8 inch drywall is suitable for commercial construction and for acoustic absorption. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make the panel of Yu ‘233 to the claimed range to make the panel suitable for construction and improve acoustic absorption.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu ‘233, Miller and Yu ‘651, in further view of Bennett (US 7,829,488 B2).
Regarding Claim 41, Yu ‘233 does not teach the diameter of the glass fibers.
Bennett teaches a gypsum board with a glass fiber mat having a long fiber having an average diameter of 8 to 25 microns comprising 95 wt% of the mat and shorts fibers having an average diameter of 0.05 to 6.5 microns comprising 5 wt% of the mat. (Abstract). This overlaps 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. (MPEP §2144.05). Bennett teaches the fiber mat diameter ensures the gypsum board will not leak past the covering material during production. (Column 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed diameter for the glass mat in Yu ‘233 in order to reduced gypsum leakage.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu ‘233, Miller and Yu ‘651, in further view of Nandi et al. (US 2007/0149078 A1).
Regarding Claim 42, Yu ‘233 does not teach the porosity of the glass fiber mat facing material.
Nandi teaches a non-woven glass mat for use a facer for gypsum boards (Abstract). Nandi teaches an air permeability under Gurley of less than 60 seconds and air flow under Frazier test of at least 300 cfm/ft2. (Paragraph 0034). This will overlap the claimed porosity. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Nandi teaches this permeability allows for the gypsum core to dry and set without trapping moisture. (Paragraph 0036). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the porosity to the claimed range as taught by Nandi to the facing material of Yu ‘233 to ensure the gypsum board will property dry during production.
Claim 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu ‘233, Miller and Yu ‘651, in further view of Richards et al. (US 5,347,780 A).
Regarding Claims 43-44, Yu’ 233 does not teach the claimed range of flexural strength.
Richards teaches fiberboard to be used in a door frame should have a flexural strength of about 30 lb. (Abstract). This overlaps the claimed rang. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the flexural strength of Yu ‘233 to the claimed range to ensure the gypsum board could be used in a door frame.
Claims 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu ‘233, Miller and Yu ‘651, in further view of Martin (WO 2015/185251 A1).
Regarding Claim 49, Yu ‘233 do not teach the gypsum core includes a first gypsum core layer and a second gypsum core layer, the first gypsum core layer having a density greater than the second core layer and a thickness less than the second gypsum core layer.
Martin teaches a gypsum board, where the gypsum core can comprise a first gypsum core layer and a second gypsum core layer, where the first gypsum core layer has a higher density than the first gypsum core layer and a lesser thickness. (Fig. 3; Page 6, Page 13). Martin teaches this structure improves the bonding of facers while reducing water usage when forming the gypsum panel, which is better for the environment. (Page 10-13). Thus, it would have been obvious to have the claimed first and second gypsum core layer arrangement taught by Martin to improve facer bonding and reduction in water usage to the board of Yu ‘233.
Regarding Claim 50, Martin teaches glass filler can be added to the gypsum core layers. (Page 8). Yu ‘233 teaches the gypsum core composition can include glass fiber. (Paragraph 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
New grounds of rejection have been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights