DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 23-24 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2023 was filed timely. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
6. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US 2019/0270675 A1) to Harrison et al. (hereinafter Harrison)
Harrison is directed toward gypsum panels. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0012] that produced is a gypsum panel having two paper material facers. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0076] that the increased presence of activated alumina resulted in a corresponding reduction in the concentration of chloride ions detectable. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0031] that the halide (chloride) sequestration agent such as amorphous volcanic glass containing silicon oxide or perlite that includes activated alumina present from 0.01 to about 10% weight of the gypsum stucco, which is sufficient to reduce chloride content by 10%. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0033] that the particle size is 8 to 100 mesh, which reads on 50 to 600 microns. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0033] that the perlite can be regular or expanded. Harrison discloses each and every element of claims 1, 3-6 and 8-17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0270675 A1) to Harrison et al. (hereinafter Harrison)
Harrison is directed toward gypsum panels. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0012] that produced is a gypsum panel having two paper material facers. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0076] that the increased presence of activated alumina resulted in a corresponding reduction in the concentration of chloride ions detectable. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0031] that the halide (chloride) sequestration agent such as amorphous volcanic glass containing silicon oxide or perlite that includes activated alumina present from 0.01 to about 10% weight of the gypsum stucco, which is sufficient to reduce chloride content by 10%. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0033] that the particle size is 8 to 100 mesh, which reads on 50 to 600 microns. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0033] that the perlite can be regular or expanded.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Harrison to select each and every element of claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1, 3-6 and 8-17.
10. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2019/0270675 A1) to Harrison et al. (hereinafter Harrison) in view of the teachings of (US 2002/0090871 A1) to Ritchie et al. (hereinafter Ritchie).
Harrison is directed toward gypsum panels. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0012] that produced is a gypsum panel having two paper material facers. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0076] that the increased presence of activated alumina resulted in a corresponding reduction in the concentration of chloride ions detectable. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0031] that the halide (chloride) sequestration agent such as amorphous volcanic glass containing silicon oxide or perlite that includes activated alumina present from 0.01 to about 10% weight of the gypsum stucco, which is sufficient to reduce chloride content by 10%. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0033] that the particle size is 8 to 100 mesh, which reads on 50 to 600 microns. Harrison discloses at paragraph [0033] that the perlite can be regular or expanded. Harrison is directed toward gypsum panels, but is silent regarding use of pumice.
Ritchie is directed toward gypsum panels. Harrison and Ritchie are both directed toward gypsum panels and therefore are analogous art. Ritchie teaches at paragraph [0131] that the core may contain up to 50% by weight of either pumice or perlite, which either would be sufficient to reduce chloride ions by 10%. Ritchie teaches at paragraph [0115] that different types of clay may be used.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Harrison in view of the teachings of Ritchie to select each and every element of claims to form a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 1-7 and 9-17.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 8 and 18-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach a dual core gypsum panel having different densities with an ion mitigating material present in the second core or a pyrolyzed biomass as an ion mitigating additive.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
14. 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.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights