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 I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on December 5, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 has been amended. Claims 9-11 are canceled. Claims 1-8 and 12-21 are pending of which claims 14-21 are withdrawn and claims 1-8 and 12-13 are now under consideration.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 is missing a period at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
4. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boisvert et al. (2008/0245012 A1).
Boisvert et al. disclose a gypsum board which has a gypsum core having a first side and a second side and a facing sheet disposed on the first side, wherein the facing sheet is made of a sheet material and said sheet material has at least one surfactant, filler particles and at least one polymeric binder. Gypsum boards are traditionally made of a gypsum core sandwiched between two facers or liners. In one preferred embodiment, the gypsum board (equivalent to the gypsum panel of the claimed invention) is made by the steps of: treating a sheet material, said treating step comprising the step of applying a coating composition onto at least one side of the sheet material, wherein the coating composition comprises at least one surfactant, filler particles, a polymeric binder and water, depositing a gypsum slurry to form a gypsum core onto a facing sheet; placing a backing sheet opposite the facing sheet with the gypsum core therebetween; and drying the board; wherein the facing sheet and/or the backing sheet are made of the treated material (the coating and the gypsum core taught by Boisvert et al. together is equivalent to the gypsum core of the claimed invention and the facing sheet and the backing sheet is equivalent to the first facing material and second facing material of the claimed invention). According to a particular embodiment, the filler particles are inorganic particles, examples include magnetite (meeting the limitations of claim 2) and the filler particles have a D50 of less than about 20 microns (meeting the limitations of claim 3). The coating with the filler particles is present as a coating on the surface of the sheet material opposite to the gypsum core and the coating partially or wholly penetrates the sheet material (meeting the limitations of claims 8, 12, and 13) (See Abstract and paragraphs 0001-0003, 0014, 0015, 0021, 0023, 0029, 0030, 0033, 038-0042, 0052, 0084-0088). With regards to the limitations that the gypsum core comprising gypsum and one or more magnetic additives and has a concentration gradient of the one or more magnetic additives over a
portion of the thickness of the gypsum core or that the concentration gradient of the one or more magnetic additives decreases across the thickness of the gypsum core, the thickness of the gypsum core beginning at a portion of the gypsum core adjacent the first facing material and ending at the portion of the gypsum core adjacent the second facing material, the Examiner takes the position that such a limitation is inherently met given that Boisvert et al. teach that the magnetite particle are only present in the coating and hence at the surface of the gypsum core.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
5. Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisvert et al. (2008/0245012 A1).
Boisvert et al. do no teach that the magnetic additives are present in the gypsum panel in an amount of about 0.01 wt. % to about 2 wt. % based on the weight of the gypsum panel or that the gypsum core comprises a first gypsum core layer, a second gypsum core layer, and a third gypsum core layer.
However, the Examiner would like to point out that workable physical properties such as concentrations and number of layers are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights