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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification fails to provide antecedent basis for claim 51 which states the core comprises an “interconnected core structure.” Perhaps claim 51 contains a typographical error and was meant to have recited an “interconnected pore structure.” See paragraphs [0016]-[0018].
Claim Objections
Claim 51 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 51 states the core comprises an “interconnected core structure” which appears to be a typographical error. Perhaps the claim should refer to “interconnected pore structure.” See paragraphs [0016]-[0018].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 31-34 and 36-53 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites the gypsum panel comprises a core comprising polyoxazoline. The term polyoxazoline includes the parts “ox” and “aza.” One of ordinary skill in the art understands “ox” and “aza” indicate that the resultant polymer contains oxygen and nitrogen in the repeating units. Claim 33 encompasses polymers that do not contain an oxygen atom in the appropriate location for a polyoxazoline when R3 is C(S)NH.
PNG
media_image1.png
273
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the term “polyoxazoline” to indicate polymer formed by the ring opening polymerization of oxazolines. 2-oxazoline is the most common isomer and will be used as the example in the below explanation. 2-oxazoline has the structure of:
In the context of the formula in claim 33, the N(R1) moiety would result from the ring opening reaction to form the polymer. Therefore, R1 (via the R3) group must include oxygen to be connected to the N via a carbon. However, R3 in claim 33 is defined to be C(S)NH (among others). When R3 is C(S)NH, the polymer does not have a =N-C-O- moiety and would not fall within the meaning of the term “polyoxazoline.”
Thus, the scope of the term “polyoxazoline” cannot be ascertained in claims 31 and 33 because the normal and customary meaning of the term requires an =N-C-O- moiety and claim 33 suggests the term is open to =N-C-S- moieties as well.
Claims 32, 34 and 36-53 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 31. It should be noted claims 42 and 43 do not resolve the issue because they merely state the polyoxazoline “include” the recited subgenus or species, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 31-46 and 48-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iyer et al. (US 2023/0416153 A1)(Iyer).
Iyer teaches a gypsum panel comprising facing sheets and a gypsum core. See the title and abstract. The gypsum core comprises a polyoxazoline. See paragraph [0030].
As to claim 32, paragraph [0074] of Iyer discloses the core comprises at least 60 weight percent gypsum.
Iyer discloses the polyoxazoline may be poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) in paragraph [0050]. This species anticipates the genus, subspecies, and species recited in instant claims 33-43.
As to claims 44 and 45, Iyer discloses the polyoxazoline may be included in an amount 0.001 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less, or 0.001 wt% or more and 2 wt% or less in paragraph [0054].
The limitations of claim 46 can be found in paragraph [0024] of Iyer.
As to claim 48, Iyer discloses incorporating acid modified starch in paragraph [0078].
As to claim 49, Iyer discloses incorporating pregelatinized starch in paragraph [0078].
As to claim 50, Iyer discloses the panel has an NRC of 0.20 or more in paragraph [0022].
As to claim 51, Iyer discloses the panel may have an interconnected “core” structure in claim 38.
As to claims 52 and 53, Iyer discloses the panel may have voids of 200 microns or more, or 300 microns or more in paragraph [0090].
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
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.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Iyer et al. (US 2023/0416153 A1)(Iyer) as applied to claim 31 and further in view of Burkard et al. (US 3,870,538)(Burkard).
As described above, Iyer discloses a gypsum panel that anticipates claim 31 and which contains starch. Iyer differs from claim 47 by failing to teach pearl starch.
Burkard discloses the addition of pearl starch to a gypsum wallboard (i.e., panel) as an accelerator. See col. 1, lines 14-16; col. 3, lines 21, and col. 4, line 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed pearl starch as a starch set accelerator. The rationale for doing so is that it would have been obvious to have selected a known material (i.e., pearl starch) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose (i.e., a set accelerator). See MPEP 2144.07.
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
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